[Marxism] The Israel Lobby

["Tony Lawless" <lifesunquietdream@xxxxxxx>]

Louis wrote:

"The latest London Review of Books has an article by John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt titled "The Israel Lobby." It and the longer paper that is
based on has generated some controversy.

The London Review article argues:

"[T]he thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from
domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ?Israel Lobby?.
Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no
lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would
suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and
those of the other country ? in this case, Israel ? are essentially
identical."

Full: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

This argument has been heard before. Although it superficially sounds
"radical", it is most often heard from paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan
who also sparked controversy in the 1980s for making similar arguments."


This is the wrong way of approaching this issue. It is not an issue of
whether this sounds "radical" or not. It is an issue of whether this
struggle between elements of the US state who want policy set in the US and
other elements who favour a very strong link with Israel IS REAL or not. The
evidence is that it IS REAL and that important events are now in play to
weaken it. James Petras was, I believe, the first to suggest that this year
would be crucial in this respect, and how far these processes will go remain
to be seen.

But two articles from the Washington Post: the first of which tends to
undermine James Petras's view that Israel is the dominant partner in its
relationship with the US.

Tony


Israeli software firm abandons U.S. deal
TED BRIDIS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON ? A leading Israeli software company failed to resolve security
objections by the Bush administration over its plans to buy a smaller U.S.
technology rival and abruptly abandoned the $225-million (U.S.) deal.
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. of Ramat Gan, Israel, withdrew its
plans Thursday near the conclusion of a rare, full-blown investigation by a
U.S. review panel over the company's plans to buy Sourcefire Inc.
Check Point had been told U.S. officials feared the transaction could
endanger some of government's most sensitive computer systems.
Lawyers for the companies offered to attach conditions to the sale that
executives believed were onerous but were intended to satisfy the concerns
expressed by the review panel, said one person familiar with the process.
But no agreement could be reached.
The Treasury Department, which oversees the Committee on Foreign Investments
in the United States, formally accepted Check Point's request to withdraw
from the review process.
The objections by the FBI and Pentagon were partly over specialized
intrusion detection software known as "Snort," which guards some classified
U.S. military and intelligence computers.
Snort's author is a senior executive at Sourcefire, based in Columbia, Md.,
near the ultra-secret National Security Agency.
The investigation was carried out by the same U.S. review panel that
approved the now-abandoned ports deal involving Dubai-owned DP World.
Sourcefire said in a statement it was prepared to continue operating
independently as a booming software security company. One financial analyst
said Sourcefire may limit future transactions with U.S.-based companies to
avoid another security review.
"Given the CFIUS concerns, they may have to limit their potential partners,"
said Peter Kuper of Morgan Stanley. "A U.S. acquirer would be a lot simpler
and cleaner."
In private meetings between the panel and Check Point, FBI and Pentagon
officials objected forcefully to letting any foreign company acquire some
sensitive Sourcefire technology for preventing hacker break-ins and
monitoring data traffic, an executive familiar with the discussions
previously told The Associated Press. This executive spoke on condition of
anonymity because government negotiations are supposed to remain
confidential.
Under the sale, publicly announced Oct. 6, Check Point would have owned all
Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the
expertise of employees.
The review panel privately notified Check Point on Feb. 6 it intended to
fully investigate the transaction's security risks, the executive said. That
was days before the furor erupted over the Dubai ports deal.
Check Point disclosed the news to investors Feb. 13, but the announcement
drew little attention despite escalating scrutiny and interest in Washington
over such reviews.
The U.S. committee has concluded only 25 full-blown investigations in more
than 1,600 business transactions it has reviewed since 1988. In roughly half
the investigations, companies pulled out of the deal rather than face
imminent rejection.



Espionage Law's Merits Tied Into Ex-Lobbyists' Case
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 24, 2006; A06
The federal judge presiding over the prosecution of two former lobbyists has
focused attention on the imprecise nature of the law they are charged with
breaking, the 1917 Espionage Act that restricts the dissemination of
national defense information that could harm U.S. interests.
In January, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III raised the possibility that
the law may not be sensibly written, as he sentenced a former Defense
Department employee, Lawrence A. Franklin, to 12 years in prison for giving
classified information to the two former lobbyists for the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
Despite the law's possible shortcomings, Ellis said in an unusual statement
from the bench, it is up to Congress, not the court, to decide if the
statute needs to be changed.
"The law says what it says," Ellis said. "The merits of the law really are
committed to Congress. If it's not sensible, it ought to be changed. But
they're . . . the body that changes it, not the judiciary."
Today, attorneys for the former lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman,
will argue for dismissal of the indictment based in part on the claim that
the Espionage Act was meant to cover spying, not the possession of leaked
classified information, particularly leaked information possessed and
transmitted by people who are not government employees. As stated in their
Jan. 19 motion, attorneys say what Rosen and Weissman are charged with "is
what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community,
lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times
every day."
The Espionage Act makes it illegal for an unauthorized person to have
"unlawful possession" of "information relating to the national defense." As
written, it does not require that such information be classified. To break
the law, the people involved must also believe the information "could be
used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign
nation." It also makes it illegal for people with such "unlawful possession"
to communicate such information if they have "reason to believe" it could
injure the United States or aid another country.
In response to the Rosen-Weissman motion, the Justice Department attorneys
said in their motion that the defendants have doctorates and "would know
that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current
affiliation with the United States government would not be entitled to
receive information related to our national defense."
Last August, in announcing the indictment, Deputy Attorney General Paul J.
McNulty, then the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said
there was "a clear line in the law," and "those not authorized to receive
classified information must resist the temptation to acquire it, no matter
what their motivation may be."
The AIPAC case, which represents the first time nongovernment employees have
been prosecuted under the 89-year-old Espionage Act for receiving leaks from
a government official, has drawn increasing attention from First Amendment
advocates and others concerned that it represents a sharp break from Justice
Department practices.
At Franklin's sentencing, Ellis said any debate over the statute and
"whether it's a sensible law" was "irrelevant" to Franklin's situation
because he had clearly violated it. "That doesn't mean we shouldn't debate
whether the law is a good law or not, as a people," he said, adding, "It
doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't consider it. It's not for the court to
say."

_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has
to offer.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism