Still awaiting your answer on

Could you appraise me of the main thrust and sucess stories of the radical left challenging the lobby , preferably without using the word “bullshit”.

This will help take the debate further.

Nonsense. Of course they aren’t. In fact, it is M.-W. and other supporters of the “Lobby” thesis who are trying to separate ruling class support for Israel from the ruling class itself. This is their whole goal: to convince people that the US support for Zionism can be fought by fighting “the Lobby” while leaving the basic power structure in place. The “lobby” is a symptom of US imperialism, it isn’t the cause.

Is ‘ruling class’ the leadership, or those who pull the strings.

It’s a class, not a small cabal of individuals.

What interest of the ruling class is served by this activity [i.e., settlement building]? And what is US ruling elite interest in the region anyway? Falafel, Hummus, or Oil? If the latter, then why would US ruling elite wish to antagonize every Oil producer with its lavish support for Israel?

Obviously, there is a trade-off. If someone says that Israel and AIPAC etc. are useful for furthering ruling class interests that doesn’t mean that every single one of Israel’s actions serves those interests.

If the latter, then why would US ruling elite wish to antagonize every Oil producer with its lavish support for Israel?

Yeah, look at the way the Saudi royal family, Kuwait, the UAE are really deeply antagonized from the US. This is like saying that colonialism can’t possibly have been in the interest of European powers since it antagonized the natives, and therefore it must have been caused by some shadowy “colonial lobby”.

I don’t see the harm of saying that the Israel lobby’s role in the decision to go to war on Iraq wasn’t decisive nor that it hasn’t been decisive historically. We can and do still argue against what they do and say.

I think you might be mistaking what he is actually saying about Jews and the lobby historically. He says that Jews (usually he says Jewish elites, in the talk he says Jews and/or Jewish intellectuals) weren’t interested in Israel pre-67. I know that to be true from my own experience at Hebrew classes (in the UK) where we were taught old Hebrew from 1963 to 1967 and modern (ie what Israelis speak) after that. Though occasionally an “old geezer” would come and teach the old stuff. Only years later I found out that the World Zionist Organisation declared Israel to be the central theme of Jewish life, ie, Jews as far as the WZO were concerned, were to be defined in some way by reference to Israel. I don’t think they would have dared do that prior to ’67. I’m also reminded that the Scots Jewish Labour MP Manny Shinwell was very anti-zionist from 1945 to 1948 and yet he came out very strongly for Israel in 1967.

What you actually say to sk on this (of course my examples were UK) is kind of strange. Look:1) neocons are one component of the lobby. 2) the lobby predates neocons rise. 3) neocons may have discovered Israel as a rallying cry after ‘67, for the lobby at large, it was always the raison d’etre. 4) to claim that the lobby only showed interest in Israel after ‘67 is either a sign of monumental ignorance, or willful blindness.

I don’t think anyone was saying otherwise, were they? Each point is almost a truism. 1)neocons are a component of the lobby – no one says they’re not. 2)the lobby predates the neocons – of course or there’d be no neo in neocon.3)neocons may have discovered Israel as a rallying cry after ‘67 – which is what NF says, for the lobby at large, it was always the raison d’etre – of course or they wouldn’t be the lobby, and 4) to claim that the lobby only showed interest in Israel after ‘67 is either a sign of monumental ignorance, or willful blindness – again, of course the lobby showed an interest in Israel, that’s what makes it the lobby. You seem to be confusing the lobby with Jews generally or Jewish elites. The point NF makes is really how Jews related to the lobby and when, and if that lobby’s influence has ever been decisive.

On Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay in the LRB I think this is NF’s considered response.

Oi! It’s been a long day. But I am truly sorry about that “issues with Jews” remark. Even my friends are pissed off about that one and one even went public on it. Compared me to the ADL!

The policies the US engages in, and the interests of the dominant faction in the US ruling class, happen to largely accord with what AIPAC is pushing.

Now, lets unpack this. First there is ‘dominant faction in the US ruling class’. Who might these be. And the suggestion seems to be that the ‘ruling class’, and the Israel lobby are somehow mutually exclusive. Is ‘ruling class’ the leadership, or those who pull the strings. Where does this put Jewish campaign contributors (more than 50% for Dems and 35% for Republicans come form US Jews. Whether all are zionist or not is besides the point since the perception with the recipients always goes that Israel is central to a Jewish donor’s interest. And it indeed is for at least the top donors to either party. Take Sheldon Adelstein (GOP) and Haim Saban (Dem) for example. Also check out the Mother Jones magazine’s list of top contributor’s to either party. See any trends?).

But assuming the’ruling class’ is seperate from the lobby, AIPAC pushes settlement building in the occupied territories. What interest of the ruling class is served by this activity? And what is US ruling elite interest in the region anyway? Falafel, Hummus, or Oil? If the latter, then why would US ruling elite wish to antagonize every Oil producer with its lavish support for Israel?

Those are just some questions to ponder on, there are many more, should find these insufficient.

Rumple Stiltskin:
Excellent observations, as always. The point about the national interest being malleable is well taken. In fact, it helped clarify something for me to which I hadn’t given much thought.

I gave specific examples, and specific references should you choose to verify them. My point is precisely that the left conventional wisdom on Israel as ‘strategic asset’ is based on cherry-picked facts, which ignores a large body of contrary evidence. Incidentally, I myself subscribed to this notion until this article by Michael Neumann made me question my assumptions. My own subsequent exploration of the subject have since confirmed Neumann’s argument.

Mearsheimer and Walt have both said that Israel’s right to exist should be defended. That’s conventional wisdom. Carter describes Israel as a “vibrant democracy” that too is conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom for most people comes from TV and newspapers.

I agree. And there are several other points they make with which I disagree. I have raised several of them with John Mearsheimer himself. (for example, in their book they write Saudi Arabia was opposed to the war. It wasn’t. Bandar bin Sultan was the first non-US-Israeli to be informed of the the decision to go to war, and Abdallah personally, though reluctantly , gave his green light). But those are not the points I am referring to. It is their central thesis, i.e. the Lobby’s influence that I am interested in.

Regarding your techiness, how come you heard I said that maybe you have “issues with Jews” but you didn’t hear that I apologised for that (twice now, and here’s a third, sorry)?

I have seen that now, and I appreciate that. However, I am dismayed that such innuendo should enter argument in the first place.

Something that’s just popped into my mind, you say Finkelstein is harmful to the Palestinian cause (I disagree) and you say that Mearsheimer and Walt are helpful to it (I agree up to a point).

I acknowledge Finkelstein’s great sacrifices and contributions to the cause. I don’t question his personal committment to it. I only say his position on the lobby is harmful to the cause (as is Chomsky’s) because given their stature, so many reflexively reproduce their arguments without ever questioning the assumptions.

You even criticise Finkelstein for not naming AIPAC.

I did, because you said his book is a history of the lobby. Don’t you find it odd that a history of the lobby should overlook the central lobbying organization?

Incidentally, the reason I said what I said was because you didn’t seem to object to US imperialism per se, just the alliance with zionism.

You could reach that conclusion so long as you treat imperialism as an abstract notion. This whole website is dedicated to an attack on Imperialism, as well as its agents. Whether its the economic elites influencing policy on Venezuela, or the ideological ones vs the middle east. I also criticize my own country of birth, expose its crimes and its assistance to the empire.

And yet Finkelstein has been banned from Israel and Mearsheimer and Walt are welcome there. Without giving me another reading list or losing your rag, can you explain that?

Finkelstein has been a dissident for a long time, and has visited about 15 times, including once earlier this year. His present ban has to do with a specific incident, namely, his courageous position on Hizbullah. His statements were widely disseminated by MEMRI, and were presumably the factor why he was denied entry.

Mearsheimer and Walt went at the invitation of Uri Avnery. Unlike the US, in Israel itself ideas are not policed with the same vehemence. That is because what M&W say is hardly a novel idea; it is frequently acknowledged in its mainstream papers. The debate on I-P is much more open in Isareli media than it is in the US. So there is nothing threatening about M&Ws ideas.

I don’t think this is a very useful comparison however. Ilan Pappe is not banned either. Does that mean he is less useful to the Palestinian cause?

Lastly, as I said, the argument NF imputes to M&W is not one that they make. I leave the choice to you how best to describe that. (Massad and Abukhalil also argued against strawmen; in the latter’s case I suspect he hadn’t even read it before he wrote an attack on it).

Could you appraise me of the main thrust and sucess stories of the radical left challenging the lobby , preferably without using the word “bullshit”.

A lot of what you are saying is mere nit-picking based on you having read lots of books that most people will not have read. I used to get the same thing all the time from Linda Grant. You accuse me of name dropping and then you name some names and add a title here or there. “How may of this can you name?” “How many of that can you name?” Chill a little, we’re not all bookworms.

Mearsheimer and Walt have both said that Israel’s right to exist should be defended. That’s conventional wisdom. Carter describes Israel as a “vibrant democracy” that too is conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom for most people comes from TV and newspapers.

Regarding your techiness, how come you heard I said that maybe you have “issues with Jews” but you didn’t hear that I apologised for that (twice now, and here’s a third, sorry)? I think you’ve got selective hearing and you’re a tad oversensitive to criticism. I get accused of antisemitism all the time, that’s worse than “might have issues about Jews”. And Finkelstein didn’t say anything about you and you express the same bitterness towards him. Except you’ve now downgraded your “downright dishonest” to “shoddy”.

I said you “might have issues about Jews” and I have apologised three times for that. You accuse people of downright dishonesty and name dropping simply because you disagree with them. You then challenge them to prove that they have read as much as you, ie to name some names. You even criticise Finkelstein for not naming AIPAC. You’re not an easy person to discuss issues with. You need to get the chip off your shoulder, stop going off half-cocked, stop showing off your library card and use the word “maybe” here and there. Makes it much easier to say you’re sorry. I do (and did that, three times) and I feel a lot better for it. Incidentally, the reason I said what I said was because you didn’t seem to object to US imperialism per se, just the alliance with zionism. That together with saying, not that Finkelstein was wrong or “shoddy” but “downright dishonest” and detrimental to the Palestinian cause.

Something that’s just popped into my mind, you say Finkelstein is harmful to the Palestinian cause (I disagree) and you say that Mearsheimer and Walt are helpful to it (I agree up to a point). And yet Finkelstein has been banned from Israel and Mearsheimer and Walt are welcome there. Without giving me another reading list or losing your rag, can you explain that?

I find a narritive that questions the existance of the Israeli lobby , yet alone its influence barely credible.

First, nobody questions that there are groups in the US lobbying in support of extreme Zionist policies. I don’t know what the second half of the sentence means.

Without getting into semantics and “how many socialists can dance on the end of a needle” debates the questioning of if there is such a thing as a “national interest” when concerning the US is taking things far to far from reality , to such an extent that it has taken right wing US academics to challenge the Lobby whilst the left are still “atheistic” to its existance.

Again, it’s a little hard to discern the meaning of your writing, but your claim that the radical left isn’t challenging the lobby is obvious bullshit. What we don’t do – I concede – is making the fight against an externalized enemy to US interests our priority. What we do do, however, is fight against the colonial project that is Zionism, and against the US imperialism supporting it. That is, we aren’t getting side-tracked.

As short assessment of who is keen to bomb Iran , and who is not , and why so many Politicians are on the “yes” at the AIPAC meeting , and why Obama has gone so far to declaring Jerusalem as the indivisable Capital of Israel gives the best litmus test of how lobby power can “alter” the US national interest.

This makes no sense at all. Either there is a “national interest”, then it’s not going to be “altered” by any lobby. Or there isn’t. And again you are completely mixing up correlation and causality. The policies the US engages in, and the interests of the dominant faction in the US ruling class, happen to largely accord with what AIPAC is pushing. From this you conclude that AIPAC’s lobbying causes these policies to be implemented. That is a fallacy, and repeating it doesn’t make it go away.

M&W pointing out that such trends are not in the best interests of US , and that the lobby influence is what has is the main factor in having an Isreali-centric US footprint in the middle-east region can hardly be called mysterious or an untested fallacy whether you agree with it or not.

You are mixing up various points here. First, to repeat, there is no such thing as “the best interests of the US”. Second, claiming that the “lobby influence” is the main factor in determining US Middle East policy doesn’t make it so – so yes, they posit some magical means by which this lobby is different than all the other ones and manages to reverse US policy on a vital issue from one that is in “the best interests” of the US to one that contradicts them. If the means aren’t magical, then I’d like to see them explicated.

The very fact that you state that there is no such thing as a “monolithic “national interest”” proves the influence of the lobby [...]

Now that is pure conspiracy mongering. And also a really weird thing to say, given that the “lobby” does, of course, believe in “national interest”. In fact, they claim to represent the “national interest” of both Israel and the US. So how again does my lack of faith in “national interest” prove “the influence of the lobby”?

Perhaps so. I didn’t cite the book for its scholarly excellence. I cited it for its usefulnesses as an (insider) account of the neocon establishment. As that, it is priceless, plagiarized or not. You however didn’t say why it ought to be dismissed. Any specific objections?

As it happens, I agree with Jim Lobe and Philip Weiss. This book is to the neocon establishment, what David Halberstam’s Best and the Brightest was to the WASP.

I don’t see any serious grounds for doubting he didn’t go through at least a representative sample of such writings.

I do. 1) neocons are one component of the lobby. 2) the lobby predates neocons rise. 3) neocons may have discovered Israel as a rallying cry after ’67, for the lobby at large, it was always the raison d’etre. 4) to claim that the lobby only showed interest in Israel after ’67 is either a sign of monumental ignorance, or willful blindness.

You seem to be too fixated on your thesis to be dissuaded by argument, so I won’t spend more time on this than these two points.

And you had nothing better than those two to offer in support of yours? it isn’t much of a thesis then. And ‘fixated’ is a nice description, I plead guilty to it. As a matter of fact, every scholar, academic, researcher etc around me is fixated on one issue or another. Thats what they get paid for, and thats what is expected of them.

Had you bothered to read the linked essay by Corey Robin, you would have noticed that Heilbrunn’s very history of neoconservatism lifts passages verbatim from the work of others. This is not namecalling, but pointing out that his celebrated writing is not worth quoting from.

And he didn’t read just one autobiography of the “New York intellectuals”, he’s read most of them.
And you know this for a fact?

That’s what he’s claimed in more than one talk, e.g. this one. I don’t see any serious grounds for doubting he didn’t go through at least a representative sample of such writings.

You seem to be too fixated on your thesis to be dissuaded by argument, so I won’t spend more time on this than these two points. Also, there are shades of gray and the impossibility of cleanly separating actors and their motives on the issue, which is also a good reason why getting “too hot under the collar about it”–as Finkelstein put it–is not worth it. This is not to say that pointing out depredations of the Israeli lobby is in any way verboten, just that one should try to retain a better perspective on the importance of such activity and not get sidetracked into spending more time on it than is warranted (which depends on your political judgement and is a reflection of it).