Follow up on a study about Israeli influence on US foreign policy

Do they own any oil companies, I haven't checked lately.

 

Your point (if you ever actually have one other than reading your own words) seems to have been that NO other ethnic group in the US influences US foriegn policy in ways that you believe acts against US interests. My point is that there are at least two groups in the US which influence policy in a way that arguably acts against US interests.

I was responding to your comment. You comment had NOTHING TO DO with Iraq. Hence my response had NOTHING to do with Iraq, only influence.

 

You have a valid argument to the naked eye but one can't help to notice that you somehow missed the factor of "proportion".

The main argument stands as such:
1) The neocons initiated a war doctrine with clear view of protecting Israel's interest, although, if the plan had worked out, perhaps it would have secured American material interest as well, but doubtful about protecting the American Integrity, even though it was already stained to some extent.
2) In support of the foreign nation, make clear errors in protecting Americans and their collective interest-- again for the interest of the foreign nation!!!

 

I thought the war was conceived by Chalabi and friends to make Iran a regional power.

 

Except that if the "neocons" were truly acting in Israel's interest, why was the attack against Iraq and not against Syria. Syria is a much greater threat to Israel that Iraq was (unless the Israelis though the Iraqis were working on and had WMDs).

Why has this administration, which is supposedly controlled by Likudnik neocons, come out in support of a Palestinian state BY NAME. That is something that no other administration I believe has clearly called for. You could always infer it, but even the Camp David accords and the Oslo accords dance around the "final settlement" for the Palestinians (probably because many in the Israeli givernments that negotiated the deals hoped for a federation arrangement with Jordan, and not a true Palestinian state).

 

Well, there can be many different perceptions and yours can be one of them. However I was refering to a PLAN.

As for your comment, Iran has always been a regional soft power. It has to do with the way we treat people, with mutual respect and Persian love. You can't create that politically!

 

Syria is still part of the plan. If you think they should have attacked Syria first, that's something you have to take up with them.

This could be along discussion but based on past experience, all politicians make many promises, and the average person gets screwed. But as far as having a Palestinian "state", it is also helping Israel while it helps the palestinians, if it ever fully happens. Besides, it's the best way to di-militarilize the different factions of Palestinian resistance/terrorists.

 

If you really want to know, why don't you see what the neocons themselves had to say? Quote from A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

Obviously, the neocons didn't view invading Iraq and defending Israel from Syria as an either/or proposition.

It's pointless and stupid to argue about THE motivation for the Iraq war as if there was a single motivation - clearly, there were a lot of different motivations, of varying importance to different people and factions within the administration. One of these motivations was the view, held by some members of the administration, that removing Saddam from power would be beneficial for Israel's security.

That issue was far from the only motivation for the war, and (in my opinion) it was also far from the most important one. However, it's absurd to simply pretend that it didn't exist.

 

I love Iran so much that I hope they're utterly wiped off the map.

 

You can be sure Iran loves you back!

 

Criticizing US support for Israel is a legitimate topic of dicussion, but it often resembles the classic paint-by-numbers anti-Semitism. Jews are too powerful, Jews can't be trusted, etc. etc. A 1/16th truth can be a 100% lie, which is typical of the crap that Century's Best (or Treblinka's Best, as Segroves calls him) has been peddling here for months.

Your argument is much more sincere. You quote what "the neocons" have to say. By "the neocons" we mean seven individuals. Since this one paper gets quoted ad infinitum, one might be tempted to assume that's the only thing they have ever written! As you must realize, they have written hundreds of papers on many subjects (with a consistently agressive American posture, whether in the ME, Asia, or Europe), but I would have no problem conceding that their support for Israel is part of their foreign policy worldview. I do have a problem with pretending that they represent American Zionists, when the Russ Feingold/Jon Stewart line of thinking is vastly more common. This is what I'm getting at when I blame Century's Best for Leonardo's actions. It's absurd. Yes, there were a few Zionists with some influence in the Administration that supported the war. Yes, I agree that their support for Israel affected their thinking. How exacty is not clear. My support for Israel probably affects my desire to see us get out of Iraq!

Foreign policy views are affected by cultural, ethnic, and religoius perspectives. We can have a more frank discussion when people who support Israel are not delegitimized and demonized.

 

Coincidently, Jeff Jacoby in yesterday's Boston Globe published an editorial about this subject.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...cles/2006/03/26/america_takes_side_of_israel/

His view is that Americans support Israel not primarily because of the lobbying but rather the basic values shared by the two countries.

Jacoby says:

"If the truth be told, it isn't hard to understand why America's ardent support for Israel might strike some people as odd, or even suspicious. In so much of the world -- Europe, the Middle East, the UN General Assembly -- Israel is despised. Even if Americans don't share the anti-Semitism that is rife in other lands, wouldn't it be more practical for them to stop taking Israel's side? After all, there are 500 million Arabs in the world, and they control one-third of the world's oil supply. Why should Americans alienate them by continuing to support Israel, a country with no oil and just 6 million people?

As a matter of plain economic common sense, the United States has every reason to turn against the Jewish state. What accounts for its refusal to do so? If it isn't an ''Israel Lobby" pulling hidden strings, what on earth can it be?

Something more powerful than economics: the kinship of common values."

 

Here's where you (and some other) posters get it wrong...


Here are two facts that you seem to have forgotten..

The neocons support of the Iraq war was NOT the primary reason that President Bush led us into the war.

The neocons support of the Iraq war was nowhere near the top reason that the war had, until recently, such strong support among American citizens.

You are mistaking one facet of American foreign policy-making with the whole process and, in doing so, are revealing your ignorance about how our government and our society works...


I don't doubt for one second that some Israeli's and Israeli supporters pushed for the war in Iraq. There is no way this is the first, second, or third reason we are there.

 

now that you let all that air out, it's time to go to school (read the article, it's a good start):

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

 

How is this any different than what he said already? Look, just because Israel wanted one psycho to be taken care of does not mean that the most powerful nation in the world would just do so. Why is it so hard for you to understand that America does what America wants, not because anyone else wishes so and if sometimes America's wants/needs coincide with those of another nation does not mean that someone else lead America to do so.

 

Hey hey hey - that was mine!

I agree with the above.

 

OK Doctor, this begs the question:

Reason #1:
Reason #2:
Reason #3:

Thanks in Advance

 

1. American arrogance that "democracy can be spread" at the point of a gun
2. Oil
3. "He tried to kill my Daddy"
4. Put pressure on other middle eastern countries to "be on our side" in the war on terror
5. New, permanent bases in the Middle East

 

Thanks.

Here's mine:
1. Money - War spending, pilfering the treasury, the Rich get Richer.
2. Power/Bases - We have bases everywhere, need to protect the Oooil.
3. Protect Israel by stomping on an Arab country.

All or them are very closely related.

 

1. Power/bases. Control of oil resources and heavy military presence in oil-land (the saudi royal family told the bush royal family troops to leave). A huge military presence near Iran's border. The real enemies are China and Russia (control of oil resources). And also the sectors of EU who push for a more free foreign policy.
A very important step if you (neocons and others) have an imperial agenda of unrivalled global hegemony.
Israel is an important vassal.

2. 3. 4. etc etc are actually at best useful side effects or pure propaganda.

 

1. naaaah... no country's elite makes wars for such things. that's propaganda.

2. Yes. but not in the sense US wants to conquer and steal oil. Control.

3. No. See n.1.

4. Put pressure on middle east countries to acknowledge who is the master. And to non middle east countries not to try to rival US power.

5. Yes. But basically it's the same motive of n.2.

 

If we went in to this for oil, I certainly haven't seen any reduction in the price at the pump...in fact the opposite has occurred. yeah, I know, instability in the world causes price increases at the pump....

 

Its ridiculous to leave out the "we can democratize them" reason. Its probably the foundation of neo-conservatism, which is why they favor intervention in all sorts of regimes, including non-Israel related areas.
As for "pilfering the treasury" - wtf?
Finally - how would taking out Iraq "protect" Israel?

The one point that hasn't been shown yet is that it would be easy. Wars, and especially easily won wars, make politicians very popular. (Arthur Schlesinger once said that all wars are popular for the first 60 days.) Bush gained untold amount of political capital from the invasion.

 

Ok, if you say so. Not. These are my reasons, not yours. Go start your own list. Secondly, they're not interested in democracy unless there's money in it. Who runs the gov't? The lobbyists... Oil companies, defense companies, etc. Ok, so they do want to impose their agenda on other countries, does that mean democracy or puppet regimes?

Pilfering, pillaging, same thing. Whats the deficit at? All these Neocons are loaded up to the gills in Haliburton, Carlyle, Grumman, Northrup. blah blah blah. Never mind the billions of dollars that have disappeared via corruption in Iraq. Of course they want a strong military, there's money in it. I hope thats clearer.

By stomping on an Arab country and putting bases there. This was also (I forgot to add) the way the Neo-Cons thought they could teach the Islamic/Arab crazies not to mess with the US. You slap around Iraq and Syria starts to behave..etc, etc, etc. That was the plan anyway.

This is total news to me. Afghanistan was ok, Iraq was when it all started to fall apart. This administration had nothing but power, no one dared challenge them. They wrapped themselves with troops, "If you question us, you don't support our troops, you are unpatriotic". And then they invaded Iraq and booted it. Now they will pay for it as the Democrats should steam roll shortly.

Of course, if you subscribe to the theory that it doesn't matter if Dems or Reeps are in power because someone else is pulling the strings anyway, then none of this matters. In a way that makes sense to me because it seems like they are throwing Bush under the bus right about now.