Your argument rests on a logical fallacy called "appeal to consequences": "The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false" (cf. <http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm>) as in "You can't say that the president serves Israel, because if you do, your statement is extremely confused and confusing, and you may be mistaken for an anti-Semite."
Logically speaking, a proposition that "the president serves wealth, empire, and Israel" doesn't contradict a proposition that "Israel serves the empire," and vice versa, whether or not either proposition is true.
In any case, it is hardly enough to simply assert that "Israel serves the empire" to convince anyone that it does. You have to show what the empire is; since when, why, and how Israel has served it; and whether it still does so today and will continue to do so in the future. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's _Empire_ doesn't provide any explanation for the latter two sets of questions. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>