The problem with attributing what Pipes does to "the Lobby" is that it suggests coordination and conspiracy, and suggests paranoia on the part of the accuser. Whereas in some Arab countries such a website would have to be coordinated, here in the good old USA anyone with a computer can set up a blog and write anything they desire. Hence, Mark Elf.
But surely this is a bit disengenuous. I can remember engaging in one of those futile screaming matches on a blog about Edward Said calling him a 'liar' (of course we don't do things like that on Jews Sans Frontier where we encourage civilised dialogue) and I began to notice that the charges were a little repetitive. Googling it I found the source on a peculiarly nasty site (was it CAMRA..or AIPAC) which essentially acted as a campaign centre for bloggers.
"Edward Said the personification of an Arab Liar" which gave detailed instructions about exactly how to respond to Hitchen's defence of Said, encouraging people to link Arab and liar togeather. Now, thats one example and does'nt say much, but the question is: If the person said "but they did'nt tell me to copy and paste that crap I did it of my own free will, therefore there is no lobby" that would be a bit silly would'nt it?
Is there not some naivity about both lobbies and politics involved here? Lobby politics in the US is well funded and internetted and the 'Jewish Lobby' is no different to the Italian one or the Cuban one in that sense. Some Socialists I know suggest that one should say Zionist rather then Jewish. I take the point but the reality is that US lobby politics is ethnic politics. I think its more accurate to say that the Jewish Lobby has been hijacked by the Zionist lobby. Liberal Zionists might prefer to say its been hijacked by right wing Zionists.
One of the surprising things about these discussions is that the American political right's (and many on the Zionist right) explanation of contemporary global politics is a vast conspiracy theory. I've never met Mark, I've never met Lenin (on his blog), and I'm sure we do everything of our own free-will. But if someone accused me of being part of their lobby I'd be flattered. Shame it is'nt big enough.
So far there have been mostly dishonest attacks on the article though Chomsky and Massad were honest attempts at critique. It is clear that many of the blog comments on Engage and the Guardian blogs are being made by people who haven't troubled to read the original article.
If writers of an article regarding the, for example, pro-life movement, were to accuse me of being part of the “Right to Life Lobby” (or Movement), and said that “Greg Potemkin, ‘a passionately pro-life paleo-conservative’, has attempted to push a pro-life agenda”, I would readily admit to it, and perhaps even thank them for acknowledging my efforts.
In fact, I don’t think that I would even be upset, if in describing my opposition to abortion they were to bring up my status as a former fetus (that’s feotus to those in the UK who don’t know how to spell properly).
Why, on the other hand do Zionists try and misdirect the conversation, and make silly accusations when people speak of the Zionist Lobby? Do they, perhaps deep down, realize the impropriety of the Zionist position, and follow the old rule that so long as one is accusing his accuser, he need not answer the original accusation?
.
I am aware of "rapid response teams" on the Israeli side, but by visiting honestreporting.com and clicking Palestinian links, I find numerous "how to's" for people writing letters critical of Israel, etc. I find both types of automated responses boring, and though I repeat myself when I get tired, I try to make every letter fresh and not formulaic, and if possible and appropriate, tailored and personal.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pag...07&
contrassID=2
Daniel Pipes is well known not simply as a 'supporter of Israel' but as an ideologically committed activist who conducts and organises witch hunts in US universities against anyone associated with the left and has a long history of association with political right (his earlier incarnation as some sort of leftist is occassionally wheeled out for emotional effect).
He's an important and powerful political figure and not simply an 'individual' with 'views'.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?a...?
articleid=8787
duke smear widespread:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/...-in-
action.html
My own view is more complicated yet. I think Israel is paralyzed by indecision. The Palestinians have a true humanitarian crisis, and a perpetual low level conflict, but not an ongoing war. Israel has tried to contain the conflict, but it has boiled over. Now it has no solutions except to be militaristically dominant, a la Pipes, or give Hamas a military base in its state five miles from Israel, capable of hitting Tel Aviv with missiles and killing Jews with terror whenever possible. Any solution is the least bad solution. That is why Olmert got elected.
My own view is that military victory is the only solution for the cause of Justice. The idea that Zionists should remain capable of hitting Arab cities, and killing Arabs with their racist terror machine whenever possible is what must be opposed.
.
So who are you gonna believe, someone with an agenda like Daniel Pipes, or professionals who want to keep more planes from crashing like that? If Pipes had his way the problem would never even be addressed and people would keep falling out of the sky, while the government went blind looking for terrorists that didn't exist in the first place. Oh yeah, Pipes is a prince among men!
Be very careful were you end up...
Commenting by HaloScan
