|
NYT: “Don’t Trust Our Editorials”
As the News York Times now admitts one can not trust anything written in a New York Times editorial. (Are the news-pages any better?)
April 16, 2009 – Editorial: Roxana Saberi
Iran’s government needs to release Ms. Saberi and end this dangerous farce.
…
A former F.B.I. agent who went missing in 2007 while on a business trip, Robert Levinson, is also believed to be imprisoned.
September 18, 2009 Editorial: Iran’s Captives
[Iran] must free Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent missing since 2007.
October 23 2009 – Editorial: More Iranian Injustice
… Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent has been missing since 2007. These victims of Iran’s autocratic leaders must be released.
November 11 2009 – Cruel, Pointless Games
Tehran’s latest outrage is to accuse three American hikers, held for more than three months, of spying.
…
Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent who traveled to Iran on a business trip, has been missing since 2007.
Now we learn: A Disappearing Spy, and a Scandal at the C.I.A.
The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails.
@Bevin (and also amspirnational #63)
I will make a few clarifications about my position, and in the course of doing that I will also mention some points in your comment which I don’t understand very clearly and hopefully you will take the time to elaborate on them.
1) This point also addresses amspirnational’s comment #63, Chomsky’s view (and I agree with him on that) on “neoconservatism” and their influence on the US foreign policy is different from M&W’s view on the influence of the “lobby”.
The “new revelation” or “new addmisions” by Chomsky are not new at all. Chomsky mentions them in a 2004 interview:
“In practice it is the program of radical statist reactionaries, who believe that the US should rule the world, by force if necessary, in the interests of the narrow sectors of concentrated private power and wealth that they represent, and that the powerful state they forge should serve those interests, not the interests of the public, who are to be frightened into submission while the progressive legislation and achievements of popular struggle of the past century are dismantled, along with the democratic culture that sustained them.Within elite sectors, there is a great deal of concern over their brazen arrogance, remarkable incompetence, and willingness to increase serious threats to the country and to transfer a huge burden to coming generations for short-term gain. Their war in Iraq, for example, was strongly opposed by leading sectors of the foreign policy elite, and perhaps even more strikingly, the corporate world. But the same sectors will continue to support the Bush circles, strongly. It is using state power to lavish huge gifts on them, and they basically share the underlying premises even if they are concerned about the practice and the irrationality of the actors, and the dangers they pose.”
According to Chomsky’s view neocons pursue their own economic interests which also calls for the total US hegemony in this region and in the world, a hegemony which by the way will not just benefit the economic interests of the neocons but that of the US capitalist class in general. Yes there maybe conflicts between the economic interests of the capitalists represented by neocons and the economic interests of other sectors of the US capitalists but on the main principle of the necessity of the global US hegemony they agree.
This is very natural, interests of various capitalists very often conflict and in the course of competition one group may obtain some control over the state apparatus and use it for its own interests (and that is all western elections have always been about) but there also exists the concept of “class interests” common to all capitalists.
As opposed to this we have the M&W’s view on the “lobby” (and they blend neo-conservatives into the “lobby” as well):
“For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. “
According to this view Israel has been of little value if any to US imperialism but still the “lobby” has managed to steer the US foreign policy towards the security of Israel. M&W put the security of “Israel” as the paramount goal of the US foreign policy and as an end in itself without having any benefit to the US global hegemony or US imperialism.
Crusially M&W never explain as to why the “lobby” and neo-cons are so devoted to the Israeli security, and interestingly in the end they admit that US foreign policy promoted by the “lobby” has not even achieved that!
As opposed to this Chomsky explains very clearly the reason for the US support of Israel: Oil and gas resources in the region, the profit of Western energy giants, the profit of western arms industry as well as maintaining global hegemony (which would benefit all Western capitalists and NOT JUST the energy and arms industry).
2) When I use the term “bourgeoisie” I refer to the capitalist class which owns the means of production. By use of that term I am NOT referring to the “middle class”.
Now bevin says:
“But the US bourgeoisie is isolationist by nature.”
Capital has to expand. By its very nature it cannot be “isolationist”. Once the local markets saturate, the bourgeoisie has to look for the profit outside. In fact there is a very fascinating argument that capital always has to find an external source for profit! So I am not sure what bevin means by saying that the US bourgeoisie is “isolationist by nature”. Was the Vietnam war the result of the US bourgeoisie’s “isolationism”? Or was the “lobby” behind that too? How about the coup against Sukarno in Indonesia? Iran of 1953, was that the work of the “lobby” too? How “Isolationist” was the US bourgeoisie about the disintegration of the Yugoslavia? or did they do it because the Israeli lobby forced them to do so? The examples are too many to go through.
Apart from the clarifications regarding my own views which I made above, I would like to now address some other points that bevin makes.
Bevin says:
“It [The lobby] has managed to persuade the US bourgeoisie that its interests coincide with theirs. In this it is enormously aided by the Saudi/oil lobby’s alliance with Israel.
Yes, its interests do differ significantly from those of the bourgeoisie. And this is why life is going to get much harder for the zionist lobby in the future.”
“Persuade” is very different from “coerce”. M&W’s view is NOT that the lobby has “persuaded” the US bourgeoisie, but rather they claim that lobby has coerced and bullied the US bourgeoisie against their own interest to support Israel. Coercion is achieved through “power”, in a bourgeois society “power” comes from “money” or IOW “capital”. Through wealth comes strength. If an agency in a bourgeois society is powerful enough to coerce the state aparatus to move in a certain direction, it means that there is a HUGE capital behind it and that automatically means that that agency is part of the bourgeoisie and NOT separate from it. On the other hand no capitalist would go to great extents in investing capital for the cause of the secudity of a micro-state when there is no profit to be gained from it. And this is precisely the point which M&W miss!
Bevin also says:
“No [meaning that the interests of state of Israel is not at the core of the Israeli lobby]. The core interest is that of a fascist party which has redefined zionism according to the Jabotinsky view. In fact the lobby is acting in a suicidal manner, making it almost impossible for the “Jewish home” to survive a day longer than it can impose its will on the region, militarily. Absent automatic US military and financial support, Israel is finished. The opportunity of converting the “facts on the ground” of the colony into a permanent compromise peace has passed.”
Well first of all M&W would disagree with bevin on this issue. The main thesis of M&W is that the main purpose of the lobby has been to guarantee Israel’s interests and security. To quote M&W directly:
“Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?”
And their answer is of course the influence of the lobby.
Also I don’t see why making the possibility of a “Jewish home” absolutely dependent on the US hegemony should be a “suicidal act” by the Lobby. It would be considered as suicidal *IF* we assume that the foreign policy of US is towards serving Israel at the cost of US interests. It would not necessarily sucidal if we consider that perhaps it would benefit US to have Israel by balls and make their very existence conditional on the US hegemony in this region. What ally would serve one better than one whose whole existence depends on your own hegemony?
Besides, what is so unusual and “new” about Israel being dependent for its existence on the abosulte military supremacy? Israel has been fully dependent on absolute military supremacy from the day of its inception, it first started by crushing 1936-39 Arab revolt in palestine which led to Israel’s defacto existence (long before the AIPAC had any importance) and continued all the way through 20th century (6-day war, yon kippur, etc etc) and still it continues today. Hegemony is the name of the game!
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Dec 17 2013 19:47 utc | 66
amspiratioinal @69
The point that I was making about the “liberal” zionists was not that their policies are relatively benign-insofar as they are more practical they are in many senses more dangerous than the fascists’- but that they include the perspective of compromising with the Palestinians.
As to the fundamentalists that you talk of, I’m not sure that it makes sense to call these C19th descendants of the C16th Reformation part of its “left wing.” Left/right has outlived its usefulness by a couple of centuries, as I suspect you know, its a shorthand though that it is hard to dispense with.
If I were a zionist, though, I wouldn’t put much trust in these racketeers (which is what most of them are) who support zionism on the basis that it will be easier for God to wipe them all out if they gather together and wait for Judgement Day!
pirouz_2
The respect is mutual. The point that I was making is that, paradoxical as it may seem, US imperialism has always been inclined to isolationism in order to facilitate its expansion.
This apparent contradiction goes back to the early C19th when the Monroe Doctrine was developed (and with the help of the Royal Navy, practised). The rulers of the young Republic wanted to clear every potential rival off the continent, so they could exploit it themselves. At this stage they had only just crossed the Allegheny mountains and the Pacific coast that they aspired to rule was a million miles away: Spanish, Russian, British and other fur traders were setting up factories from Alaska to San Francisco Bay. France had only sold the US “Louisiana”, aka the Mississippi Valley, in 1804.
And the continent had infinite wealth to be exploited. Not surprisingly, the US was very happy to promise the European imperialists that, in return for being left alone in the western hemisphere it would leave them alone and not attempt to compete for territory in Asia and Africa. Of course it was a typically Yankee deal: the US, which couldn’t have competed anyway, lost nothing and secured the incredible freedom of being left alone not only to exploit the continent but to do so on its own terms. Nobody could criticise its slavery, for example, or its systematic theft of native lands, because that was its business. A private matter for a Free People and nothing to do with the enslaved subjects of monarchs.
The actual capital used to exploit America came from all over Europe, with British interests to the fore. But political control lay in US hands. In a period of incredible economic expansion the US was proudly isolationist.
Of course the basis of expansion was far from isolationist: the commodities produced were for the world market. Most of the cotton, grain, lumber and other staples was exported. But here again isolationism worked: the shipping lanes were controlled and policed by Britain, the Empires by their European proprietors, this greatly enhanced the profitability of US exports which bore none of the costs of empire. The US had a tiny army and navy and, consequently very low taxes. And, of course, it didn’t need to join in the races for territory because, apart from the territory it claimed and the Mexican land that it conquered (largely employing state militias and settlers) there was the entire Southern continent to be devoured.
As the century passed things changed, although by 1898 the US had become very skilled at getting all the benefits of Empire, such as Open Door access to Asian markets, at a minimal cost, growing fat on the meat that the Europeans killed.
Hence the nature of Wilsonian interventionism, at the dawn of US dominance, which stressed national self determination, the ultimate expression of “indirect rule” and a constant of US hegemonic policies in which its rule is hidden behind the ostensible sovereignty of client regimes. And even this policy was quickly replaced in the ’20s and ’30s by ‘neutralism’ and isolationism, which were only really supplanted in the late ’40s when the Republicans in the Senate threw their weight behind Truman’s attempt to establish US hegemony through the Cold War.
Famously, Senator Vandenberg warned Truman that to maintain his policies he would have to “scare the hell out of the American people.” He did and his successors still do. It is the sort of tactic, based on ignorance of the outside world and an almost superstitious popular belief in the evil nature of foreigners (derived in part from the miserly fear that other countries might elbow Americans aside and devour the national riches) that can only work in a country with isolationist instincts.
Regarding Palestine, one other point I wanted to make was that it is greatly in the Palestinians’ favour that the Likudniks refuse to make peace with the current PLO leadership which, as we know, is ready to give up anything asked of it for the most minimal concessions. If the zionists think that they will ever find an easier bunch to deal with than the stooge troika of Abbas, Fayed and Erekat they are very mistaken. As these old corrupt, and unelected, leaders pass away a new generation, unburdened by the background of the Cold War and directly connected to the people will arise and insist on not only the full restoration of Palestinian rights but considerable reparation for more than seven decades of ill treatment.
Posted by: bevin | Dec 19 2013 15:24 utc | 71
|
