The resolution threatens U.S. assistance to NGOs in the Palestinian territories by putting it in the same category as aid to the PA, which is essentially prohibited. There is waiver for certain humanitarian aid categories.
The Bill would designate Palestinian territory as a "terrorist sanctuary." This designation would trigger restrictions on U.S. exports to Palestinian territories.
It would restrict Palestinian diplomacy in the US.
I would target the UN for supporting Palestinian human rights by defunding certain organizations.
Denying Palestinians the ability to receive assistance through international financial institutions.
I can tell you that this bill would not be going forward were it not for direct pressure from AIPAC.
To me, this bill is inhumane and counterproductive. What is per capita GDP of Palestine - US$2000?
This bill has nothing to do with historical US imperialism, business interests or US foreign policy.
This is a direct result of Israel's US supporters and their organized effort to protect Israel and as part of that effort to inflict misery on the PA.
There is no grass roots movement pushing this bill forward and they have actually had to twist some arms to get it moving as everyone realizes how inhumane it is.
I really think you are not giving the M-W paper the credit it is due. There may be a nit to pick here and there, but I think for the most part they are spot on.
It was a chap called BimSherman. I think he's a chap.
This is an example of power politics by a single, highly focused, group.
Noam C. is very mistaken in his assesment of the situation.
"there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."
This claim can not be substantiated simply because it isn't true. In 2002, for example, Haim Saban, the Israel-American who funds the Saban Center at the Brooking Institute and is a big contributor to AIPAC, gave $12.3 million to the Democratic Party, almost as much as the $14 plus million the arms manufacturing PACs gave to both parties. In 2001, Mother Jones listed on its web site, the 400 leading contributors to the 2000 national elections. Seven of the first 10 were Jewish, as were 12 of the top 20 and 125 of the top 250. I didn't go any further. Were all these Jews supporters of Israel? To some degree it is quite likely, but, as a number of observers over the years have said, in the eyes of Congress, there is only one key issue for American Jews and that is Israel. Now, if "ME Scholar Stephen Zunes," who Chomsky quotes, or Chomsky himself, has evidence that contradicts this, let them present it. I have sent copies of this email to both of them.
The rest of his comments on the Mearsheimer-Walt essay are the standard boilerplate that Chomsky has repeated in a half a dozen or more books over the years as one can tell from the age of his references. The passage of time doesn't make them any more valid. If people wish to find out more about Chomsky's position on this issue from a critical standpoint they can read an article I wrote a year ago entitled, Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict by clicking on http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29Web...es/
Chomsky.html
Chomsky has not commented, at least publicly, on that article even though he received many requests to do so while acknowledging that this was the reason he elected to respond to the Mearsheimer-Walt essay.
- how clever of them, mind you its just like the 'Jews' - sly, cunning and doing stuff behind everyone's back, getting the US government and US corporations into trouble, getting them to do all their dirty work for them and then leaving their victims to take all the blame etc etc
I wouldn't bother with Jeff's essay above - much as I think Jeff is an ok guy the essay itself is a bit weird and full of holes regarding quotes from the good Prof, and the weight given to Noam's so-called 'zionist' roots and tendencies
- the Jeff Blankfort v Stepehen Zunes is a much better discussion/presentation of issues, as Stephen shares Noam's view of Israel as a 'US strategic asset'
If you haven't been introduced to the above website before Palestine; Information with Provenance, where the essay is stored, then bon appetite, it's a good 'un!
The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic
from not too long ago -
- I used to think Jeff was imagining there was zionists under his bed, his views seemed a bit extreme to me, until I discovered there actually was - the so-called 'pro-Israeli' sods had been spying on him, he took them to court and won an out of court settlement
But I think we need to be sensitive to the little things (you know starving populations, shooting kids that kind of thing) that make Palestinians concerned with the issue, as well as simply having larger strategic discussions. In other words we need to have a more nuanced take on this discussion these days (Chomsky kind of hints as much in the above take).
No, just an organized political effort by Zionists in the US to influence US policy towards the Middle East in favor of Israel. Many times this policy is against the overall interests of the US and many time the policy is inhumane to the people of Palestine.
What is so hard to grasp?
Sure, there have been occasions where the interests of The Lobby and other interest have aligned, but the vast majority of the policy in the middle east is set by the Lobby alone, the current bill being pushed through congress being a primary example.
- feel free to tell me how you manage to differentiate between the two
ie US foreign policy that isn't nasty and isn't a cause of nastiness
and Israeli lobby measures which are nasty -
- how does the US manage to wash its hands of responsibility for its own policies and actions ?
- easy, adopt the old scapegoat 'the jews' and the 'Jewish World Conspiracy Theory Mark II'
Oh to be a recipient of nice Uncle Sam's foreign policy attentions - I only wish I lived in occupied Iraq or East Timor, or even occupied Palestine (but without the totally superfluous discomfort provided by those nasty-minded people of the US-Israeli lobby), or I lived in the halcyon days of Vietnam!
- and pardon me, but where is it I have said I don't care about the welfare of Palestinians or the welfare of Israelis or Americans or Iraqis or anyone else on the planet for that matter ?
I'm talking about a specific issue - drag other stuff into it if you like but that's your problem not mine
It certainly can 'effect them' in the same way that changes in governments can 'effect them'. But it does'nt fundementally alter them. Its possible to understand both things at once and I think this is missing in some of the discussions. Chomsky's reference to the lessor power of a similar lobby here is interesting. Recent peculiar Americanism's in British politics (the whole Livingstone affair, the business with the C of E etc) seem incomprehensible outside of this government walking in lockstep with the US government.
But the situation is not at all the same here. Its important to recognise the difference. One of the more amusing facets of the famous soas affair is that management partly agreed to collude with making spurious allegations of anti-semitism mainly because they were worried about 'the Zionist lobby'. This is a perverse kind of anti-racism in my view, and shows the consequences of imagining that the US is like Britain.
ie US foreign policy that isn't nasty and isn't a cause of nastiness
and Israeli lobby measures which are nasty
Just look at who is promoting those policies in congress?
Oh to be a recipient of nice Uncle Sam's foreign policy attentions - I only wish I lived in occupied Iraq or East Timor, or even occupied Palestine (but without the totally superfluous discomfort provided by those nasty-minded people of the US-Israeli lobby), or I lived in the halcyon days of Vietnam!
I don't think anyone is saying all nasty policies by the US result from The Lobby. Only the ones associated with Israel. And even then there may be a few cases were other interests were the primary cause of those policies.
While you are on that topic, however, it is very easy to draw a line from the war in Iraq and Israel's US supporters (as well as Israel itself).
The Walt-M paper does a very good job of documenting this connection. One comment on it starts here.
Why, the US government of course!
I know exactly what you mean and I know exactly what I am saying so don't pretend or try to lie about what it is I am saying which isn't that the so-called 'pro-israel' lobby in Washington is responsible for the attack and invasion of Vietnam and a whole lot of other stuff besides -
- no, I am saying the US government is responsible for that along with all its other policies - quite simple really when you think about it -
- if the 'jews' have the whole of the US government in their pocket (and the poor suffering US population) then, by extension, they control the rest of the world, or at least, that part where Washington's writ runs -
- the last I heard Jewish neo-cons even had a plan for conquering the rest of the world starting out with Iraq -
- and given the importance of Israeli-Palestinian relations for world peace and survival then the seemingly illogical US support for the henious activities of the Israeli government (never to be confused with Israeli people) amounts to a kind of Jewish World Conspiracy
- I don't believe in inventing other world to explain the one I'm in -
- and I don't need to find convenient scapegoats for the US government's inability to reflect the opinions of its own electorate -
- or look for a Neo-Con Jewish World Conspiracy Theory when things go belly-up in Iraq
Anyway, I think I may be arguing at cross-purposes here with your good selves, but good talking to you both!
All the best!
I will let your post stand on its own, except I will point out that I said zionists and US supporters of Israel, not Jews.
I selected those words very carefully in order to be precise with regard to whom I was speaking of.
Please don't try to substitute Jews for the words I actually used.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
sorry I got completely muddled mate -
- and I would never knowingly put words into other peoples mouths mate - and I am usually very careful when using labels as supercharged as racial or religious ones etc, as Mark or Roland point out highlighting the non-use of the A-S word by either the good Mr Massad or Mr Chomsky -
- my very sincerest apologies if I inadvertently did that -
All the best john
Commenting by HaloScan
