The New Israel Lobby

When Walt and Mearsheimer published the 'Israel lobby' and when subsequently talking about the lobby became mainstream and not even taboo as it used to be, I predicted that there will be a new Israel lobby. Here it is...

In October 2007 I wrote in one of my posts on the lobby:

There is no denying that Walt and Mearsheimer have become a reference on the lobby and at the same time a useful Watch chronicling the lobby.
There is no way out for the lobby because the more it surveys and smears Politicians and organisations for criticising Israel and the more it will confirm Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis. I think the process has attained a critical point. What will come after depends on the mindset of the few people who manage the lobby. Either they are pragmatic and the lobby will mutate into something else more respectable and more credible, at least on the surface, or they are not pragmatic, and this is likely to be the scheme, most of them being extreme ideologues greedy for what they want for Israel and sure to obtain it, and the lobby will push for more radicalisation of public opinions worldwide against Islam and Arabs, hoping to hide Israel's and the lobby's misdeeds.

It seems now that other friends of Israel from the American Jewish diaspora had taken upon them the task to a new way of Israeli lobbying in Washington: one that is comfortable with the critique of israel, at least to a certain extent. The critique of Israel in the US prompted by the publication of the W$M paper made this step absolutely necessary. The new Israel lobby was born in the same year the paper went out. That leads to question the motives of the New Israel Lobby. These people felt comfortable with what Israel was doing as long as the US public was silent. But when the taboo of criticising Israel was broken and when many in the US were convinced that the war in Iraq was the making of Israel's friends in the white house, they rushed to form the new lobby.
Change may be coming to the ME if this new lobby is to succeed but definitely not to US-Israel's relations. US policy in the ME will always be cooked by the lobby...
In a way or another, there will always be a lobby for Israel in Washington. In fact, the Israel lobby is the only one as powerful as the health and pharmaceutical industries and it operates exactly the same way, by financing and endorsing US elect or to be elect politicians. The new lobby is operating exactly the same way...

UPDATE: Morton Klein, the president of the zionist organisation of America, has statistics that prove that JStreet is far from being representative of US liberal Jews, which tend to prove my point that Jstreet will prove itself probably to be a smokescreen or just a superficial conversion of the Israel lobby in the US.

A forceful indictment of a famous Neocon

By Middle east analyst and author Juan Cole.

And will this Neocon be able to bury Israel's war crimes in Gaza ? If "The road to Jerusalem more likely leads through Baghdad than the reverse... "*, it is probably for this only purpose, to bury under another crime the central one, the rape of Palestine.

* Martin Peretz wrote this in his New Republic in 2002. The complete quote is:

"The road to Jerusalem more likely leads through Baghdad than the reverse. Once the Palestinians see that the United States will no longer tolerate their hero Saddam Hussein, depressed though they may be, they may also come finally to grasp that Israel is here to stay and that accommodating to this reality is the one thing that can bring them the generous peace they require.''

Harper's Canada: A Banana Republic ?

George Galloway Banned from Canada.
George Galloway: 'Canada can't muzzle me.'

...for a Scotsman to be excluded from Canada is like being turned away from the family home.

In my opinion, this is the stupidiest thing the immigration minister could have done to himself, his party, and the best publicity for Galloway. Galloway is at its best in this kind of adversity, stupid adversity I mean...
According to a Youtube video link provided by Gert (see comment section), it seems that Galloway was banned after active lobbying from the Canadian Jewish Defense League. At the end of the debate on the video between the representative of the Jewish defense League and Galloway, the representative did not hesitate to speak in the name of the Canadian government. Now, many of my friends here in Canada are Jewish but I never discuss politics with them. They are totally brainwashed by their community leaders, and their community leaders have been the fiercest, and I must say the stupidiest, zionists operating in north America.

Obama and the illegal Israeli Occupation of Palestine

A round-up of Arab commentators on Obama's stance toward the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Conclusion : 'Barack Obama is caving to the Israel lobby'. I am sorry because I must disagree. Barack Obama had already caved to the Israel lobby when he decided to run for president of the US and win. And any person who harbored any hope that president Obama will recognise the number one injustice in the middle east and the world that is the illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine is a naive fool.

"Colonialism is either legal or illegal, acceptable or criminal," suggested the eloquent Rami Khouri in Beirut's Daily Star. "Laws matter or they don't matter. There is no such thing as 'unhelpful' colonialism, any more than there is merely naughty rape, awkward murder, or unfortunate incest. Why is it that those in the west who celebrate and seek to export their commitment to the rule of law find it so hard to adopt both the rhetoric and policies that acknowledge the criminal illegality and political catastrophe that is the modern and continuing Israeli colonial rampage? What is it that makes giants in the west become eunuchs in the face of Israeli deeds?"

Will Obama go beyond the superficial ?

Israel, the US administration, and the coming war on Iran: Update

The Israel lobby opposed the appointment of Chas Freeman at the National Intelligence Council in the Obama administration and it succeeded. Because the first step for a war on Iran will be to skew the intelligence. And Freeman, according to Juan Cole, didn't seem to be the right choice for this. The Obama administration caved and let Freeman go. Now, fasten your seat belt, maybe there won't be any war on Iran in the next four years, but there will be fabricated intelligence.

Freeman would have been in charge of editing future National Intelligence Estimates. As Andrew Sullivan rightly hinted, the Israel lobbies did not want someone there so unsympathetic to their conviction that Iran is an imminent and existential threat to Israel, and so unlikely to report out conclusions that would underpin a US war on Iran, or US permission to Israel to strike Iran. The NIC chairman's tenure can last for a decade, and the Israel lobbies' best hope for a war on Iran would come if the Republicans regained the presidency and at least the Senate in 2012. They would want cooked-up NIEs ready to go, as the deeply flawed 2002 Iraq NIE supported that war.

UPDATE: Obama's gestures toward Iran are ambiguous, to say the least.
Obama's recent video message which was seen as 'positive' by western analysts was not preceded neither followed by positive action, especially when it comes to sanctions against Iran confirming his secretary of state criticism during the democratic primary campaign that he is all words and no deeds.

Iranian analysts said easing sanctions held the key to allaying Tehran's suspicions.
Some said Obama's decision last week to renew the US boycott of Iran's oil industry was at odds with the message in his video.
Saeed Leylaz, a pro-reform analyst, said security guarantees would be needed to convince Khamenei that the US was serious about engagement. "I think Obama's message can be a significant step but it's not sufficient," Leylaz said.
Sadegh Kharazi, a former Iranian ambassador to Paris and the UN, said Obama's message changed US "body language" but still characterised Iran in a negative way.
"There's still a negative terminology towards Iran as terrorist-supporting and as a military problem and these descriptions aren't fair."

Obama and Israeli Leader Make Video Appeals to Iran I wonder where the idea for this apeal originated ? In Israel or in Washington DC ? The synchronisation of both appeals will be felt as a provocation by many in Iran. Ar least this is the way I personally feel. Expect nasty things from Mr. O.

Obama and the ME: No We Can't

While SOS Hillary Clinton is visiting the ME, displaying displeasure toward the expansion of Israeli settelments in the West Bank and mingling with Syrian Foreign Affairs minister, the Obama ME policy is starting to unravel slowly: Condemn but do not act against Israel, Ignore the Palestinians, divide the rest, and keep pressure on Iran.

I was surprised to learn that the first thing on Obama's agenda was to lure the Russians into a deal against Iran. Iran has been Israel's only priority since the destruction of Iraq and the weakening of the Palestinian authority. However, every sane person recognizes that the first priority in the ME are the Palestinians, a stateless people who were robbed of their land and their dignity by Israeli Zionists and other Zionists worldwide. The man who did not dare to speak about Israeli atrocities against Gaza, nor speak a word of sympathy for the Palestinians who were being killed like flies by the Israeli army last December, is now adopting Israel's priority for the region: mounting an alliance against Iran's nuclear capacity in order to eliminate the last perceived threat to Israel's hegemony in the ME. I say 'perceived' because Iran is not a real threat to Israel. However, Iran being the last and only power in the ME opposing Israel and left undestructed by Israel and the US, despite the US attempt at it through Saddam and his golden years of collaboration with the US. And in this regard, Iran is considered a 'threat' to Israel because it challenges Israel's hegemony, total control, and neocolonial attitude in the region.

Ignoring the Palestinians has been for such a long time Israel's and the US central point of their ME policy and still, even after the latest Israeli criminal acts in Gaza. Indeed, as long as a unity Palestinian government is not encouraged by the US and diplomatic contacts restricted only to the ailing Palestinian authority, dismissing Hamas, and as long as the US declarations of displeasure about Israeli settlements are not followed or accompanied by real actions and sanctions against Israel, there is neither a road for a Palestinian state, nor peace and justice for Palestinians. Palestinians are tired of rethoric, they are waiting for real acts.

Although talking to Syria may appear as relaunching the Israeli-Arab peace process, it will not affect the central problem in the ME which is the justice and peace that Palestinians have been waiting for. On the contrary, it will affect negatively the Palestinians, giving a false impression of peace diplomacy while Palestinians are being slaughtered. We all know that peace with Egypt and Jordan did not produce any positive effects for the Palestinians. And I doubt that the US and Israel's intentions in discussing peace with Syria are genuine. Israel endorsed happily the whole concept fo the War On Terror in order to delay indefinitely any prospect of having to return to peace negotiations requiring the return of some land to Syria and Palestine, therefore it will never give up again any land taken during the 1967 war and by its settling activities. Why it should ? It is not being pressured to do so in any way by the US and the international community. On the contrary, and time again, it is the US who is pressured to act in certain ways in the ME by Israel.

I don't expect from Obama and his administration any meaningful development for the central problems that have been destructing the ME and slowly desintegrationg its social and political future for more than sixty years now: Israel's illegal land grabbing, criminal wars, and bullying against the Palestinians and its neighbours in the region. The slogan of the Obama campaign is simply not applicable to the ME as long as the US is keeping silent on Israel's nuclear arsenal and regional ambitions, and as long as it is not willing to shape its own policy and be respected in the region.

Iran is on Clinton's agenda, if not her intinerary.

Related: Obama and the Persian treasures in Chicago

Iranian ambassador to the UN: 'Obama, quit talking like Bush' (Thanks Naj)

There is also this excellent analysis, dated January 21st 09, by Gary Sick in the National Interest, on Obama's Iran and ME dilemma. Given what Mr. Sick has envisioned in his analysis, Obama's first moves in the ME are, at best, still uncertain, at worst, in line with the previous administration

Not Our Top Priority
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Iran is neither the most dangerous nor the most pressing problem to be faced by the new U.S. administration in the Persian Gulf region. The Afghanistan-Pakistan nexus, comprised of two weak or failing states with potential access to a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is clearly the most urgent and the highest risk to U.S. core interests. Iraq is a delicate and urgent problem, which will occupy much of the early attention of the new administration as Washington and Baghdad choreograph a responsible exit strategy. Nevertheless, the decisions the Obama administration makes about Iran in its first few months will have a significant effect on our other commitments.

Update: From Europe, where she met NATO members on March 5th, Hillary Clinton invited Iran to participate in the Afghanistan conference the US will be convening. Nothing new. The US did the same when it faced a mounting insurgency in Iraq, they invited Iran, only to blame it afterward for aiding the insurgency. I don't see why they are inviting Iran now that they are in this mess in Afghanistan. With Iraq and Afghanistan, they created the tense climate that is now behind Iran's alleged desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

The audacity of chutzpah

Back to my usual suspects.

Hat tip: Two Wolves

And what about this ?

As far as they're concerned, whoever doesn't support the Israeli government's policy 100 percent is unfit for leadership.

On The Israel Lobby and Intellectual Terrorism

By Ghada Karmi

Israel's Role In the War on Iraq: Conquer and Divide

"The two authors devote more than 30 pages and a remarkable 175 footnotes to constructing an irrefutable case for an Israeli role in helping plan, and a large lobby role in pressing for, the war. Although they do not claim that the effort to guarantee Israeli security was the sole reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, they demonstrate clearly -- citing public and privates statements by Israeli military and political officials, informed commentary in both Israel and the U.S., and analysis by foreign policy experts -- that "Israeli leaders, neoconservatives, and the Bush administration all saw war with Iraq as the first step in an ambitious campaign to remake the Middle East" in order to "make it a more friendly environment for America and Israel." Israel and the lobby "played crucial roles in making that war happen." Without the lobby and particularly the core of neocon policymakers inside government and neocon commentators and think-tank analysts on the sidelines, Mearsheimer and Walt conclude bluntly, "the war would almost certainly not have occurred" and "America would probably not be in Iraq today."

On the question of oil as a principal driver in the war, the authors demonstrate that in fact, although the oil industry was clearly happy to obtain lucrative concessions in post-Saddam Iraq, the argument that the industry pushed for the war in order to enhance profits is counter-intuitive..."More

On The Israel Lobby Again

"Representative Jim Moran on the power of AIPAC, May 2007.

TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?

MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances. Yesterday, AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members—that’s less than 10 percent—who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty. My feeling was that it wasn’t just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel’s security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.

That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an “AIPAC vote.” As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.

TIKKUN: In your estimation, how does AIPAC get that power?

MORAN: AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they’re the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe, obviously. Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person’s entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel.

TIKKUN: Where is the national interest, then? What happens to those who think that the best interest of the United States is to live in peace with the world? Certainly the American people feel a very strong revulsion towards this war in Iraq. Why doesn’t that translate into policy?

MORAN: You’ve touched on a quandary, and it particularly applies to the Jewish American community. Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans. But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.

The reason I don’t hesitate to speak out about AIPAC’s influence—notwithstanding the fact that I’ll be accused of being anti-Semitic every time I suggest it—is that I don’t think AIPAC represents the mainstream of American Jewish thinking. I think that, in fact, if you were to sit down with Jewish families in the United States, far more would agree with your philosophy of reconciliation, in acting in a manner consistent with Torah, and they believe in tikkun. AIPAC doesn’t believe in tikkun, judging from their policy proposals, but nevertheless, they have the Congress pretty… well [pause] “controlled” may be too strong a word, but their influence is dominant in the Congress—and their attitude is the opposite of Tikkun’s and the NSP’s. They support domination: not healing. They feel that you acquire security through military force, through intimidation, even through occupation, when necessary, and that if you have people who are hostile toward you, it’s OK to kill them, rather than talk with them, negotiate with them, try to understand them, and ultimately try to love them. That’s what Tikkun and the NSP is all about: healing, mending, reconciling, understanding, and love, which is why I think you are on the right path.

And yet the Congress seems to be going in the opposite direction, investing more money in the military than we invest in anything else, to dominate the world through our military, to impose our foreign policy through our military, to deal with all our security threats in a militaristic manner. It is a profound difference, and what you are suggesting through your magazine, and through your philosophy, is wholly at odds with the foreign policy and defense policy that we are implementing. This Administration is more militaristic than the Congress itself. My own personal view is that’s run by the people who don’t have the courage to stand up and be gentle and express the goodness of people. They strut on the world stage, suggesting that nobody can mess with them because they’re all-powerful. Of course, they gain their strength through the use and abuse of soldiers and military families that support them.

TIKKUN: Have you heard anybody in the Democratic Caucus present a scenario trying to convince other members of the caucus about why a strike at Iran would be a rational policy for either country?

MORAN: A strike at Iran is argued as necessary because of Iran’s potential threat to Israel. No one’s suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the United States. It’s a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate that threat.

TIKKUN: Are there people who say that in the Democratic Caucus? In a meeting where you’re sitting together and saying “How do we vote on a bill to prevent the president from making war with Iran without having authorization from us?”

MORAN: Normally it’s said in somewhat veiled language. If you look at the debate that took place even yesterday, you can see language that pretty much says the same thing in the words of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen or Duncan Hunter or Tom Lantos. Tom Lantos has moderated his views somewhat. Mark Kirk introduced the resolution on Iran.

They make it clear that we should be prepared to enter into military conflict with Iran. There are several debates that took place on the issue yesterday. I’m sure you could get in online at the Congressional Record. May 16th and May 17th. You’ll find the debate, and you’ll find what’s being said is quite striking with regard to America’s need to be prepared for a military confrontation with Iran, notwithstanding that it’s 70 million people, that it used to be an ally, that it was a strong democracy until they elected Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil revenue, because most of the profit was being given to the American and British interests instead of the Iranian interests. So the British and the Americans had him executed and then imposed the Shah of Iran who imposed a philosophy that we liked. But did so with oppressive tactics. This caused the counter-reaction of the Ayatollah Khomeini coming in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and that’s put the religious extremists in power.

America’s had a direct role in Iran’s fortunes, and we continue to believe that we can tell Iran what to say and do. I personally take great umbrage at the way Iran treats dissenters today. But that’s a relatively small number of people in sensitive positions in the religious and military factions. The majority of Iranians are very young—I think almost two thirds are under the age of twenty-five years, so it’s a very young population—and most of them want to be liberated from this repressive religious regime and be able to be part of a modern world. It’s a very well educated population, and for the vast majority of America’s existence, Iran has been our ally. The present enmity could be turned around if we could take an approach of negotiation, sound reconciliation, and trying to find areas of agreement, instead of trying to emphasize those areas of disagreement. Obviously, we need to protect Israel, but the more we brandish swords and threaten Iran, ironically, the more of a threat Iran becomes to Israel, because Israel is seen as a surrogate power of the United States. We are inextricably tied since our policies are seen as identical. I think that the attitude we’re taking is entirely wrong; nevertheless, it’s the reality, and we’ve got a long way to go before the Congress would turn around and embrace the kind of approach that you and a few other enlightened people are suggesting.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is the editor of Tikkun Magazine and the national co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives."

The Israel factor in the US elections: An Israeli panel ranks presidential candidates

One year and a half before the coming 2008 US presidential elections, An Israeli panel is giving marks to candidates, week by week, based on their speeches at The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), sponsored policies, and declarations. (Members of the Panel, which is an AIPAC bis).

I am sure Sarkozy can beat them all.
(Link found on Angry Arab)

The next Iran War: Lessons from the 1956 Egypt's Invasion

I always thought that the Iraq war was a prerun for the Big One, the Iran War. Iran's war would be more difficult, more dangerous. Iraq would be a bread and roses victory walk. The latter, as tragic in its consequences as it is now, is sadly not the only neocon faulty assumption. Iraq's difficulties apart, the neocons and Bush are showing us now their determination to squeeze Iran when they could not attack it and letting us know that the attack is still an option. The result is the actual showdown and the anguish and tension that go with.

Reading a counterpunch article about the Suez war, I realised that Israel's influence on the west's policy in the ME has one basic and faulty assumption: Israel presents itself to western diplomacies as their frontline in the region and the main guardian of their interests. Back in 1956 when Israel arranged for the Suez invasion, and because of cold war logic, Eisenhower was not convinced of this equation.

One has to read the interesting article of Harry Clark in Counterpunch to realise how much this faulty assumption, endorsed unquestioned in the west and enforced by the Israel lobby largely supported by the Jewish diaspora, is hurting actually the west's interests in the ME.

We need a political leadership to break this equation between Israel's and the west's assumed shared interests in order for the region to achieve a just and lasting peace. Otherwise, the Middle East will always be for its citizens a dangerous and murderous field, thanks to USrael, UKrael, Frisrael, or whatever country with which Israel chooses to make its holy union of 'common interests' for the sake of zionism to survive unquestioned over the dead bodies of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians and the the resentment of the livings.

Read how Rice, Bush and the neocons are trying to reshape the middle east in a way to eliminate any challenge to Israel's only superpower. And how the UN is an accomplice in this project (Forever Under Construction)

The Israel Lobby Debate and the Sad State of the US under Bush

A public debate, sponsored by The London Review of Books (LRB), which published the Walt and Mearsheimer paper on the Israel Lobby, took place on September 28th 2006 in NYC on the Israel lobby and its place in domestic and foreign US policy.

Elizabeth, who was at the debate, reported on it in one of her September posts.

I found a link to a video of the debate in 11 parts on the website of the LRB and managed to watch it entirely on the weekend.

The panelists were:
John Mearsheimer, one of the authors of the paper on the Israel lobby; Dennis Ross who is at the Washingtom Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-zionist think tank. Ross was, among his many affiliations and assignations, executive director for the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main pro-Israel lobby in washington and signatory of many of the neoconish Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements;
Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel and former research director for AIPAC;
Shlomo Ben Ami, previous minister of public security and foreign minister of Israel in 1999-2000 in the Barak government and peace negotiator during the Madrid and Oslo processes;
Tony Judt, historian, professor and author;
Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor and director of the Middle east Insitute at Columbia University;
The moderator of the debate was Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of public and international affairs at Princeton university.

Almost everybody agreed on the eixstence of the lobby but disagreed on the extent of its influence on domestic and foreign policy. John Mearsheimer and Tony Judt insisted on the importance of a debate on Israel and the Israel lobby in the US and its disconnection from Anti-Semisitsm or incitement to Anti-Semitism. John Mearsheimer repeated with clear arguments his main hypothesis that the Israel lobby is driving US policy in ways that are detrimental to both the US and Israel. Shlomo Ben Ami, while refusing to admit that the lobby has influence on US foreign policy blamed this influence on the weakness of some US presidents like George Bush to face the lobby. I thought that Ben Ami's position was conciliatory and contradictory at the same time. He didn't want to defend the Lobby hypothesis but at the same time he was strongly against present US policy in the ME and ended up contradicting himself on the influence of the lobby because to say that there is a lobby only to the extent US presidents cave in to the lobby is to say that the lobby exists and has influence. Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, both insiders to the lobby, denied that such influence on US foreign policy exists actually but Indyk contradicted himself when Judt reminded him of his op-ed in the WSJ asking AIPAC to lobby the US congress to reroute some funding destined to Israel to compensate Lebanon after the July war. Asked if he thought if the congress would comply to such a demand he didn't give a clear answer but clearly asking the Israel lobby to ask the US congress to cede some of Israel's money to Lebanon is in my opinion a proof that Indyk believes in fact in the power of the Israel lobby to influence decision making in washington, even if he states the contrary. Finally, Rachid Khalidi made an interesting point by stating that the inlfuence of the lobby was exaggerated by Mearsheimer in matters of foreign policy while understated in matter of domestic US policy. Khalidi's statement is interesting because it says that the real influence of the lobby is to silence internal debate on Israel in the US and to ensure maximum financial aid. But this aspect is not disconnected, in my opinion, from the influence of the lobby on US foreign policy in the ME because when the Israel lobby can silence any debate on Israel in the US, Israel can use its force on Arab countries and Palestinians without restraint since it knows very well that the absence of debate in the US will ensure that US public opinion will always side with Israel, and since US public opinion will side with Israel, no matter what, US politicians will not feel pressured to curb Israel's policy in the Middle East toward peace and dialogue or to try to impose any sanctions on Israel in exchange for concessions toward a final solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict. The proof was given by Mearsheimer with the fact that despite all US administrations being against the settlements, seen as an obstacle for peace, there was hardly anything the US could do to extract concessions on this matter from Israel.

The role of Israel in the Iraq war was also discussed and almost everybody agreed that Israel would have preferred going first against Iran but went along as the Bush administration priority was to start with Iraq (understand Cheney's priority), on the condition that Iran and Syria would be next on the list.In this regard, one can consider Israel's war on Lebanon last summer and all what was going on in Lebanon since 2005 as part of a scheme in which the US, embroiled in an unpredictably long war in Iraq, might have given its green light for a war on Lebanon and the Hezbollah as a proxy war against Iran. That makes two failed attempts for the US to reign in on 'axis of Evil countries' while its ally, Israel, has enjoyed, up to now, the mayhem created by the Iraq war to refuse any peace talks with the palestinians and conduct a harsh policy of destruction,targeted killings and elimination of the Palestinians and the Palestine question. Will the US recognize its defeat in Iraq ? Will Israel recognise its defeat in providing the US with a valuable victory over Hezbollah in Lebanon and therefore a proxy defeat of the Iranians? Will they both stop at these defeats or will they pursue another war in the region ?

The time of the Israel Lobby in washington is now counted in my opinion, thanks to the debate that Walt and Mearsheimer started with their paper and there is no doubt that, given the quasi consensus existing in Israel actually about not talking to the Palestinians, the Israel lobby will continue to pursue lobbying for wars in the ME during the Bush administration in order to consolidate Israel's status as the only superpower in the ME. It will be done this way because, as Ben Ami rightly said, it is up to the president of the US to determine what is good for his country and to stand up to the lobby, and Bush is certainly not a man to stand up to the Israel lobby, to any lobby actually, and that is the main feature of his presidency which became a decision center open to all sorts of lobbying, Israel, oil, Christian evangelism, Christian zionism, global economy, etc...This center of power is non existent as a national entity, and, most of all, not preoccupied by a vision that integrates the interests of the US and its citizens... Bush, despite his claims to the contrary, is really the most global non national unpatriotic president, managing his country as one manages a multinational corporation, outsourcing malaise and wars, stiffling critics of his policies, and following the interests of a decentralised globalised entity which has many subsidiaries located everywhere and separated from the interests of the US and its people. The US is an orphan country with a tyrannical stepfather (yes he is a fake father because he was not elected, he was chosen by the supreme court) who sends the children of the country as slaves to wage wars for his subsidiary corporations while collecting his share of the operations...When one thinks of Halliburton, this becomes more than a metaphor, it becomes reality, the sad reality of the US today...And the worst tyranny is the tyranny perpetrated by someone against his own people.

Here is the link for the video of the debate.

An excellent post by Richard at 'How this Old Brit' on how Zionists try to silence Jews like Tony Judt who work against the Israel lobby and want a public debate on the lobby.

How The Israel Lobby Operates in the US: A Practical Example

I found this link on Angry Arab this morning. I was just telling my husband over a breakfast made of Chocolat chaud aztèque and Lebanese pastries (Maamoul)* that one thing is puzzling me in the Bush presidency: not once the citizens of the US or their representatives asked this man what has he done for his country and for its citizens during his six year presidency ? The answer is Nothing. Nada.

But when I read this article I understood a little better why Bush has done nothing for his country. The Bush presidency, more than any other, and because of the influence of the Neocons, was dedicated to Israel and its colonialist hegemonic policies in the ME at the expense of the citizens of the US. It has always been like that but Bush really forgot that there are citizens after all in the country he presides over, except when it comes to sending troops to attack a country that never posed any threat to the US. I was dismayed to read how the Israel lobby operates inside washington in ways not even accessible to US citizens, except big money of course.

I mean how could elected representatives sell themselves to a foreign power and feed its greed on the expense of their own citizens ?

''The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one's opponent.''

*Not a breakfast recommended for dieting but it is minus 18 here in Canada, felt as minus 27 with the windshill, it gives some extra calories to go outside.