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 -- or what have I said -- to indicate
that I think that the "establishment is against" me? Should I move
beyond anti-depression drugs and start taking anti-psychotics?

(2) In any event, the word "establishment" (your word, not mine)
should be replaced by "the shifting coalitions and alliances that make
up the powers that be. When I use the word "establishment," I use it
as only shorthand.

(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). This is
pen-l, not NATURE or SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine.

(4) I didn't say that the so-called establishment would "act in force
to silence Walt" (and I didn't even mention Sheehan). I didn't say
anything about "force." The "establishment" tries to silence these
people, but they don't always succeed. They have a large and
entrenched infrastructure that launches what I indelicately called a
"shit-storm." But that doesn't mean that the target actually succumbs.

> 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. Just as
I have my ideological baggage from living in the US, you bring your
ideological baggage from your home country.  And then (like everyone
else) you  see only parts of the US, not the whole. Someone from
outside the US is more likely to miss the "big picture" that people
born here are likely to know about -- just as I would miss the one in
India or Turkey or wherever. To paraphrase TV's Dr. House, everyone is
biased.

(2) the issue was not about polarization. It was about power. The
so-called "establishment" has more of  the latter.

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

(1) 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. LBO
and a few other small mags aren't enough.

(2) Sure both groups attract protesters, but that doesn't deny the
bigger picture of the general rightward (or more accurately,
neoliberal) tilt of US political culture.

> 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 (I "see the hand of the
establishment")? Are you plotting against me? ;-) Are you one of the
"men in white coats" will are coming to get me?

(3) the establishment has no "hand." The "establishment" is 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.

(1) I, for one, was not talking about the rights of free speech.
That's a different issue than what I was talking about.  Your missive
mixes positive and normative, while I was talking about the positive
side.

(2 I favor freedom of expression, but that's a different issue than
what I was discussing.

> 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.

Again, this is not the issue I was discussing with David. He asserted
that because

(a) I criticize Israel, and as he added later,

(b) I'm a lefty,

it must be true that (c) I equate Israel with Nazi Germany.

Here's the background: in an earlier missive of mine: David B. Shemano
referred to
>Jim Devine contemporaneously calling Israel  "one of the worst kinds
of ethnic nationalist regimes currently on earth," which I think a
reasonable reader [i.e., David Shemano] would interpret as a Nazi
analogy.  <

> 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.

(1) Of course it depends on what you mean by "conservative." Perhaps
"corporate" or "pro-corporate" would be better. The US media support
the _status quo_. They support the current distribution of property
and power (and the general movement toward greater dispersion in that
distribution), the general GOP/DP Party Line of US foreign policy,
etc.

(2) The official media only argue with Bush over tactics or strategy
(should the US have disbanded Saddam's army?) not goals (should the US
be conquering other countries for its own political purposes?) To the
extent the latter question comes up, it is with the issue of
unilateralism vs. multilateralism: should the US conquer other
countries for its own political purposes or should it do it for the
collective goals of the rich countries (NATO, OECD, etc.)

(3) Bush as a person is just the tip of a political iceberg. Being for
him or against him as a person is almost irrelevant. If he and Cheney
were to retire, they'd likely be replaced by similar individuals. The
balance of political power and the dilemmas faced by the political
elite would likely force the replacement (Hillary?) to follow policies
that are substantially the same.

(4) In some ways, the leading thinkers of the "establishment" should
like the fact that the media "Ditched Bush] when he became unpopular."
After all, that distracts people from looking at more fundamental
issues.

(5) Have the media "ditched" Bush? All four of the major networks
broadcast his speech. If they had really "ditched" him, they would
have decided that only one of the networks should broadcast his speech
(Fox?) After, the duplication of effort hurts profits.

JD