finkelstein at lse

Talk:

Q&A:

HarperSmythe (a guardian commentator)

source

From the book Boomerang: The Failure of Leadership In the Second Intifada by Ofer Shelah and Raviv Drucker, presently only available in Hebrew, describing a meeting between the then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who the Israel lobby considered to be the ‘weak link’ in the chain of more Israel-friendly Bush Administration officials, and Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, who is a prominent member of what in Israel is called the “Jewish lobby” (and on Capitol Hill is simply called “The Lobby”):

In his [Powell's] own State Department there was a keen awareness of the strength of the Jewish lobbyists. Secretaries of State did not usually meet with lobbyists, but both Jewish officials and Jews that did not officially represent specific groups from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League to Ronald Lauder, could meet with Powell on short notice. At the State Department, Foxman had an aura of omnipotence. He was held responsible for the appointment of Martin Indyk as Undersecretary of State under Clinton, and was thought to have played a role in the appointments of Secretaries of State Christopher and Albright. Powell related to Foxman almost as if he were someone to whom he must capitulate. Once Foxman told one of his deputies that Powell was the weak link. When the Secretary of State heard this he began to worry. He knew that in Washington a confrontation with the Jewish lobby would make his life difficult. Once he arranged a meeting with Foxman, but the busy Foxman postponed the meeting three times. When they eventually met, the head of the Anti-Defamation League apologized to the Secretary of State [for the postponements]. ‘You call, we come,’ replied Powell, paraphrasing a well known advertisement for a freight company.

Shelah and Drucker are perfectly mainstream, respectable journalists. They are not left-wing, they are not paleo-conservatives, they are well known investigative journalists. Their book was a best-seller in Israel and well reviewed. The notion that the Israeli lobby controls US foreign policy in the Middle East is not at all controversial inside Israel. It’s something that is just accepted and widely known. I worked in Washington in the mid-late 80s and often had to meet with congressional aides from both parties. It was simply a basic, accepted fact that when it came to the Middle East, no congressman, no one from the administration did anything without the consultation and approval of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC and the ADL principally. It is their policy prescriptions, their analyses, their personnel and recommendations who control what ultimately comes out of Washington. That’s why that out of the thousands of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, there was and continues to be only one just called “The Lobby.” Everyone knows what that means. When AIPAC has its conferences/special events, top leaders from both parties are required to attend. If they don’t, they have to explain why. No other lobby (not even the 2nd most powerful, the NRA) has that kind of pull. Inside Capitol Hill, this is just a basic reality. I often use the the term “Israeli-occupied territory” when referring to Capitol Hill and the White House, but it wasn’t Buchanan nor anyone on the Left who invented that term. That term was first used by cabinet members of the Reagan administration. Bush Sr. famously had to back down publicly when he committed a major faux-pas during his attempts to negotiate a Middle East settlement. He complained to the press one day that he felt surrounded and pressured by agents wanting to control his administration’s policy. Everyone in Washington knew he was right but it’s not something you can actually say in public. His crime was that he was trying to persuade Israel to stop building settlements and start negotiating an end to the occupation. Well he was shut up very quickly and his efforts came to a very quick end. It is a fact that the rightwing Miami Cubans control US foreign policy towards Cuba, and have enormous influence in US foreign policy towards the Caribbean and Central America. There is nothing controversial about this, it is simply basic, accepted fact. No one in Washington denies this. No one who really knows anything about US foreign policy denies this. It is no different with Israel and the Middle East.

galbi : imperialist jet-trash mix

a short answer to rabbinical tyranny

“Learn HEBREW FAST with MASTER LANGUAGE (20 CDs & 1 Books based course)”
Foreign Service Institute; Paperback & CDs £32.99
Sold by: Amazon.co.uk

all time general purpose jewish retort

After reading 60+ posts, very few have to do with Mr. Melman’s opinion, rather, they are thinly veiled attacks at “Israeli’s”, Jew’s in general. It must be hard to conceal your burning, anonymous hatred that continues to feed from your disappointments in life (passed over for a promotion–boss or business owner is Jewish, didn’t get accepted to the University of your choice-too many smart Jews, got laid off–because the economic downturn was caused by the secret band of wealthy Jews that control all!…etc) Hate does seem to help you maintain focus, keep things straight, explain the unexplainable. Stick with it. Why? Because, it only solidifies our identity which bleeds towards a complacent death everyday in America’s openness and acceptance. Thank you

- comment by commenter ‘Ben’ about the entry ‘Report Could Derail Mideast Peace Process’ in Yossi Melman at PostGlobal on January 30, 2008 6:08 PM source

natural reaction

settlers firing on palestinian shepherds

to take with a pinch of salt

US plays matchmaker to Pakistan, Israel
M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times (extract)

Geopolitics around Pakistan are taking dramatic turns. Details are emerging of a meeting between Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. A spin has been given that Musharraf and Barak had a “chance encounter” in a hotel lobby in Paris. It stretches credulity. Israeli media since revealed that Musharraf placed his hand on Barak’s shoulder as the latter praised the Pakistani leader for his role in the “war on terror”. The following day, Barak had an hour-long meeting with Musharraf at the latter’s invitation.

In all probability, Israel’s close ally on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, the resourceful US Senator Joseph Lieberman, who visited Pakistan as a state guest in early January, put together the Musharraf-Barak meeting. Lieberman’s native ingenuity is legion. Recently, the conservative Democratic Connecticut senator explained to the Jerusalem Post newspaper his unorthodox decision to endorse the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. By using a very orthodox metaphor, the one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee apparently explained: “The rabbis say in the Talmud that a lot of rabbinic law is to put a fence around the Torah so you don’t get near to violating it.”

Both Pakistan and Israel have reason to upgrade the level of their interaction. A good clue is available from Lieberman’s itinerary in Islamabad, which included two unusual appointments for a visiting US senator. Lieberman had separate meetings with Pakistani army chief General Parvez Kiani and the director general of the Strategic Planning Division (SPD) , Lieutenant General (retired) Khalid Ahmad Kidwai. Following these meetings on January 9, Lieberman paid handsome compliment to the SPD’s professional capability in managing the command and control system for the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. “I am deeply impressed by the professionalism of the team headed by the general [Kidwai] to secure the nuclear assets of Pakistan,” he said. The SPD went out of the way to give a detailed briefing to Lieberman.

The Pakistani intention was clear – Lieberman would transmit the impressions of his visit to Israel. Islamabad has been visibly edgy about the orchestrated media campaign in recent weeks that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of jihadi elements. Anyone could tell from a mile that the campaign stank. Pakistan was being threatened that it was about to be stripped of its crown jewels. It was hardly justified and was manifestly an attempt at blackmail. First of all, as a BBC analyst put it in a commentary on this theater of the absurd, “Few believe Islamists could take power in Pakistan.” Second, Pakistan’s nuclear potential poses no more serious risks than the nuclear potentials of India or Israel or Russia or the US. Besides, Pakistan hasn’t been tardy at all in constantly improving the security of its nuclear weapons. Finally, unless some superior foreign power succeeds in systematically degrading the Pakistani army, its capacity to be the custodian of the country’s national security is never in doubt.

But Islamabad has felt the need to factor in what has come to be known as the “Osirak contingency”. In their masterly work Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy, authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark have named top-level Indian sources, who previously served in key positions in the government, as admitting that Delhi closely worked with Israel on more than one occasion over plans to attack Pakistan’s nuclear installations. Of course, an apocalyptic conflagration of such a kind is simply unthinkable in today’s circumstances when all three – Israel, Pakistan and India – are full nuclear powers, but like any military establishment would do, Rawalpindi, the site of the headquarters of the Pakistan armed forces, is bound to plan against a worst-case scenario. Furthermore, there is always a new angle in a future context – Israel could harbor misgivings that fissile materials out of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities might find their way to Iran. Evidently, Islamabad decided it was useful to level with Israel so that misconceptions did not arise. In diplomatic parlance, Musharraf’s meeting with Barak has been a timely CBM (confidence-building measure). (More likely they are coordinating their stories on the sibel edmonds matter – RB)

the gaza wall

minimal compact : inner station