[lbo-talk] The Banality of anti-Israel Lobby Doctrine

Joseph Catron jncatron at gmail.com
Tue Aug 10 18:05:56 PDT 2010


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:23:27 -0400, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Then I don't really get why you use the term "lobby" at all. The
> > standard usage is as some sort of fifth column whose primary loyalty
> > is to Israel and which manipulates U.S. policy towards that end. But
> > if it's so deeply American - not merely part of the scene but
> > constitutive to some degree and at least until recently dominant in
> > foreign policy circles - then why use the term at all?
>
> Now I'm really confused. Isn't that exactly what lobbies *are*?
> "Lobby" seems like the perfect term.
>

I'm with Michael here. Wouldn't Doug's formulation also make the agricultural, defense, pharmaecutical etc. industry lobbies something other than lobbies?

-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list