Re: on Israel lobby in the US and foreign policy

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

I sent this by mistake, before I was finished. Please do not respond to it.

On 9/15/07, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>


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