tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post511042900484233114..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: Walt and Mearsheimer: Kissinger's disciples?bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-9242484893289935802010-03-26T10:49:27.376+00:002010-03-26T10:49:27.376+00:00[...continues:]
"Also misguided is Weiss’s p...[...continues:]<br /><br />"<em>Also misguided is Weiss’s persistent claim that recognizing and exposing the “dual loyalty” of influential Jewish-Americans is somehow key for an effective analysis and counter to the Lobby, conflicting interests, etc. Weiss repeatedly implies that we need to have some sort of an epiphany in order to sort out our guys from Israel’s guys and get on with the promotion of “U.S. interests.” But American politicians and pundits are loyal to themselves, their wealth and status, their class of people, and the neoliberal world order so long as it benefits them—which it has, to say the least. The problem, both for non-collaborationist Palestinians and non-ruling class Americans, is the whole notion of state loyalty in contrast to solidarity and self-determination, as the basis for a Palestinian liberation movement.[...]<br /><br />In any event, the notion of “dual loyalty,” like the power of the Lobby to undermine “U.S. interests,” is no more than a realist and liberal distraction from understanding the consistent source of U.S. support for Israel since 1967, and challenging it. Those accused of “dual loyalty,” such as Jeffrey Goldberg and Robert Kaplan, see Israel as an extension of American power in the clash of civilizations.<br /><br />These over-estimations of the Lobby and “dual loyalty” lead to complicated and convoluted discussions of, for example, whether Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory over George H.W. Bush was due to the Lobby’s opposition to Bush’s challenges to Israeli settlements; and the effect of this episode on the policies of George W. Bush. But there isn’t a shred of evidence that this was the case. All one has to do is look at the election map, the electoral college totals, and the states in question to dismiss this notion out of hand. Moreover, there is no attempt—in this case or any other—to verify the motivations of the significant numbers of Jewish voters who are alleged to have voted on the basis of their support for Israel. But instead of being discredited on the basis of blatant disregard for the rules of evidence and logic, people like Jeffrey Blankfort and Mearsheimer/Walt are seen by Weiss as courageous truth-tellers about the influence of the Lobby.<br /><br />In Blankfort’s pamphlet “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions,” published by the If Americans Knew website, he accurately recalls the egregious lack of support on the left for the Palestinians up through the 1980s. He does not, however, acknowledge heightened awareness over the past decade or more, resulting from the failure of Oslo, the 2nd Intifada, 9/11, the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rise of the internet. The 2008-09 Israeli massacres in Gaza have only accelerated these changes. But Blankfort continues to beat the drum of the Lobby, and to settle old scores. It’s dated, inaccurate, counter-productive, and outrageous; and it’s delivered with a condescending and bullying tone in order to compensate for the huge problems with the argument.[...]</em>"bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-22766918105840909032010-03-26T10:48:54.707+00:002010-03-26T10:48:54.707+00:00Gosh, just found something at the Palestine Chroni...Gosh, just found something at the Palestine Chronicle, an anti-Zionist outlet that often crosses the line (e.g. publishes Gilad Atzmon). It's an article by David Green, veteran leftist anti-Zionist, and it makes mostly the same points I do, altho he is coming from a very different place. <br /><br /><a href="http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15781" rel="nofollow">Opposing Israel Lobby is Not Same as Supporting Palestinian Rights</a>.<br /><br />"<em>Of the several Jewish-oriented pro-Palestinian websites and blogs to achieve some notoriety over the past several years, that of journalist Philip Weiss seems to have found a secure niche and a loyal following. I commend Weiss for providing a news service that covers the suffering and heroism of the Palestinians, and a forum for many serious voices and views.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I find profoundly disturbing the conventional and often condescending perspectives that seem to dominate this blog: The Lobby, according to Mearsheimer/Walt and Jeffrey Blankfort; the “dual loyalty” of prominent Jewish-American supporters of Israel, according to Weiss; and one-state and boycott, divestment, sanctions as strategy and tactics for the Palestinian rights movement. This analysis marginalizes leftist principles and, more important, pragmatic political action. I’m not referring to leftist doctrine, but rather a cogent leftist analysis that is dismissed by those who profess to a doctrinaire “realism.”<br /><br />A political program based on the premise that the Lobby determines U.S. foreign policy “against our vital national interests” starts off badly and gets worse. It is misguided not only in the assertion that Israel’s interests have undermined U.S. interests, but in the realist manner in which “national interests” are understood from the perspective of economic elites rather than the population at large.<br /><br />Our “national interests,” a realist euphemism for hegemony, have indeed shaped the Palestinians’ plight in relation to both the U.S. and Israel. Lobby-mongers claim that the Palestinians’ salvation will be U.S. assertion of its “true” interests, but they fail to define, clarify, or abandon the term. For four decades, our “national interests,” as defined from Carter to Obama, have been identical with the neoliberal agenda, to the detriment not only of Palestinians but the popular will in every Arab nation. “Stability,” enforced by U.S.-supported authoritarian Arab regimes that inevitably provoke resistance and “instability,” is always preferred by American elites to the threat of a good example, which may result in what our leaders well understand—in terms of “national interests” and hegemony—to be the wrong kind of stability: that based on self-determination and popular support. </em>" <br /><br />[continued next comment]bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-66277489272385479892010-03-26T10:13:06.843+00:002010-03-26T10:13:06.843+00:00I just had a quick browse through Mondoweiss, as a...I just had a quick browse through Mondoweiss, as an examplar anti-Zionist site, and found pages and pages of references to W&M without, as far as I can tell from a quick scan, any caveats or cautions. The same with the appalling Palestine ThinkTank<br /><br />I notice that MondoWeiss (along with several other anti-Zionist commentators) lines up behind Mearsheimer in applauding General Petraeus because they have misinterpreted him as giving credence to the W&M conspiracy theory. Again odd how these crudaders against America's war in Iraq, so scornful of the surge, now suddenly see him as a good guy because they think they hear him giving voice to their conspriracy theories.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-86742667352818124252010-03-26T09:44:53.776+00:002010-03-26T09:44:53.776+00:00On the conflation of the national interest with th...On the conflation of the national interest with the business interest: yes, I have over-stated my case. W&M (and Kissinger) have a conception of America's interest which is broader than the interests of American business, which includes the security of American people (as in the terrorism issue) and which includes the idea of America as a military power (as in the loyal ally issue). From a critical political perspective, such as that which the leftist supporters of W&M claim to hold, the idea of national interest (and certainly as articulated by members of the political classes, which W&M are) is at least suspicious. <br /><br />(Incidentally, without going back to re-read the LRB essay, your quotes are interesting. <em>Israel "does not behave like a loyal ally"</em> - do they hold other American allies to high standards of loyalty? I don't actually know, for example, what their view is on America's alliance with Pakistan, say, which has not been that loyal over the years.<br /><br />And <em>there's no "compelling moral imperative"</em> - but they do not actually make a moral argument <em>against</em> supporting Israel, just a strategic argument.)<br /><br />On the left's use of W&M: fair enough, you use what's useful. But I find it interesting that there is no caveating of this from the anti-Zionists who promote W&M. If Kissinger said something that fitted in with an anti-Zionist worldview, would they start using him as an authority without some indication that he is not an all-round good guy? The attitude of the anti-Zionist left strikes me as completely uncritical, and this to me is worrying.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-26275946150134734762010-03-25T15:28:30.063+00:002010-03-25T15:28:30.063+00:00Some fair points here. I can't reply on behalf...Some fair points here. I can't reply on behalf of the "<i>Left</i>" but for my somehow even less significant self.<br /><br />You're correct that Walt and Mearsheimer's judgements are "<i>predicated on the idea that support for Israel is against America's national interest</i>". I think conflating this with "<i>business</i>" is a little clumsy, though: I haven't read the book, but their <i>LRB</i> essay also claims that the union is a "<i>source of anti-American terrorism</i>"; that Israel "<i>does not behave like a loyal ally</i>", and that there's no "<i>compelling moral imperative</i>".<br /><br />This (aside from varying sympathies towards "<i>realism</i>" and "<i>idealism</i>") is the crux of our disagreement, I think...<br /><br /><i>Thus Walt might be telling the left what it wants to hear when he attacks the likes of William Kristol, but they need to close their ears when he uses the same article to postively evaluate Kissinger.<br /><br />Given this, why is it that Mearsheimer and Walt are so well-circulated on the left?</i><br /><br />Because his attacks on Kristol <i>et al</i> are excellent! If somebody gives you something of use, should you reject it, just 'cos their other offerings are less worthwhile? (I'm not sure that represents a "<i>positive evaluation</i>", by the way: Kissinger's used to suggest that realists aren't strangers to the corridors of power.)BenSixhttp://bensix.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com