Letters to the Editor
-
one tires of being vilified
israel is making problems in the middle east - beyond what a balanced response to terrorism should be. any sober analysis of the facts would conclude israel (with palestinians) are at fault for the crisis.
but one tires of the shame attack that ardent pro-israel people use to counter the arguments. one should be able to discuss the decisions of the israel government in the public sphere without the quibbling and anti-semetic shaming that this article exemplifies. the attack of any fair criticism of israel's choices - the same types criticism that could be leveled against any government - shouldn't bring the immediate associations to the worst bigots in america. it is fair to say building a wall well beyond the green line is in violation of un resolutions. that israel should do better. but instead there is intimidation to force silence. eventually, we won't care that these things are said.
-
Goldberg doth protest too much
Although I'm sure Mearsheimer and Walt have made mistakes in their article Goldberg's suggestion that it is so flawed that it could make discussion of the Israel lobby less likely is extremely unconvincing to me. Some of her points are good ones and some are questionable but her notion that this article is so massively flawed is to me just a much more sophisticated hatchet job than, say, that of Dershowitz. Anyone who really wanted a thorough debate of the influence of the Israel lobby could certainly make their critical points without constantly dropping the suggestion that the article is SOOO flawed that it could actually hurt the cause of such discussion. The fact that she comes to this conclusion and repeats it so many times suggests to this reader that she is perhaps just a bit ambivalent about open discussion on this topic.
-
Okay, so where's the beef?
What is truly amazing is that no one has provided even one example where the "Jewish lobby" has convinced the US to act in a way contrary to its interests. Israel gives the opportunity for the US project military power in the Middle East should it feel the need for an emergency military base in the area. Israel shares a massive amount of military intelligence with the US. Whereas the US has virtually no intelligence assets that can speak the native languages and blend into the local populations, Israel has these assests and shares them. Israel and the US are in accord on many fundamental international issues.
I cannot believe that anyone is so naive as to suggest that the mere fact that the Arabs hate the Israelis places America at some sort of disadvantage vis a vis Arab nations. Does anyone really think (or more to the point, can anyone show any evidence) that the US would have a better relationship with the Arab nations if Israel does not exist? We already provide the Arabs substantially more foreign aid than we give to the Israelis, but I don't see any acknowledgement of that.
Precisely what has the "Jewish lobby" accomplished? Has it forced the US to cut off aid to Arabs? Has it forced the US to withhold support for a Palestinian state? Did it allow the Israelis to assassinate Arafat? No, no and no. Furthermore, the Israelis did not want a war against Iraq, only George Bush did. The Israelis have been far more worried about Iran for decades. There was no upwelling of support for the Iraq war within Israel. There was just the support of a loyal ally for a policy that the Israelis considered dubious at best.
In every age, and in virtually every country, there have been anti-Semitic elements that claim that Jews are some sort of fifth column, engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the good people of Germany (Italy, France, take your pick). They couldn't find any actual examples, either, but that didn't stop them.
So, step up to the plate. Tell us exactly how the "Jewish lobby" has compromised the interests of the US.
-
Confused
Here we go again. Those of us who have some problems with the actions of the Israeli government and who feel that it is in the best interests of the United States to formulate a more balanced and nuanced foreign policy in the Middle East are raging anti-Semites who are in bed with David Duke. Ugh.
Let's think about this for a minute. What does it mean to be "anti-Semitic?" I try hard to ignore the rantings of bigots, so I have to admit I am not up to speed on all of the ways that Mr. Duke thinks the Jewish people have corrupted America. However, I will assume that he thinks that they are all dirty, greedy, money grubbers who have too much power and are responsible for the death of Jesus. He probably has no problem whatsoever with discrimination against Jews and may even be one of those idiotic Holocaust deniers. Okay. He is entitled to his moronic attitudes and opinions.
But how does it follow that people who, say, think AIPAC has too much influence over our foreign policy, and that this influence hurts us in the war on terror, or who don't like the obnoxious settlements that the Israeli people have set up, also have a problem with the Jewish religion? Or with Jewish people? I mean, huh? I am trying hard to understand how so many seemingly intelligent people keep clinging to such non-sensical arguments.
Come on, folks. If you disagree with the assertion that we are in Iraq because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, then state clearly why you think this is nonsense. If you disagree with the argument that media coverage is too pro-Israel, cite examples where coverage has been more balanced. Stick to grown-up arguments, not juvenile accusations, and I will stick to telling anyone who will listen that I think David Duke and Pat Buchanan are total losers.
-
iraq policy and w
I don't remember seeing a block for "AIPAC" on the ballot. If George W. Bush does not have enough political independence to make his (our) own decisions when it comes to the Middle East policy, he should resign.
Come on, folks. If you disagree with the assertion that we are in Iraq because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, then state clearly why you think this is nonsense.
Bush administration officials ( Libby ) are on trial for their efforts to lead (mislead) America into Iraq, and the results of their blundered oil grab are their fault alone.