In response to Michael Pugliese:
The basis of your claim that there is "alot of leftist cant against Zionism" in the US really depends on which side you stand in the conflict. I would say that there is a regretable lack of "sloganizing against Zionism" here in the US. Many very good progressives who support civil rights and justice for oppressed groups simply drop any rational analysis when it comes to Israel-Palestine. In fact, if Sharon's government decides to opt (as it very well may) for an all-out slaughter of Palestinians in the near future, I believe it could be quite difficult to build a large grassroots opposition here (for ending US aid, etc.).
Your appeal to "the totality of political-economic, geo-strategic, mediagenic and all the other factors, that in their relations with other States around the world and possible reactions by the subjects of those States" is just a very confused way of avoiding my argument that an anti-imperialist opposition here in the US has every reason to prioritize our critique of Zionism and the Israeli state. If you had tried to analyze this "totality" yourself, rather than simply gesturing towards it, that would've been helpful. Barring that, I cannot take seriously your pedantic suggestion that I "try to form a fuller picture of the whole set of considerations that motivate US policy."
The fact is, the full picture involves Israel playing the central role as the American rulers' watchdog in the Middle East. Contra Finkelstein et al, it has very little to do with the strength of the 'Zionist lobby' It has everything to do with the west's-- and particularly the US's- profits and political stability in the region. Does this mean that dictatorships like Egypt don't play a serious role? Of course not.
But Israel is the number one recipient of US military aid for a reason. This was spelled in quite plain language in a 1992 article in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot by retired Israeli Gen. Shlomo Gazit, former head of Military Intelligence and West Bank Administrator:
"[After the Cold War] Israel’s main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance," Gazit wrote. "Its location at the center of the Arab Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be a devoted guardian of the existing regimes: to prevent or halt the processes of radicalization and to block the expansion of fundamentalist religious zealotry."
Gazit explains the central role Israel plays for the US and its allies-
"In the aftermath of the disappearance of the USSR as a political power with interests of its own in the region a number of Middle Eastern states lost a patron . . . A vacuum was thus created, leading to the regionís instability. Under such conditions the Israeli role as a strategic asset guaranteeing a modicum of stability in the entire Middle East did not dwindle or disappear but was elevated to the first order of magnitude. Without Israel, the West would have to perform this role by itself, when none of the existing superpowers really could perform it, because of various domestic and international constraints. For Israel, by contrast, the need to intervene is a matter of survival."
Besides being directly responsible for the massive immiseration and dislocation of Palestinians, Israel has historically functioned as a watchdog for imperialism- a fact which has led it to start and/or participe in every large war in the region over the last half century, with immensely bloody results. It will lead to future wars as well. For these reasons, those who seriously wish to oppose what you call "the Capitalist-Imperial state policy formation" should not hesitate in opposing both the theory and the practice of Zionism. Accusations of "leftist cant" be what they may.
----------------------------------------------------
....But, the pugster being a habitual devil's advocate, tired of alot of leftist cant and sloganizing against Zionism, recognizes the above as true, but, like say Brad deLong (gasp!) I see US foreign policy, like other aspects of Capitalist-Imperial State policy formation as being a terrain shaped by competing (bourgeois) class fractional interests. What, I'm trying to get at here in one of my run on sentences, is that any read of declassified docs like what I.F. Stone did or the Noamster, or what you can find at the website of the National Security Archive, (or Paul Joseph book from South End Press which tests various neo-marxist state theories, Miliband, Poulantzas, Mills, Offe, etc in the test case of the Vietnam War.) is that State policy makers, in State Dept., NSC, etc. are always cognizant of the totality of political-economic, geo-strategic, mediagenic and all the other factors, that in their relations with other States around the world and possible reactions by the subjects of those States that must be taken into acct. To return to the Israeli military aid. My impression, is that Egypt get loads of US aid too. The aid package to Egypt and Israel was dramatically increased after the Camp David Accords of 1978, no? So, to sum up this rant, look at the various actors in the whole area, and try to form a fuller picture of the whole set of considerations that motivate US policy. After all, is it totally an illusion of Neo-Cons that there are more and less friendly sectors of the US foreign policy elite planners. Granted, the tilt has always been, esp. after the 1967 war, pro-Israeli, but, James Baker saying, "Fuck the Jews, they didn't vote for us!, " doesn't emerge out of nothing. Michael Pugliese
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp