October 23, 2007

Cuba, Armenia, and Israel Lobbies

The crucial difference between the Cuban and Armenian lobbies vs. the Israel lobby is that the former allow you to engage in nonOrwellian singlethink. The Cuban Lobby boasts of how powerful it is and how, if you cross it, you'll never win the Electoral Votes of Florida. Well, you can either believe that or not believe it, but there's nothing whatsoever contradictory about its stance. The Armenian Lobby laments that, so far, it hasn't quite been powerful enough, but asserts that its day is coming very soon. Once again, singlethink. That's how most lobbies behave.

The Israel Lobby, on the other hand, demands Orwellian doublethink -- "the act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs." It boasts endlessly of its power in Washington, but smears anybody else who agrees with it that, yes, it is powerful as being a fellow traveler of David Duke. This relentless doublethink is bad for the mind and soul.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

45 comments:

hey steve said...

The negative fallout of this also includes the poisonous legitimization of dual patriotism. And the bad example-setting: Other lobbies including Mexico are on record describing the Israel lobby as a "model". That is frightening. The Israel First crowd does not give a damn about the example they are setting.

Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com (and almost nobody else) is following the upcoming spy trial of AIPAC operatives. The trial has been delayed but supposedly will start this January.

The Lobby on Trial

Anonymous said...

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what America can do for your foriegn country

Edward said...

Ever heard of the French lobby, the English lobby, the German lobby ... the Scandinavian lobby?

America's relationship with Europe is stronger than its relationship with Israel, and is sealed with a nuclear kiss.

Israel should be regarded as an honorary member of Europe - a country that Americans would die for without a second thought.

The fact such a large lobby has to exist and has to defend itself shows how vulnerable Israel is at this time. That the lobby is listened too shows how valuable Israel still is to America.

Anonymous said...

What would be the best parameters to guage the size, power and influence of various lobbies?

I suspect dollars raised would be the best hard power metric, but is this public? I was impressed when virtually every leading polician, Dem and Rep, came as supplicants to the annual AIPAC meeting.

Certainly there is tremendous soft power working for (Israel, Mexico, UK) and against (China, Russia, Middle East) groups, but how could you capture these?

David said...

Anon. 10:04 said:

Certainly there is tremendous soft power working for (Israel, Mexico, UK) and against (China, Russia, Middle East) groups, but how could you capture these?

Answer: look at the ethnic composition of the lobbyists. Not very difficult to identify. More Jews and Martinezes in DC than Chinese and ethnic Russians combined, I'll wager. Blood is thicker than water.

Edward, if you think the French, German, English, and Scandinavian lobbies are more powerful than the Israeli lobby, you're past help. Also, Israel does not want to be a member of anything, least of all Europe. Zionism means independence. Finally, are you saying Americans should "die" for Israel "without a second thought"? Just how is Israel "valuable" to America? The actual relationship is the reverse. By your lights, all Americans can get out of Israel is death.

Evil Neocon said...

Steve -- I've come to believe you are not just flirting with crossing the line of anti-Semitism but right on the line.

The "Israeli Lobby" is deeply divided and torn by fundamental disagreements unlike the Cuban or Armenian Lobby. To ignore that reality takes an active mark of will.

Some argue the Olmert Line: make "some" agreement, any agreement with Palestinians to neutralize the near threat and deal with the existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons (or Pakistan's should AQ take control which is likely).

Some argue the Spielberg Line: Jews must be "blameless victims" which will enhance their prestige internationally and make them important dinner partners at Davos.

Some argue the classic Zionist line with the Sharon twist: give Palestinians a defacto state in places where Jews can't live, don't fight a demographic fight, and prepare for war with Iran and it's Hezbollah proxies.

Others argue that Israel should not even exist anymore. This is not very popular but does exist among some Jewish intellectuals -- such as Chomsky and so on.

Needless to say, there is no monolithic group-think Israeli Lobby -- given the deep and publicly discussed differences.

What's sad about you Steve is that you have a mind but refuse to use it. Letting your anti-Jewish feelings push you right onto the line of anti-Semitism.

Part of this in my opinion is your fascination to worship of "big men." The standard anti-Semitic fallacy of the "realists" is that by slavishly doing whatever the "big men" of the Middle East demand: be it the diseased Saudi princes, Osama, Saddam, Mubarak, Assad etc. particularly "getting rid of Israel" we will achieve peace by submitting to their superior will.

The "big men" like Osama or Saddam are worshipped, as are their slave societies, while the obstreperous, rude, proud, often obnoxious free men and women of Israel are despised. Because they as free individuals are free to do what they want and don't have to bow and cringe to the "big man" (or his court functionaries). In any event we tried under Clinton to follow that prescription as much as possible: killing Serbs to save Bosnian Muslims and leaning on Israel to give Arafat what he wanted (of course he could not agree -- his people would have cut his throat). In response Osama plotted 9/11. Big Men demand utter slavery and will not settle for anything less unless you kick back on them and press them with violence. That's the way it is.

Israel has many advantages to the US, not the least of which is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" and needed intel (which will be shaded but has generally proved valuable). Or that free men and women make a better bet as allies than "big men." At least (unlike Idi Amin) you know where you stand with them.

But given that the "Israeli Lobby" has at least three competing and distinct positions publicly discussed for you to ignore this puts you right on the line of anti-Semitism and accounts for all the outright anti-Semites who congregate here.

Nietchze considered this a mark of a limited, poorly functioning mind. You are as much a prisoner of your bigotries as the PC crowd. This post certainly indicates that.

Evil Neocon.

Cromwell said...

Israel should be regarded as an honorary member of Europe - a country that Americans would die for without a second thought.

Hopefully you are being sarcastic.

Anonymous said...

So, how valuable is Israel to the US Edward?

The benefits to Israel of the US seem pretty obvious. It should be simple then to list the manifest benefits to the US.

OK here goes:

#1...oh dear, seem to have run out of ideas already!

Bill said...

Israel should be regarded as an honorary member of Europe - a country that Americans would die for without a second thought.

-edward


You're kidding, right? Die for Europe without a second thought?

Since when have Americans felt this way? Didn't we actually fight a war a couple centuries back so that we wouldn't have to do this?

Die for Israel without a second thought?

Sorry, Edward, I think I'll pass on that dying for a foreign country thing, but thanks for the suggestion.

kingludwig said...

"The fact such a large lobby has to exist and has to defend itself shows how vulnerable Israel is at this time. That the lobby is listened to shows how valuable Israel still is to America."

There's one thing I've noticed about the neo-cons and their supporters: they always seem to assume the public is too stupid to notice the most obvious errors in logic. The lobby is not "listened to" because Israel is valuable to the US, but because it has the money and influence to make and break careers.

Bill said...

Steve -- I've come to believe you are not just flirting with crossing the line of anti-Semitism but right on the line.

-Evil Neocon


Oh NO! Sound the alarms! DIVE DIVE, load the torpedoes!

Steve an anti-Semite, lol. Yah, right. I don't think you know what it means outside of your own little world. He's done more to reconcile me with Jews in America than any other contemporary journalist I can think of.

Can you wrap your mind around that?

Harrison said...

"You're kidding, right? Die for Europe without a second thought?"

Now that Nato has been expanded, we are bound by treaty do die for Latvia, if necessary. We are under no such compulsion to die for Israel. Perhaps the Latvian lobby is too strong?

SFG said...

He's done more to reconcile me with Jews in America than any other contemporary journalist I can think of.
Now that I don't get. Could you explain it?

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as the Israeli lobby forcing people to engage in doublethink. It denies its power, but I think most groups seeking influence do a little lying when it's convenient. The problem with the Israel lobby isn't necessarily that it's more nefarious or successful, but that Israel's interests don't necessarily ally with ours. We need oil, and the Arabs have got it. I'm all for seeking alternative energy so we can stop propping up these despicable regimes, and I'd rather prop up a bunch of hardworking Westerners with big noses who have built a pretty good country with our help than a bunch of people who engage in honor killings and force their women to wear garbage bags, but until we can use solar power, we need the oil.

The Cuban lobby has forced us to take a hard line on Cuba, which isn't necessarily beneficial (Castro doesn't have the Soviet Union ready to ship him nukes anymore). The Armenian lobby makes us piss off Turkey once in a while, which isn't great but is not the end of the world. The Irish lobby funneled money to the IRA, causing untold grief to the Brits, who have been loyal allies to the degree it made them look bad. But...you know, these things aren't going to make the Arab world cut off our oil.

tommy said...

Now that Nato has been expanded, we are bound by treaty do die for Latvia, if necessary. We are under no such compulsion to die for Israel. Perhaps the Latvian lobby is too strong?

The U.S. is pursuing a strategy of hedging in Russia. Otherwise we would ignore Latvia entirely. Israel is of no comparable geostrategic interest to America.

I've said before I generally support Israel because it is in within the sphere of western nations culturally but there is no denying the Israel Lobby has a great deal of influence in DC.

stencil said...

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what America can do for your foriegn country

tremendous post ...now go make some bumper stickers!

Bill said...

Now that Nato has been expanded, we are bound by treaty do die for Latvia, if necessary. We are under no such compulsion to die for Israel. Perhaps the Latvian lobby is too strong?

-harrison


Now let me ask you:

Are we dying for Latvia?

Believe it or not, the answer is actually relevant to some people, but maybe not so much if your friends aren't riding around in a humvee in Baquba.

According to Phil Zelikow, we are dying for Israel:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

Is Zelikow an anti-Semite?

Not saying I think that's the only reason, but I'd like to know if you think AIPAC's hands are clean in this matter.

Steve Sailer said...

But the Arabs aren't going to cut off our oil. What are they going to do, rely on their foreign exchange earnings from the pistachio harvest?

nick said...

evil neocon: "Israel has many advantages to the US, not the least of which is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier"

This is why we staged the Iraq invasion out of Israel, rather than Kuwait and Turkey as originally planned.

mercer said...

Evil Neocon
“Israel has many advantages to the US, not the least of which is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" and needed intel (which will be shaded but has generally proved valuable). Or that free men and women make a better bet as allies than "big men." At least (unlike Idi Amin) you know where you stand with them.”

From Idi Amin’s 8-10-03 obituary in the “Scotsman”. “ Amin got rid of Obote, with the help of MI6 and Mossad, the intelligence services of Britain and Israel. Amin struck on 25 January, 1971, while Obote was attending a Commonwealth summit in Singapore.” “ Israel described Amin as its special African friend and he graduated with Israeli army paratroop wings after training in the Negev Desert.” Ah! irony…

Chief Seattle said...

Steve Sailer wrote: "But the Arabs aren't going to cut off our oil"

The thing is, the U.S. doesn't have anything to trade for the amount of oil we consume - anything besides military might that is. The policy of the U.S. for the last 35 years has been to force the Arabs to recycle their petrodollars back into the U.S. Either by getting them to give huge, overpriced contracts to U.S. companies, or by having them buy and hold U.S. debt. That's the real problem with Iran. They have gone off the dollar, and if they get away with it, the other s might try it.

Nuclear weapons my ass.

SFG said...

But the Arabs aren't going to cut off our oil. What are they going to do, rely on their foreign exchange earnings from the pistachio harvest?

Then why do we give a rat's butt about them? All we'd have to do to prevent terrorism is bar Muslim immigration...oh, wait.

Anonymous said...

Not the unsinkable aircraft carrier nonsense again!

Is Israel being used by the US and allies as an airbase in support of operations in Iraq? No. Are Israeli aircraft used? No. (Ill grant the use of intel)

Was Israel being used by the US and allies as an airbase in support of OIF activities in Iraq? No, but another unsinkable aircraft carrier much further away was - Britain, and not just a base but aircraft as well. Were Israeli aircraft used? No. (Ditto on the intel)

Was Israel being used by the US and allies as an airbase in support of operations in during the attack on Serbia? No. (But ditto on Britain though) Were Israeli aircraft used? No.

Was Israel being used by the US and allies as an airbase in support of operations to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq? No. Were Israeli aircraft used? No.

Was Israel being used by the US and allies as an airbase in support of operations in during Desert Storm? No. (Ditto again on the UK). Were Israeli aircraft used? No. (Again, lets assume intel though)

Was Israel being used by the US as an airbase in support of the 1986 raid on Libya? No. (But ditto yet again on the more distant UK). Were Israeli aircraft used? No.

You know, Im beginning to see something of a pattern developing over 20 years.

Just when is this unsinkable aircraft carrier going to see any action?

Harrison said...

"Are we dying for Latvia?"

No, but, again, we are bound by treaty to go to war with a nuclear-armed country that kicked Nazi Germany's ass if it messes with Latvia -- no going to Congress for a war resolution, no debate, no hand-wringing. Total war, if necessary.

"According to Phil Zelikow, we are dying for Israel"

Ask Zelikow why we haven't invaded Lebanon and Gaza, the areas that border Israel and have launched attacks on it in the last year or two. Iraq hasn't laid a finger on Israel since the first Gulf War, which, if I remember correctly, we fought to liberate Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia, but which opponents also called a war for Israel. Iraq was no threat to Israel before this current war.

The last time Israel faced an existential threat was in 1973, when we bailed it out with an arms lift (and when Kissinger lied to the Israelis to keep them from finishing off Egypt). We never invaded any country that was attacking Israel, and we aren't bound to do so in the future.

tommy said...

But the Arabs aren't going to cut off our oil. What are they going to do, rely on their foreign exchange earnings from the pistachio harvest?

Never underestimate the power of the Camel Hair Coat Cartel.

Mark said...

Israelis are to some degree our friends, but, trust me, the reasons Muslims hate us have absolutely nothing to do with our support for Israel. We're talking about Arab Muslims here - not known worldwide for their general friendliness towards anyone, including their own countrymen.

Some argue the Spielberg Line: Jews must be "blameless victims"...

Look, Jews are like any other ethnic group - they have their faults, too. It's naive to think that anti-Semitism, which has existed in all sorts of places for over 2,000 years, isn't caused in part by the behavior of Jews. You can't hold a group blameless when it generates the same reaction in many different groups of people, thousands of miles apart and spread across thousands of years.

Ever heard of the French lobby, the English lobby, the German lobby ... the Scandinavian lobby? America's relationship with Europe is stronger than its relationship with Israel, and is sealed with a nuclear kiss.

Indeed. I am over 300 years separated from the island of my ancestors, but if Britain were facing an existential threat I would hop on the first airplane over and sign up. Anyone here ever heard of the Eagle Squadrons?

Israel has many advantages to the US, not the least of which is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier"

We have American warplanes in Israel?

The Armenian lobby makes us piss off Turkey once in a while, which isn't great but is not the end of the world.

Really? SO that's why Turkey, and not Armenia, is part of NATO!

Oh and believe me: I'd be more than happy to piss off Turkey every once in a while, even without the all powerful Armenian lobby, just for fun. Just consider all the trouble that Turkey (and its predecssor state) has caused in its corner of the world: the conquest of Anatolia and the destruction of Byzantium, the invasion and oppression of the Balkan Peninsula, the invasion of Central Europe, the Armenian genocide. Let's piss them off every now and again, just 'cause.

Whenever some Muslim bitches about the Crusades, just say "Turkey."

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what America can do for your foreign country

Brilliant!

Mark said...

Just how is Israel "valuable" to America? The actual relationship is the reverse.

Stop and think about it. What would happen to the 5 million Jews in Israel if the nation were overrun? Where do you think they'd go.

Does anyone honestly think our politicians wouldn't let every last one of them come here? Does anyone here really want 5 million more Jews mucking with American politics?

Bill said...

"He's done more to reconcile me with Jews in America than any other contemporary journalist I can think of."

Now that I don't get. Could you explain it?

-sfg


Sure.

I used to wonder why the hell so many Jews were dumping on white Christian Americans in pop culture, movies, books, newspaper articles, etc. (does noticing this make me an anti-Semite?).

I thought things like: "Gee, my grandpa flew 32 missions (that's a lot at a 6% attrition rate) over Europe in a B-17 freezing his butt off, getting shot at, and bombing the Nazis, and this is the thanks we get?"

When, as a kid who read whatever I could get my hands on, I saw repeated references to the need to beware of fascism, pogroms, holocausts and so on in America, I was really, genuinely offended by this. I mean, since when have we ever done that? Are we Americans really so wretched that we must be watched every moment to ensure we don't resurrect the Third Reich?

Then Steve comes along - a reasonable, sensible guy from my perspective - and not only sticks up for guys like me but points out some reasonable, sensible Jewish guys who do so as well and brings them in on the discussion. This blog shows that it's possible to stand up to this kind of nonsense without making it all about us vs. them.

And probably most importantly, Steve puts himself out there on the firing line to do this. That takes guts, and when I see someone taking that kind of a stand, I tend to think they're doing it for something worthwhile.

Understand?

Bill said...

Ask Zelikow why we haven't invaded Lebanon[...]

-Harrison


You should take some time to think before you post.

Does the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut ring a bell?

Ron Guhname said...

evil neocon: Steve's point is that, while other lobbies don't expect you to deny who they are and what they are doing, the Israeli lobby does. Your point is that factions of the lobby disagree, and since Steve doesn't focus on this, he is an anti-Semite.

Any reasonable person will respond to your point with a "huh?" Are you saying that because there are disagreeing factions, there is no lobby, and Steve is concocting an unflattering, imaginary one, which makes him an anti-Semite? Since when is disagreement proof of non-existence, or even weakness? Were the disagreements of the British, Americans, and Russians in WWII evidence that the "Allies" were imaginary or weak?

Members of the lobby might have very different visions concerning means, but I'm willing to wager a couple bucks that not a single member is against or indifferent to Israel's welfare.

You owe Steve an apology.

Martin said...

"I used to wonder why the hell so many Jews were dumping on white Christian Americans in pop culture, movies, books, newspaper articles, etc. (does noticing this make me an anti-Semite?)."

While growing up I never noticed anything odd about all that "it can happen here" stuff. But now, I find it deeply offensive. It (naziism) can't happen here, for the simple reason that we are Americans, not Germans. (That's not to say that some kind of tyranny can't happen here - it can - but it wouldn't be like naziism).

And there is a deep-seated suspicion on behalf of many jews in this country, that American gentiles all have secret portraits of the fuerer at home, and that we whistle the Horst Wessel Lied under our breath at the bus stop. It is - frankly - offensive to be so viewed, in a country that has been among the most tolerant toward religious and ethnic minorities.

While at Auschwitz some years ago, the tour guide (who otherwise did a good job) pissed me off by saying that the Allies (in particular, the British and the Americans) knew about the camps and did nothing?

Nothing? Monte Cassino was nothing? D-Day was nothing? Schweinfurt was nothing? The battle of the Atlantic.....nothing? 400,000 dead American soldiers was nothing? The allies liberated western Europe, liberated the camps, and planted a lot of the Nazi heirarcy in the ground. That's not nothing.

And I don't like the fact that the Holocaust museum is in our nations capitol, right on the capitol Mall. There certainly ought to be a museum dedicated to that horrendous crime. And it ought to be in Germany or Israel, not here.

Martin said...

Evil Neocon wrote:

"...... deal with the existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons (or Pakistan's should AQ take control which is likely).

"Israel has many advantages to the US, not the least of which is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" "

Israel would seem to be a not very unsinkable aircraft carrier, if it can be sunk with one nuclear weapon (a nuclear weapon that does not now even actually exist). Then again there is the point, already made by many here, that it does not actually carry any of our aircraft.

Israel's defence against nuclear weapons is the same one that we employ - having a lot of them, and being willing to use them in retalliation.

I wish Israel well, and hope it survives, although I'm skeptical that it can, given it's and it's neighbor's demographics. I certainly think we should sell them weapons with which to defend themselves. And I don't think we should be arming Arab nations, just so that General Dynamics can earn some extra scratch on the side.

But Israel is not my country, and commands none of my loyalty. Our nations' government should do what is in the interest of our country and our country alone.

And it is not anti-semitic to point this out. And if you think it is, then you are - in a very real sense - anti-american.

tommy said...

the Scandinavian lobby?

The Scandi Lobby is so powerful you've never even heard of it. They've successfully suppressed all media coverage of their nefarious activities. You should know that they've duped us into providing for all of Iceland's military needs and have recently convinced NATO to quietly take over a country on their periphery known as Latvia. The Lobby's reach is truly unbelievable.

Never trust those dirty ice monkeys.

Anonymous said...

Evil Neocon is like a parody of what MacDonald wrote about.

planetary archon said...

'It's naive to think that anti-Semitism, which has existed in all sorts of places for over 2,000 years, isn't caused in part by the behavior of Jews.'

haha. this was idiotic when roald dahl said it, and it's still idiotic now. 'antisemitism' has changed a lot in the last 2,000 years. do you think david duke or louis farrakhan dislike jews for the same reason antiochus IV did? or that there's some universal attribute of the jews that pisses off everybody? if so, i'd love to know what it is.

this is my second favorite remark here, after the guy who wrote 'just because i don't like jews, doesn't mean i want to see them exterminated.' glad we cleared that up! seriously, this is what makes jews think complaints about the israeli lobby are antisemitic, because it often seems that's the spirit behind it.

Kevin said...

What would happen to the 5 million Jews in Israel if the nation were overrun? Where do you think they'd go.

Does anyone honestly think our politicians wouldn't let every last one of them come here? Does anyone here really want 5 million more Jews mucking with American politics?


This lunatic does:

"Before the U.S. finds itself embroiled in a Middle East conflict for which it lacks both economic means and popular support, I propose a different solution: Terminate the Middle Eastern conflict by inviting the 5 million Jews in Israel to settle in the U.S."

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ww4.htm

Anonymous said...

It would appear that it is acceptable to denounce the Armenian Lobby. Below, Mort Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News, does so.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=620
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How awful.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I was following on what Pat said. There are 226 people who've signed this legislation -- that's proponents of it -- to call it a genocide of what Turkey did to -- it is a disaster for American policy. Eight secretaries of State have come out against it. Everybody is recognizing this is terrible for the national interest of the United States. And it is a function of a special-interest group, the Armenian lobby, giving tremendous amounts of money to a lot of Congress people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: To fill you in, this is the Armenian massacre issue.

Harrison said...

"Does the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut ring a bell?"

Sure. But we weren't there to protect Israel. Neither were the British, the French, or the Italians, who also sent troops, for that matter. In fact, when Israel had its terrorist enemy, the PLO, trapped in Beirut in 1981, we pressured them into letting them all escape to Tunisia. The second time in a decade we kept Israel from finishing off an enemy. After the PLO evacuated Lebanon, which it had occupied since it had been kicked out of Jordan in the early 1970's, Israel withdrew from the outskirts of Beirut and northern Lebanon.

The U.S. and European troops occupied Beirut to try to calm down a civil war which had been raging in Lebanon since the late 1970's. After a series of terrorist bombings, the largest of which was the destruction of the U.S. Marine barracks, the U.S. and the European powers withdrew their troops.

Svigor said...

America's relationship with Europe is stronger than its relationship with Israel, and is sealed with a nuclear kiss.

Which European country do we give more aid, per capita, than Israel? Which European country comes in second place behind Israel? How much do they get per capita?

We station troops in Germany - how many troops do we have stationed in Israel?

The fact such a large lobby has to exist and has to defend itself shows how vulnerable Israel is at this time.

How so?

That the lobby is listened too shows how valuable Israel still is to America.

How is Israel valuable to America?

Anonymous said...

"Does the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut ring a bell?"

Sure. But we weren't there to protect Israel.


Yes, we were there to protect Israel. We were trying to bring stability to Israel’s northern neighbor primarily to make the region safer for her (rocket attacks, terrorist staging, border incursions, etc – remember?). We don’t have any national interest in Lebanon, Syria or any of Israel’s poor oil-less northern neighbors other than in their relationship to Israel.

We have no inherit national interest in this part of the conflict-rich, resource-poor, and polarizing part of the world. There are many other places in the world, especially in Africa, with far worse cases of terrorism, genocide and regional instability than Israel faces which we simply and wisely ignore.

Harrison said...

"Yes, we were there to protect Israel. We were trying to bring stability to Israel’s northern neighbor primarily to make the region safer for her (rocket attacks, terrorist staging, border incursions, etc – remember?)."

No we weren't. When we put U.S. Marines in Beirut, Israel faced no threat on its northern border from Lebanon: it had already chased the PLO out of the country (we organized an escape flotilla for Arafat & Co.), Hezbollah wasn't a threat to Israel yet, and Israel's Christian Lebanese allies were controlling southern Lebanon north of Israel's security zone. In any case, Marines showing the flag in Beirut would have been in no position to protect Israel's northern border -- they would have had to be near the border to do so.

It's true we had no national interest in Lebanon -- which is why Reagan high-tailed it out of there after the Marine barracks were bombed. The Brits, the Italians, and the French followed suit.

"There are many other places in the world, especially in Africa, with far worse cases of terrorism, genocide and regional instability than Israel faces which we simply and wisely ignore."

Like we ignored Somalia? Somalia, Lebanon -- these were military exploits of choice, and we abandoned them when the going got bad. I'm more concerned with us being bound by treaty to fight Russia over Latvia. When we sign a similar treaty with Israel, I'll worry about that.

In the mean time, I'm not thrilled with the 1/10th of 1% of our budget we give to Israel every year, but in the scheme of things, I'm not that vexed by it. Most of that money gets spent here, at companies like Raytheon and Boeing, and considering the among of taxes American Jews pay, I don't mind throwing them this little scrap.

Anonymous said...

When we put U.S. Marines in Beirut, Israel faced no threat on its northern border from Lebanon

WTF?! This is patently false with just a cursory look at the events around the 1982-1984 US and MultiNational Force operations in Lebanon. Lebanon fell into chaotic civil war from 1975 until 1990. In addition to numerous internal warring militias, several foreign powers were adding to the instability by conducting proxy wars in Lebanon – most notably Israel vs Syria.

Israel was threatened by this perpetual Lebanese instability, Syrian designs and escalating PLO terrorist attacks from S. Lebanon. Hezbollah, Israel’s current nemesis is also believed to have grown out of this conflict. Israel’s northern boarder situation and conditions within Lebanon was so unstable that:

1. Israel launched TWO separate invasions into Lebanon just prior to the US Marines landing in Aug 1982 (1978 and Jun 1982 including a siege of Beirut with 20,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded)

2. Israel did not fully withdraw from S. Lebanon, retaining a security buffer zone and violated the initial cease-fire with 2125 airspace and 652 territorial water incursions to monitor and attack her enemies operating out of Lebanon like the PLO

3. Israel setup, supplied and provided air cover for a Lebanese proxy army (SLA) to fight for Israel’s interests in Lebanon

4. Installed the unpopular Lebanese president Gemayel under Israeli military control (who was later assassinated)

The US and MNF went into Lebanon with the unrealistic goal of stablizing the entire country of Lebanon starting with the capital Beruit, not to pull temporary boarder security detail. Somalia is the exception that proves the rule (see Congo 4M dead, Sudan 200K dead, Uganda abducted children soldiers, Angola 1974-2002, Sierra Leone 1991-2002, Liberia 1999-2003, Rawanda 800K dead in 100 days).

Despite your post, you may actually know little about the conflict in which case I offer the following links to educate yourself. On the otherhand, if you’re being a disingenuous neo-con propagandist, I can only provide the truth for others.

Israel intervenes in South Lebanon

Multinational Force in Lebanon

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

Mark said...

While growing up I never noticed anything odd about all that "it can happen here" stuff. But now, I find it deeply offensive.

The Anglo-Saxon world hasn't had a pogrom since the coronation of Coeur de Lion, when some Jewish merchants gave him a gift that was taken by many Englishmen as a bribe. A few decades later Jews were expelled from England and that was that. 800 years, no pogroms.

Is it offensive to me when Jews suggest we're likely to do such things? You damn well better believe it is. Jews, apparently, are free to ascribe bad motives and behaviors to us, but we can't to them. Is that offensive? You damn well better believe it is.


Which European country do we give more aid, per capita, than Israel? Which European country comes in second place behind Israel? How much do they get per capita?

Our financial support for Israel is direct. Our financial support for Europe is indirect. Europe for the last 6 decades has been host to dozens of military bases. Because of our military spending Europe has had to spend next to nothing. Israel has no military bases. I think we give too much to Israel (and Egypt, and Africa, and everywhere else), but we give them money because stationing troops there would be incite the Arabs more than our relationship already does.

It would appear that it is acceptable to denounce the Armenian Lobby. Below, Mort Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News, does so.

Zuckerman is an ethnocentric Jewish bigot, just like John Podhoretz. When I subscribed to US News every other editorial by Zuckerman was concerned with Israel.

Mark said...

Kevin,

Paul Craig Roberts has clearly gone off his meds. I have no idea why VDare still bothers to publish him. Perhaps it's stipulated by some financial contributor. Perhaps he's buddies with Brimelow and Pete just cant bear to cut him loose. Perhaps Mr. Sailer can enlighten us.

Look folks, our involvement in the Middle East has very little to do with Israel. It has to do with oil: they have it, we need it. It's an unfortunate reality that our economy would collapse without it. Managing the Midde Eastern insane asylum is an unfortunate but necessary part of US foreign policy. It's as undesireable a task as scrubbing the toilet or changing my kids diapers, but it's gotta be done.

I am all for an honest, open discussion about the impact Jews and the Jewish lobby have on our policy and our culture. But claiming that our wars in the ME are all about Israel is just silly.

Mark said...

'antisemitism' has changed a lot in the last 2,000 years. do you think david duke or louis farrakhan dislike jews for the same reason antiochus IV did? or that there's some universal attribute of the jews that pisses off everybody? - planetary archon

Anti-semitism has "changed a lot"? It has? How? I'm not talking about lunatics like Farrakhan. I'm talking about the reactions of average, sane people to the impact of Jews.

Denying that Jews aren't responsible for reactions that are fairly consistent over several millenia, across ethnicities, races, and cultures, and across the globe, is nonsense.

mercer said...

"I can only provide the truth for others."

Thanks & well done. Please adopt a nom de blog, I'd like to hear more from you.