Canadian philosopher Michael Neumann, author of 'The Case Against Israel' writes on US/Israel relations, the Lobby paper and its critics. Contrary to Norman Finkelstein, he argues that Israel is not the US's most stable ally in the ME but rather a liability.
Michael Neumann expresses his views by deconstructing Finkelstein's arguments against 'The Israel Lobby' paper.
Michael Neumann website on Israel/Palestine.
''My people decide the truth in sixty countries every morning. And in every one it's different.''
Since March 29th 2006
3 comments:
Ahem.
Israel, a liability?, to the USA!?!
The problem is that the US Israel relationship is more of a circle jerk than it is a one sided affair. It would seem that there is a competition over who can ejaculate first on the pride and the culture of the Arab Muslims.
Even if the American Government stopped supporting Israel, the American Armed services would still be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
The powerful American Jewish community would continue to be Israel’s advocate and economic crutch.
Also, if US government support for Israel was officially ended, the Arab Muslim inhabitants of the middle east would STILL be enraged about US support of dictators, the relationship of the US to the unpopular Saudi regime that makes America wealthy by allowing the allocation of oil in 'petrodollars', and the American history of initiating violence in the ME region as to accomplish it’s economic objectives. (i.e. operation Ajax, Iran-Iraq war)
American government support of Israel is NOT a liability to Americans, in light of Americas' current position and history in the ME region.
Sophia:
Didn't you earlier support the Finkelstein article?
"Norman Finkelstein revisits the Lobby controversy with immense and clear insight."
I gues there is merit in both articles but you do sound a little self-contradictory here.
Gert,
I don't see contradictions between Walt and Mearsheimer, their critics (Finkelstein) and the critics of their critics (Neumann). Each one of the arguments is taken from a different perspective. The W and M paper is focused on explaining the non sense, from an internal point of view, of current foreign US policy in the ME. Finkelstein and Chomsky aknowledged the facts in the paper while criticizing the conclusions drawn from them, namely that the Israel lobby is shaping US policy in the ME. Finkelstein aknowledges the non sense of current US policy in the ME but attributes it to the history of US policy in general which is not friendly to emancipating countries and supporting liberation movements but is rather focused on consolidating puppet regimes that serve the US imperial interests. Neumann,s article agrees also that current US policy is non sense and goes further in the line of Mearsheimer and Walt to argue that not only Israel is a liability but that Arab countries can be of better help in consolidating US power in the region.
To summarize, I think W and M and Finkelstein disagree on the cause of current US foreign policy.
Neumann and Finkelstein disagree on the remedy: Neumann advocating a shift in alliances and Finkelstein advocating a radical change in the principles of US foreign policy.
But all agree on one fact: US and Israel's policies in the ME are bad.
The merit of the W and M paper is to have created in the public opinion a debate about the convergence of these policies and more awareness about this convegence despite the surprisingly timid reactions in Academia where people's priorities are elsewhere: preserving their promotions and their tenure.
2:15 AM
Post a Comment