Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Tony Judt on The Lobby in the NYT

Tony Judt walks as delicately as possible through the minefield that is discussion of The Lobby.

Thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state. It is already not at all self-evident to Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has America chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international community on this issue? Americans may not like the implications of this question. But it is pressing. It bears directly on our international standing and influence; and it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. We cannot ignore it.


The good news is that article is from The New York Times. Another great quote:

How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was Israel's impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel." Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?


I am too pessimistic to call this progress, but at least it is something.

Comment

NYT

6 Comments:

Blogger Eleanor said...

I especially liked his "straw in the wind" and "end of an era comments." I only disagreed with him when he said the US would probably be in Iraq even without The Lobby. My reasons: 1. We were attacked on 9/11 (See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147) because of our biased support of Israel. This is obviously thanks to The Lobby, and if it were not for 9/11 and the resulting "war on terror," the American people would never have supported a preemptive invasion. 2. It was the Lobby-backed neocon cartel of Perle, Feith, etc which successfully pushed us into war to benefit Israel. 3. If it were not for The Lobby's influence on foreign policy favoring Israel, we would not be so hated in the Middle East and thus at risk for oil embargoes necessitating a military presence there. (China, for example, does not have this problem.)

4/19/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony Judt was on INN World Report yesterday (4/20/06). It was a very interesting interview -- I have tremendous respect for the man by watching the interview.

You should be able to view the show on the INN website by next week by clicking on the TV icon on the left for the 4/29 show:

www.innworldreport.net

4/21/2006 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony Judt was on INN World Report yesterday (Thurs.4/20/06). It was a very interesting interview -- I have tremendous respect for the man by watching the interview.

You should be able to view the show on the INN website by next week by clicking on the TV icon on the left for the 4/20 show:

www.innworldreport.net

4/21/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My reasons: 1. We were attacked on 9/11 (See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147) because of our biased support of Israel.


More like, the US government and the Mossad did 9/11 (they benefitted enormously from it) and blamed Arabs (who obviously suffered greatly from it).

Good info on why the official story is wrong

Evidence implicating Israel/Mossad in 9/11

FOX News special on Israeli espionage relating to 9/11 (video)

Does this sound like a Mossad frame-up of Zacarias Moussaoui to you or what?

4/22/2006 01:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An article a few months ago in the Wall Street Journal described Chinese influence as "exploding" into Africa. Meanwhile, the US does everything it can to alienate Arabs and Muslims. If I were the Chinese, I would be delighted with American foreign policy in this area. There was a lot of chatter lately during Hu's visit to the White House about just how much of a long term threat China poses. At this point, it's hard to say, but doing everything we can to boost Chinese influence in the Muslim world sure won't help. A US policy of non-intervention in the Middle East would not decrease Israel's security in any way and would probably be worth a couple of carrier battle groups in countering Chinese influence in the region.

4/23/2006 02:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a surprising admission, or even acknowledgement of The Lobby's very existence, by the NYT. I agree entirely with eleanor that there is little evidence to support our response to 9/11, or 9/11 itself, would have occurred without US unilateral support for Israel. The real problem, however, is that The Lobby and the NYT have made it impossible in this country to disagree with Israel's foreign policy or our aid to Israel without being labeled an anti-semite. I personally take offense to this as I am a pragmatist and believe that US attention and aid should be proportionally allocated based on population and need. Under this logic, one could never support $5,000 per capita of aid to a country that has a higher per capita income than most but a negligible population (a stunning .08%).

4/24/2006 03:13:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home