> Correlation does not mean much, because the "causal" line, if any, can
> run in either direction. I imagine a rather large mixture of (not wholly
> coherent) motives enter into any policy decision, whether of a nation or
> a small corporation or a village church, and I don't think it
> politically useful to soecykate on motives even in the rare cases in
> which they are obvious.
Unfortuantely in social science you cannot prove causation, you can only show correlation. The "scientific" methods in social science is, for the most, part based on correlation in social science.
> Israel and the U.S. have clearly run amuck, and it is the task oif
> progressives to marshall opposition to their policies, however
> motivated. Moreover, focusing on a single source as you do here tends,
> as always, to carry an implicit apology for capitalism in general, and
> u.s. capital in particular: that is, the implication _can_ be that all
> would be well if only this or that evil ruler, corporation, etc. were
> eliminated.
I am not apologizing for capitalism in any way. I think interest group politics can explain to us how capitalist tend to influence politics. AIPAC is simply another interest group among 26,000 that know how to play the lobbying game to get things done in favor of Israel.
Naji