Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 25, 2006
“Crush … Without Inhibitation”

There are many known facts to support these four thesis:

  • Israel claims a historic right to conquer and to ethnic cleanse the Jordan West Bank – the Bush administration does support and furthers this;
  • the Zionist lobby in the U.S has achieved an extremely high influence level;
  • Israel is nurtured as a strategic asset for U.S. interests in the Middle East;
  • the U.S. administration did recommend and expected Israel to "crush" Hisbullah "without inhibitation".

If a critic of AIPAC’s role in U.S. policy would say such, the AIPAC and the ADL would be  quick to brand that person as a defaming anti-semite.

But what do they say about a Jewish attorney from Maryland claiming the above in a Haaretz OpEd?

Since June 1967, there has been rigorous debate about the wisdom of retaining the territories that came into Israel’s hands in the Six-Day War. Yet, almost no individual with a whit of appreciation for Jewish history would deny the essential right of the Jewish people to return and repopulate these territories that already millennia ago served as the cradle of the Jewish people.
[…]
American support for Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria reached its crescendo in President George Bush’s April 14, 2004 letter to then prime minister Sharon, acknowledging that it would be "unrealistic to expect … a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 …"

This U.S. support for Israel did not arise in a vacuum. Israel’s protectors in the United States, in the plethora of Jewish organizations that dot the American landscape and at the grass-roots level, have relentlessly struggled to shore up this support.
[…]
In a similar vein, consecutive Israeli governments and their U.S. supporters have worked for decades to ensure that Americans recognize the support that Israel provides in the Middle East. Through careful coordination – from important contacts at Defense Department levels, to meticulously managed visits to Israel by members of Congress, as well as by way of grass-roots lobbying and advocacy – Israel’s role as a reliable ally and strategic asset of the United States had become an almost unassailable truth.
[…]
Short of erecting a billboard on Rehov Kaplan, it would have been difficult for the Bush administration to have more strongly communicated to the Israeli government its desire for the Israel Defense Forces to crush – forcefully, vigorously and without inhibition – Hezbollah’s forces.

Though the ADL may not touch this, the Arab press will definitly reprint the appropriate sections for a wider digestion.

Who’s interest is furthered here?

Comments

Bernhard,
The OpEd you cite in Haaretz mirrors what I hear from friends in the progressive Jewish community here in the US. The Lebanon War has turned former moderates into Likudniks and weakened and marginalized the Jewish left at the moment. The Israeli/AIPAC PR machine has convinced many if not most that this is about the very survival of Israel and nothing less.
This does not bode well for the future either in Lebanon, Iran/Syria or of course Israel itself. Very, very scary times when the reasoned voices of Jewish intellectuals are afraid to speak out….reminds me of an earlier historic period but with 180 degree role reversal.

Posted by: McGee | Aug 25 2006 21:42 utc | 1

Nice catch, b. Pieces like this are always good ammunition to have on hand when arguing with a Zionist who resorts to calling you either “anti-semitic,” or “self-hating,” depending on your religion.
There always exist two contradicting levels of discourse side-by-side within our society.
One is the public level, or propaganda level. It is needed to mobilize the 40-50% of society who are completely clueless how the world works, as well as the additional 30% who desperately want to be believe that “our leaders have our best interests at heart.” This level is necessary to build support for unnecessary wars of choice and further aggrandizement. It consists of the usual spate of familiar lies: Saddam kicked the inspectors out, Bush gave him one last chance, Iraq is integral to the “War on Terror,” etc.
The second level is meant for the top few percent of society that actually have a hand in running things. (What percent of US society takes the time to read Haaretz op-eds?) Since this elite segment actually has a hand in how society runs, they need more accurate information. This is why the Wall Street Journal, which has arguably the highest demographics of any paper in the world, has very accurate and detailed news coverage. I have known a number of established reporters with the Journal, and they are given the freedom to report the news as they see it, without any of the interferance and censorship reporters encounter at, for instance, Fox. (The editorial page is another issue altogether. Its rabid reactionary and jingoistic voice does, frighteningly, represent the best short-term interests of global capital.) This elite group needs to understand the world and how power works, and they are considered mature enough to realize that it is bad manners, it is simply socially inappropriate, to bring this level of discourse down to the mass-man; to attempt to explain how things really work to the average person. As a matter of fact, all attempts to translate the higher level of discourse down to the lower level of public discourse is met by vociferous cries of denial, falsification, and misinterpretation, by the very same authors of those higher level pieces of journalism.
The fact that these two principle contradictory levels (there are also others) of concurrent discourse should exist side-by-side is not surprising when one considers the structure of late-stage capitalist society, with its huge dominant trans-national corporations, and the extreme stratification of decision making power. Nor, considering the successful functioning of the entertainment industries (of which corporate news forms a part) in fully engaging our emotions; the absolute lack of critical thinking skills in society; and the extreme hierarchical nature of power within our society, where everyone know his place; is it very remarkable that these two levels of discourse should be able to exist side-by-side with so little public awareness or outrage.
What is remarkable, is when the two discrete and contradictory levels accidentally bump against each other publicly, causing dissonance, mass confusion, and uncomfortable feelings of disorientation — which must be safely and rapidly resolved — so that faith in the benevolent intentions of those who lead us is restored, and we can again go about our daily lives without the disturbing rumblings of our conscience.
What is even more remarkable is when this uncomfortable situation presents us with the rare opportunity to wake the slumbering from their sweet and cherished dreams.
b, as usual, performs a valuable service in his assiduously diligent and perceptive critiques.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 25 2006 22:42 utc | 2

@ McGee:
That’s because those who like to think of themselves as the left, or who advertise themselves as being of the left, are not really the left — or, are only of the left concerning very limited domestic social issues. (Similar to Kos and the Democratic Party.) So, their position is either a conceit, or functions as a gate-keeping mechanism for the right. I have documented on earlier posts the execrable, facistic positions the so-called intellectual left in Israel has taken.
Accepting the inviolability of other nation’s borders, or the right of other nations to credible self-defense, or even the rule of international law, are hardly remarkable positions, and should be considered to be basic to any civilized understanding of international justice. That the so-called “left,” in both Israel and the US chooses not accept these basic premises, defering instead to the hectoring cry of Israeli and American exceptionalism, gives the lie to any claims by the “left” to even the pretence of the aspiration for human justice.
So, what is left that is authentic to the “Left”? A few tortured bleatings about proportionality? The desire for the violence to not be so public? A sincere wish that the Palestinians will gracefully relinquish any right to struggle for their land back, so that we can then magnanimously give them the drier half of it back — without the ability to defend their borders? Unfortunately, that just won’t cut it, except in the endless echoings of the equally complicit media. It might sell books, and it might help Israelis to sleep better at night, but by any impartial measure of judgement, it is not even a simulacrum of justice.
Would we accept this status quo if the roles of the Israelis and the Palestinians were reversed, and the Israelis were gathered into large open-air ghettos, without the right to defend themselves from unprovoked attack and incursion? Would we accept the right of the Palestinians to internally investigate claims of murder and war-crimes? Would we worry as much about the future of the Palestinians, and their viability as a self-defined group of people? The ludicrousness of this simple mental exercise easily reveals that there is no desire for justice among those who identify themselves as members of the left — only a desire for the “problem” to go away. And, perhaps, a concomitant “selfless” desire to lionize their own magnaminity for others to notice.
I do agree with your sobering conclusions. In both the US and Israel, the answer being put forth to the failure of violence to facilitate the intended changes is, unfortunately, more violence. We have seen this frenetic fugue on the world stage before in human history. What it took to stop the forward flight, and the effects it had upon actual human beings, has never been pretty. The exponential increase in the power and deadliness of modern weaponry certainly bodes ill for the future of our species. Unless the US can be rapidly and safely brought into balance with other regions of the world in a new multi-polar era of shared power, the future looks worse than an Hieronymous Bosch nightmare.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 25 2006 23:41 utc | 3

Don’t you understand? Israel is just a gated community.

Posted by: biklett | Aug 26 2006 0:31 utc | 4

Gulf News: Lebanon war destroyed US credibility

When the US invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003, Arab intellectuals were divided over the issue. Some maintained that dictatorships in the region are extremely resistant to reform and democratisation.
Having endured the ruthless nature of the Arab state and having had very weak civil society, the chance of incremental reform from within seemed almost nonexistent.
Hence, the pro-democracy movement in the Arab world saw in foreign intervention an opportunity to help stir up the static nature of Arab political life, reinstate democracy and relegate authoritarianism to the dustbin of history.
These hopes were fed by assurances by the Bush administration that the new Iraq would be a beacon of democracy in the region.
….
In May 2005, the Chronicle claimed, “a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail”. When Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers, Israel was ready to react almost instantly.
Furthermore, the policy of the Bush administration during the 33-day war was so irritating for most Arabs, including those who consider themselves America’s friends.
Week after week, the US continued to provide political cover for the Israelis to finish the job break the back of Hezbollah and turn the Lebanese against it. For many Arabs, it was America’s war on Lebanon executed by Israel.
Refused to condemn
More disgusting was the US position on the Qana massacre, where some 60 Lebanese civilians were killed by the Israeli air force on July 31, half of them children.

Posted by: Fran | Aug 26 2006 5:46 utc | 5

@biklett:
Aak! That article if so filled with lies, one hardly knows where to start.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 26 2006 13:28 utc | 6

Malooga wrote: There always exist two contradicting levels of discourse side-by-side within our society.
From the Middle East Forum, Promoting American Interests, by M. Wurmser
Post Zionism and the Sephardi Question. (Spring 2005)
link
the descriptive aspects are of interest, how they are massaged, as well.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 27 2006 20:12 utc | 7

@ Noirette Thanks for the link to Meryrav Wurmser’s article,
which does indeed present various points worthy of interest and debate.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Aug 29 2006 8:33 utc | 8