"No. The U.S. was not all that gung ho before the Cold War. They did at first not want to alienate the Arab states by supporting Israel. The BIG turning point came in 67, when Israel proved that it could fight."
Joanna -
You are absolutely correct here. But I misstated because I was (am) writing very quickly. I meant "before the Cold War was over" (or during the "Cold War" period) and after the cold war.
You are correct that the turning point was the 1967 war, as Chomsky himself has often stated.
I think the fundamental disagreement between those who think "the Lobby" somehow motivates U.S. imperial policy in the Middle East and those of us who think that the U.S. "special relationship" with Israel is motivated by the interests of the rulers and owners of the U.S. is an evaluation of how U.S. dominance works.
I think that all the evidence points to the fact that U.S. policies in the Middle East are just the usual means that the U.S. uses to dominate the resources of third world countries, that the U.S. uses similar strategies and tactics in all parts of the world, and that the special relationship with Israel is part of the "normal" workings of U.S. "imperialism".
(Personal Note: Maybe it is because I have spent so much time in Latin America, that makes me think this way. My Central American and Brazilian friends never saw a fundamental difference between U.S. policy in the Middle East and U.S. policy in Latin America and I don't either.)
Unlike you I don't believe that the Cold War "explains" much at all except for ideological mobilization. The policies of the Cold War were simply extensions of the policies of imperialism. The Soviet Union had extracted itself from the capitalist market and the U.S. wanted to make sure that the Soviet states became available to international economic exploitation. Again the story of the Cold War is just an ideological justification, a mere excuse, for the normal kind of exploitation.
It is also true that where as imperial goals are the same in Latin America, the Middle East, etc. before and after the Cold War, the means may change. It may become true in the future that a significant portion of the rulers and owners of our society realize that Israel should be cut loose. In that case where would Israel seek sponsorship.
Joanna Wrote: "Israel first offered itself as an agent to the Ottoman turks, but got no buyers. Then to the Brits, but the Brits had to get out of the empire business after WWII, so that was a no op. Finally, there was the U.S. who decided to take them up on the offer."
Again perfectly true. But this does not effect the argument at all. The Israel rulers needed imperial sponsorship. If they had decided to stick with France and Britain in 1956, or decided to align themselves with some other power (but what alternative was available after 56? The USSR?) then no amount of rent-seeking by "the Lobby" would have brought the U.S. to support Israel.
The point here is that U.S. imperial goals bring the U.S. to support Israel and that Israel is not the originator of U.S. imperial goals in the middle east. Whatever influence "the Lobby" has it does not explain the goals of the U.S.
in the middle east.
There are rare occasions where the tail wags the dog but I don't think that this is one of them.
Another possible example is the case of the Cuban exiles in Miami and their influence over a very rigid Cuban policy.
But I think even here it can be seen where for a long period of time the U.S. rulers act in a way that from a point of view of "enlightened imperialism" seems to be not in their interests. Another example is the period of time when we refused to recognize China or our current continuing punishment of Vietnam. But the fact is that the U.S. rulers uses similar means of imperial control no matter what part of the world that we are dealing with. It doesn't matter if their is a "lobby" or not. Israel only an exception because of the value of the resources in the Middle East and the amount of money we pour into Israel as a result of this.
But look at the amount of money we pour into Egypt. Is this also because of the pro-Israel lobby? No doubt in this case we are paying for what the ironists in the state department call "stability."
I think that from the point of view of those who own and run our country Israel is the best choice as a frontline agent for imperial control. There are simply no other good choices.
Those of us who are concerned about allowing people to make their own choices have a different goal however. Namely, the limiting or defeat of U.S. dominance in those areas.
Those imperial policies may at times be irrational, mistaken or outdated, but powerful empires make mistakes.
Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060331/fb98e49a/attachment.htm>