Re: on Israel lobby in the US and foreign policy

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote:
> > Bill Lear and Michael Perelman had good answers. I just want to add
> > one point (or rather, restate my original point): in US during the
> > present era, i.e., what I was talking about, the attacks on Walt, etc.
> > as being "anti-Semitic," "like Nazis," and so forth is currently part
> > of the _dominant political culture_. Invite Walt (or whomever) to
> > speak and there's a vast political infrastructure already there to
> > launch the shit-storm against him. The organized Likudnik knee is
> > ready to jerk.
> >
> > On the other hand, if a war criminal like Kissinger, a silly-but-scary
> > publicity hound like Coulter, or a racist like Murray is invited, the
> > infrastructure isn't there. In most places around the US, there will
> > be no response at all (except liberals and lefties muttering
> > "how can it get worse?") In a few places (Austin, Madison, Berkeley,
> > and a handful of others, the sum of which right-wing types hypostatize
> > into some sort of cabal), the local lefties will try to mobilize to
> > pass out leaflets and paint up some signs, but it will take energy
> > away from their more long-term political work. (Besides, they're too
> > scattered and fighting amongst themselves.)

raghu wrote:
> But this is purely a matter of opinion. You believe that the
> establishment is against you and will act in force to silence Walt or
> Sheehan or whoever but not Kissinger or Murray.

(1) I do not believe that the "establishment is against" me. I am not
paranoid. How have I behaved to indicate that I think that the
"establishment is against" me?

(2) In any event, the word "establishment" (your word, not mineshould
be replaced by "the shifting coalitions and alliances that make up the
powers that be.

(3) of course it's a matter of opinion, but I don't know about
"purely." I'm not presenting a scientific paper here, or even an
economics paper (which would have much lower standards).

> To a more neutral
> observer both groups seem like polarizing figures.

(1) why are _you_ more neutral? even if you come from outside the
dominant US political culture, that doesn't make you neutral. You
bring your ideological baggage from your home country and then (like
everyone else) see only parts of the US, not the whole.Everyone is
biased.

(2) the issue was not about polarization. It was about power. The
"establishment" has more of it.

> Both groups attract
> a bunch of flag waving protestors, equally disorganized, and
> ultimately equally ineffective.

You don't know much about the dominant political culture of the US.
The right includes four major TV networks (with three of them defining
the "middle" in a way that serves their interests), plus large numbers
of newspapers and other media outlets. On the issue of Israel, most
people in the US side with it and ignore the rights of the
Palestinians. This is partly because the pro-Likud forces have so much
influence. The minuscule left doesn't control any newspapers.

> You see the hand of the establishment
> behind one group and not the other but that's purely a matter of
> opinion. Someone on the other side would have a very different
> interpretation.

(1) why this implication that I'm paranoid ("the hand of the
establishment")? are you plotting against me? ;-)

(3) the establishment has no "hand." It's only a metaphor -- and you
were the one who introduced it. Rather, they have an infrastructure,
shifting coalitions and alliances amongst coalitions. In other
periods, members of the establishment have fought with each other.
Right now, they have more ideological unity than what's left of the
left, so instead of their knee-jerks creating babble, it creates some
sort of coherent message.

> Generally I think everyone would agree that free speech cannot exist
> without some boundaries for civilized conduct.

I, for one, was not talking about the rights of free speech. That's a
different issue than what I was talking about.

The argument merely
> seems to be about where to draw the line. Murray, Coulter and
> Kissinger are in. The klan is out. An anti-Israel book should not be
> automatically out, but holocaust denial propaganda probably should be.
>
> As far as the press is concerned, it seems to me they have neither a
> consistent liberal bias not a conservative bias (except for Fox of
> course). They merely have a commercial bias pandering to whatever is
> fashionable at a given time. They supported Bush when he had 90%
> approval. Ditched him when he became unpopular. True fair weather
> friends. Or so it seems to me.
>
> -raghu.
>


--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) --  Karl, paraphrasing Dante.