Stop Me Before I Vote Again

In our lifetimes Israel continues, but it once was not and likely yet will not be, at least as the Jewish state, or Zionist state.

Attention to periodic massacres is unavoidable, useful. Every day one or two here wake up to the reality there and withdraw their reflexive support. (Though none seem ever to achieve election or re-election to legislative office.)

Occasional letters to congress persons elicit responses that would be amusing if the on the ground reality weren't so dire for greater Israel's non-Jewish neighbors.

Agitation must continue, Parmenides.

I'd agree and go one farther, to say that much of what passes for a left is veering in very dangerous (and system-excusing) directions on this topic. Exhibit A is Comrade Petras, he of the "50 year ownership" of the class struggle.

He sounds like Louis Aggassiz these days.

What if the left talked about secular democracy in the ME? That is where the bodies are buried, and Israel doesn't fit the bill any more than the al-Sauds do.

Israel seems to understand it is in an ideological war for legitimacy, carefully building a small army of hasbaratchiks to do battle on the internet. Israel is not as comfortable in its resilience as you seem to be.

Hasbara may be softball bullshit as far as it goes, but as it stands now, hasbara largely frames the debate as far as the American public is concerned, with dissenting voices being confined largely to the internet. Yet you feel the left should remain silent about this?

As far as the way most Americans view Israel, the Zionists have hardly been exposed nor has the corruption of America's special relation with Israel.

@md

Do you have a handy link to an Agassiz == Petras item?

Thanks.

Boink, they post a lot of Petras' "ZPC" stuff over at Dissident Voice. How the notion of a ruling "ZPC" differs from long-standing Protocols kookery, I personally can't tell. Magic Jews casting their spells over our decent non-Jewish social order...

Michael Dawson -- good call on Agassiz. I was just reading about him yesterday... what synchronicity!

Interesting timing. Dive Artist in the Gym?

@MD.

I have partially read at at least one lengthy article over at Dissident Voice, and Petras' concept of a "ZPC" just seems to be his fanciful way of describing the Israel lobby, whose influence over our government and media is clear enough. I don't see him saying anything more radical than Mearsheimer and Walt or any other critics of the lobby's influence in our system. Nor is he denying that there are other, more powerful players in our empire. I certainly don't see him describing an international Jewish conspiracy which is exploiting democracy and liberalism in an effort to impose a worldwide despotism lead by Jews. Indeed, he specifically mentions that the main organs of Zionist influence in the US don't represent the majority of Jews. So I am not clear where the comparison to the Protocols comes from. Can you be more specific, and give a direct reference to what you're talking about?

Sean, I'd say you're reading Petras rather kindly. He says several times that the ZPC controls our Middle East policy. That's an either/or choice, is it not? Either the U.S. ruling class or the ZPC (or somebody else) dominates. Petras says ZPC.

MD -- Bear in mind that "the ruling class" is not a monolith.

Personally, I like tweaking the Zionics, as Owen drolly calls 'em, because you can always get a rise out of 'em. They're much more frightened of plain speech on their pet subject than most other elite elements. Interesting.

Quite true, MJS, but it's a question of representation in the overclass, isn't it? Petras has a solid case that Jews are over-represented in the RC, but he then overstates it and says not only that it's dominant as well as primarily Zionist.

White people are as over-represented in the RC as Jews (and hold a huge numerical majority therein), but nobody would be stupid enough to say the RC puts race ahead of money-making. That's simply counter-factual.

Petras' ZPC stuff also has the effect of wiping away class analysis.

And, as much as I despise Israel and Zionism and agree that they should be slapped down, I think it's not just extremely misleading, but also damned dangerous to try to put Zionism at the center of the left struggle, such as it is.

If Zionism and Israel weren't doing the system immense favors, the Zionist lobby would be about as welcome and powerful as the Sons of Norway.

I don't think the question is quite as binary as you make it out to be, Mike. The Zionists are one of many segments in the ruling elite, and a very powerful one at that. I don't see where Petras is claiming the Zionists dominate the ruling class, that Jews within the ruling elite are all Zionists, or that they dominate all US policy. So I am not sure where the comparison to the Protocols comes from, particularly as the Jews *are* the ruling class according to the Protocols. You see you want to bring down the Zionists, but are you really helping to do that by employing an all too familiar smear tactic against one of their more outspoken critics?

You may be right that Petras overstates the power of the Zionist lobby, but is it any less dangerous to understate it? I think it is extremely dangerous for the left to keep giving Zionists a pass in deference to their "sensitivities" and minimizing the degree to which the Zionist lobby pushed for and achieved a US invasion of Iraq and is now pushing for an invasion of Iran. I think it is dangerous to underestimate the degree to which the powerful pro-Zionist presence in the media coaxes the American people into supporting militarism, capitalism and authoritarianism and voting for political candidates ready to carry water for Israel and the empire. Through their power in the media, academia and finance, there are many quid quo pros the Zionists can offer the rest of the elite in exchange for a blank check in the Mideast.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Israel itself is of any particular use to the empire, yet the empire consistently rubberstamps Israel's agenda. Why is that? What could be gained by pissing off 1.5 billion Muslims, closing off entire markets because Israel doesn't like this country or that, or looking the other way while Israel steals military and civilian technology from the US and exploits it for its own use or sells it to "our" enemies? A recent Pew Research study on the CFR found that less than 4 percent of its members agreed that Israel will be "more important as America's allies and partners" in the future. Pretty hard to make the case the empire supports Israel out of mutual interests. Without the Zionist lobby pulling for it, the empire would have fuck all to do with Israel.

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?tag=pew-research-center

An interesting back and forth MD and Sean.

Time for examples of how Israel does the US 's imperial business in a sufficiently net positive way to explain the tolerance shown it by the US when Israel steals US secrets, etc. Anyone?

Does the Empire actually want regime change in Iran or is it being suckered into pushing that by crafty Zionists in high places? (I mean does the US want regime change ENOUGH to go to war in the current circumstances in Iraq, Af-Pak, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan.)

How does Petras' criticism of the "ZPC" become dangerous to the LEFT?
How would ignoring the Lobby's apparent (and much ballyhooed by the Lobby, but perhaps not real) influence in D.C. help advance a left agenda?

I would really enjoy an airing here of this topic.

I may be more than a little naive about all this but I can't see how Israel and its well organized and vociferous supporters CAN be ignored, even if they are only tools of a greater imperial (and somewhat hidden??!) master. Of course the US is the greater immediate danger to the peace of the world but the Israeli bulldog is nuke capable and there is no project as far as is known to take control of those nukes by "responsible" parties (unlike in Pak).

I haven't read Petras so I can't say anything one way or the other about his stuff. But MD wrote something which is often heard in Left discourse on this subject, and which I think is mistaken:

If Zionism and Israel weren't doing the system immense favors, the Zionist lobby would be about as welcome and powerful as the Sons of Norway.

In fact it's a loose field of formations and coteries, each of them with its own agenda. One element can pursue its pet project to a fare-thee-well without much interference from the others unless and until the others start to think it's creating problems for them.

In fact, as long as the project in question seems unproblematic for other elite elements, they'll actively support it in return for a reciprocal back-scratch on some other project dearer to their own hearts. The Zionists have made a lot of these deals over the years, and so the Middle East is now pretty much their franchise, until they screw the pooch so thoroughly that other elite interests are compromised.

Think of Mafia families -- one controls the numbers, another has the fish market. The Scrovegni have Vegas, the della Scala have Atlantic City. They can muddle along quite well for a long time on this basis, as long as nobody creates a serious problem for anybody else.

MJS, you're right about the cohesiveness of the ruling, no question.

But what cohesion it lacks in interpersonal and ethnic relations, it gains in singularity of institutional purpose and shared core motivation. It's all about the money-generating institutional structure, and the demand that it keep chinging out the payments to property owners.

As to the connection to the Protocols, Petras is flirting very closely with racial politics as a substitute for class politics. There is such a thing as anti-Jew-ism. I'm not comfortable with the solidity of the wall between that and anti-Zionism.

And that's because I don't see Zionism as being dominant outside of Israel, which continues to live by cashing our checks and enjoying our military guarantees.

As to the ways in which Israel does the bidding of the primary beneficiaries of U.S. corporate capitalism, here's my list:

1. ensuring irrational cultural politics will trump secular democratic demands and class politics -- the obvious first demand of which would be greatly increased pricing of "our oil," the core substance, along with human labor, in "our economy"

2. an excuse for military threats against "our enemies," including the rise of Shiite power, which threatens "our ally" Saudi Arabia, among others

3. military basing/airspace

4. military water-carrying (e.g., attacks on popular forces in Lebanon)

5. demand for arms from "our industry"

6. excuse for "needing" permanent bases in the region, which "we" actually need to police against sprouts of secular democracy and the designs of China and other future competitors in an epoch of peaking oil supplies

7. device for perpetuating religion, jingoism, and white supremacy inside "our country"

8. source of regional spying data

9. guilting the Euros, doers of the Holocaust, into collaborating with our ME policies

10. preventing the threat of a good example: Overturning Israeli apartheid and creating prosperity and democracy for Palestinians would set a major example for poor and oppressed folks around the world.

Against this, Petras would have us believe that the world's most powerful and inflexible exploiters are being somehow tricked into letting 2 percent of the population substitute their desires at the expense of ours. I don't buy that at any level.

Forgot a couple biggies:

11. excellent vehicle for sustaining the vendetta against Iran, which, if you remember your history, you know is at least as much ours as much as it is Israel's

12. excellent generator of terrorist blowback, which justifies the Pentagon, the constant growth of which "our" system utterly requires

Here's a question for Petras fans:

Would you attend an "anti-Zionist" rally?

I wouldn't.

Who is speaking at this anti-zionist rally?
Who is organizing it?

Is the threat that mainstream opinion will likely label such an event as anti-semitic a reason not to participate?

Is it practically impossible to be anti-zionist without being labeled anti-semitic? If so, who makes it that way and why?

I assume Petras is the keynote speaker, since he's the one trying to get the left to make Zionism its core enemy. What warm-up speakers he'd invite is one of the many, many interesting items to ponder...

I would happily attend a rally to disinvest and cut off Israel, on the grounds that it's a criminally rogue state that refuses to sign the NPT and cooperate with international demands for a return to its pre-1967 borders. I assume such a rally would be pointing out that the same goes for the USA, and and ending our wars would also be on the rally's agenda.

But attacking Zionism, rather than Israel, strikes me as being step one onto the all-slip, no-grip slope of cultural politics. People have the human right to be Zionists (or American jingoists), if they so desire or can't help. They don't have the right to do what Israel and the USA are doing.

For the left to being flirting with flushing this distinction between culture/beliefs/politics and behavior/action/institutions is not just a sign of how little we've learned from our own history, but damned, damned scary. To borrow an old line, who do you think they'll come after next, if political belief is to become the basis of punishment?

And I still think laying Israel at the doorstep of Zionists would be a huge favor to our own overclass. Anti-Zionism paints Zionists as bad apples spoiling the barrel, rather than useful provocateurs for the empire.

P.S. If you doubt my last point, go look at how much the aspiring anti-Zionist rabble hate Chomsky, whom they paint as a closet Zionist.

Mr. Dawson:
Would you refuse to attend an anti-KKK rally (assume the KKK were still blowing up Black people) on the same grounds?

There is such a thing as anti-Jew-ism. I'm not comfortable with the solidity of the wall between that and anti-Zionism.

I am. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, but 99 out of 100 accusations of anti-Semitism are bullshit smears used to silence critics of Israel. Many of the rest are exaggerated. Bogus cries of anti-Semitism have been abused to the point no honest person can take accusations of anti-Semitism at face value, and should reject them out of hand barring a high standard of proof.

There is also such a thing as anti-Muslim hate propaganda, and I see plenty of this being broadcast freely in the media and taught in our educational system, largely by Zionists and pro-Zionists. You can't publicly make the startling observation that using white phosphorous against schoolkids is a war crime without being accused of anti-Semitism. But you can sponsor "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" on campus, or write books about the "Clash of Civilizations" and the alleged Muslim threat to "Eurabia," and people will call you an intellectual and a genius. I don't see most leftists getting their panties in a knot over the absurd anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the Arabs and Muslims are waging a jihad to conquer the West, destroy Western civilization and make us all dhimmis. So when it comes to Zionists and their "crocodile tears," I'm with this guy:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/finkelstein-says-no-to-crocodile-tears.html

Zionism is not a benign ideology. Israel is a reality, and the nature and design of Israel as a Jewish majority, Jewish-supremacist state is unquestionable. All this stuff about the Jews having a homeland where they could live in peace with their neighbors as equals is ancient history. Few Zionist leaders ever embraced such a cosmopolitan vision as anything but a passing fancy, if at all. The idea was always to establish a Jewish majority state where the Jews would be dominant, and since there was no country on Earth that met that criteria, some means of "transferring" or ethnically cleansing the natives was always on the agenda. The Zionist ideal of Israel could not, and can not, be achieved without ethnic cleansing and the continuing oppression of the Palestinians and theft of their land. Zionism, properly understood, is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism and is little different in character than white supremacism. So forgive those of us in the anti-Zionist rabble for calling bullshit on that.

As for leftists "hating" Chomsky, I think that's an exaggeration at best, a smear at worst. Chomsky has some good things to say, but no one is obligated to agree with him on everything but his fanboys. His critics usually defer to him on other issues. Chomsky has himself admitted he is a Zionist and and warned his readers that might influence his views. His peculiar view that Israel is some poor little kapo being pressed into service by the US to do its evil deeds as a condition of its survival has been roundly refuted by many on the left, including Alexander Cockburn. Jeffrey Blankfort's analysis of Chomsky on the power of the Israel lobby is particularly convincing:

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html

It should be noted that Chomsky opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and the one-state solution being pushed by Palestinians nowadays, and he supported the color revolution in Iran.

I keep getting a "Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner." I get this instantly so I suspect there might be a bug here. The comment is kinda long. Could that be a problem?

That's a nice logical point you almost score there, Boink, but you are begging the question at hand.

Is US policy in the Middle East and regarding Israel dominated by imperial capitalism, or by Zionism? Is Zionism running things, or is it a useful idiot?

The choice you make is extremely important. If there were a coherent left, it would be even more so. And freakish, closet-liberal ravings about Zionism are at least arguably one of the reasons a coherent left doesn't exist.

P.S. Here's a response I drew over on MRZine, from somebody calling themselves "unity against zionism and their agents":

"Feminism and secularism like phony 'human rights' are CIA trademarks. We never follow zionist/imperialist instructions for world domination. The author can speak for herself but she is not welcome in Iran or other Islamic countries. She like other zionists/imperialist agents is helping the West agenda for world government. Feminism was high jacked by CIA by presenting its spy and agent Gloria Steinem to prevent radicalization of women’s movement. I was laughing at Iranian women when they were ‘studying’ the CIA agent’s instructions, Gloria Steinem written rubbish. Iranian abroad can be as foolish as the rest of the population."

Quite a rich stew, this "anti-Zionism," isn't it?

There is such a thing as anti-Jew-ism. I'm not comfortable with the solidity of the wall between that and anti-Zionism.

I am. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, but 99 out of 100 accusations of anti-Semitism are bullshit smears used to silence critics of Israel. Many of the rest are exaggerated. Bogus cries of anti-Semitism have been abused to the point no honest person can take accusations of anti-Semitism at face value, and should reject them out of hand barring a high standard of proof.

There is also such a thing as anti-Muslim hate propaganda, and I see plenty of this being broadcast freely in the media and taught in our educational system, largely by Zionists and pro-Zionists. You can't publicly make the startling observation that using white phosphorous against schoolkids is a war crime without being accused of anti-Semitism. But you can sponsor "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" on campus, or write books about the "Clash of Civilizations" and the alleged Muslim threat to "Eurabia," and people will call you an intellectual and a genius. I don't see most leftists getting their panties in a knot over the absurd anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the Arabs and Muslims are waging a jihad to conquer the West, destroy Western civilization and make us all dhimmis. So when it comes to Zionists and their "crocodile tears," I'm with this guy:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/finkelstein-says-no-to-crocodile-tears.html

Part 2

Zionism is not a benign ideology. Israel is a reality, and the nature and design of Israel as a Jewish majority, Jewish-supremacist state is unquestionable. All this stuff about the Jews having a homeland where they could live in peace with their neighbors as equals is ancient history. Few Zionist leaders ever embraced such a cosmopolitan vision as anything but a passing fancy, if at all. The idea was always to establish a Jewish majority state where the Jews would be dominant, and since there was no country on Earth that met that criteria, some means of "transferring" or ethnically cleansing the natives was always on the agenda. The modern Zionist ideal of Israel could not, and can not, be achieved without ethnic cleansing and the continuing oppression of the Palestinians and theft of their land. Zionism, properly understood, is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism and is little different in character than white supremacism. So forgive those of us in the anti-Zionist rabble for calling bullshit on that.

As for leftists "hating" Chomsky, I think that's an exaggeration at best, a smear at worst. Chomsky has some good things to say, but no one is obligated to agree with him on everything but his fanboys. His critics usually defer to him on other issues. Chomsky has himself admitted he is a Zionist and and warned his readers that might influence his views. His peculiar view that Israel is some poor little kapo being pressed into service by the US to do its evil deeds as a condition of its survival has been roundly refuted by many on the left, including Alexander Cockburn. Jeffrey Blankfort's analysis of Chomsky on the power of the Israel lobby is particularly convincing:

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html

It should be noted that Chomsky opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and the one-state solution being pushed by Palestinians nowadays.

MD:
It does seem that the Israel lobby in your reading is a sort of front organization for the some completely, fundamentally, non-pro-Israel imperial elite. Who is in this elite and what besides money and power (if anything) are their allegiances? The fact that many who would qualify are proud, vociferous Zionists is, it appears, beside the point, just .... what? ... an mask they put on, to distract idiots like me?

No one here, unless you, has suggested punishing Zionists for anything. Opposing, exposing, educating, rallying against is not punishment.

correction: "a mask" not "an mask"

Gloria Steinem did receive funding from the CIA at one time. Neo-Nazi Hal Turner has recently been exposed as an agent provocateur for the FBI. On his radio program he urged his followers to kill noted anti-Zionists like Cynthia McKinney and Max Blumenthal. I can think of a lot of reasons why the FBI might want to target anti-Zionists, but not a one for a Nazi to do so.

If we're going to play guilt by association games, let's throw anti anti-Zionists like Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz into the stew as well.

Chomsky was a Zionist as a kid. He's not now. Basic fact, Sean.

And as to Steinem, who cares? That was hardly the point of the comment, which said feminism and secularism are U.S./CIA conspiracies. Should I also mention the "world government" paranoia?

And Boink, you simply seem to be confused. I'm not denying that Zionists exist and are quite evil and vocal. But the Middle East is where "our oil" lies. What do you think that means to the power elite and the construction of U.S. policy? You think this is something they are lightly tricked into ruining by some foreign lobbyists?

And the U.S. ruling class is simply not majority-Zionist. It isn't. Not even close.

MD:
After reading your take on Petras I admit to some confusion. With some people of subtle cast of mind everything-is-something-else that only They can perceive accurately. The difficulty is in persuading others that this is the case, especially when the others are only simple thinkers. Thus the necessity of the Vanguard.

Is it plausible that the ruling class forms policy along majoritarian lines? When and where do they hold their plebiscites?