The Elders of Zion Strike Again?

On Sunday night I had the opportunity to attend a dinner with Stephen Zunes at which he spoke on what we can expect in terms of US-ME policy in the Age of Obama. The occasion gave me an opportunity to revisit the controversy that surrounded the John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt argument that the pro-Israel lobby weilds a "heavy - and malign influence upon the formulation of US Middle East policy."

In terms of the Mearsheimer-Walt argument, it was of course refreshing to hear the obvious stated by the Deans of the Realist school of International Relations. But many of those who have spent decades studying the effects of US policy in the Middle East objected strongly to the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, in that it overstated the influence of the Lobby and overlooked other factors such as American long-standing hegemonic designs in the region. What many of these critiques (from the Left) take special exception to, is the notion the US invaded Iraq because top level policymakers are beholden to the Lobby, and were therefore led to wage a war of aggression to "make Israel more secure" (in the words of Mearsheimer and Walt). For these critics, the Iraq invasion and other such policies must be explained in terms of US Grand Strategy- control of oil resources and access to military bases. In the words of Joseph Massad: "it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around."

But I wonder, if the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis is overstated, then how do we explain Obama's June 4 address to AIPAC? I don't believe that that speech can be accounted for in terms of US Grand Strategy - I think there is something more insidious at work - it has to do with the position of Palestine within the dominant American political culture and the structure of the American state. I think we need to step back from the structural realism (though I am, for the most part, a structural realist...) of Hans Morgenthau, and look closely at American class structure and the nature of bureaucratic politics in the US.

I believe that there is a danger, in the analysis of Massad, Zunes, Plitnick and Toesing, et al., of overstating the rationality and coherence of the American State and its Grand Strategic Designs. There is a danger of reifying the State and its interests, and assuming that said interests (economic, security, or otherwise) are natural, self-evident, or can somehow be logically deduced from the structure of the international system, rather than seeing said interests as socially constructed in a process that is as much discursive as it is material.

To my way of thinking, it is not Israel as such (a strategic object on a Grand Chess Board), but rather "Israel" as a symbol of American nationalism -- the cultural resonance of the New Jerusalem and the City on the Hill run deep among America's dominant social groups -- Israel as a symbol of strength and continued expansion in the post-Vietnam era when apparitions of American hegemonic decline haunt all policymakers. Unconditional ("non-negotiable") support for Israeli expansion has become code for continuity with the the 500 year American tradition of frontier expansion. By supporting Israeli colonization efforts, US policymakers signal their own commitment to "strength" in the face of "barbarism." It seems to me that a radical redefinition of the terms of American nationalism is in order if we're to see a truly transformative change in American politics and society. Until we (the Left) confront the pernicious cultural hegemony of Manifest Destiny and its Evil Twin Zionism, we'll remain ineffective in the face of the organized Money Power of The Lobby- and Palestinians will continue to pay a price in blood for our cowardice.

The Power behind the Throne

Is it me, or did Cheney's nod off at Bush's farewell address appear a deliberate affront to the impetuous half-wit that mans the storefront. Cheney's got about as much interest in the spotlight as a shitake mushroom, but you've got to guess that even he gets a little bored with hearing one of Yale's finest wax poetic about the virtues of perpetual peace and the the expansion of liberty, blah, blah, blah...

American Dynasty: Gone but not Forgotten (that is till Jeb gets his turn at the plate...)

Once again its Alexander Cockburn who offers the insightful observations and asks the important questions:

I’ve always been a fan of George Bush, on the simple grounds that the American empire needs taking down several notches and George Jr has been the right man for the job. It was always odd to listen to liberals and leftists howling about Bush’s poor showing, how he’d reduced America’s standing in the family of nations. Did the Goths fret at the manifest weakness of the Emperor Honorius and lament the lack of a robust or intelligent Roman commander?

As a continental transplant Cockburn is well qualified to engage in a little Royalty watching:

Was this doggedly incompetent saboteur of empire an “accident” of history, born of hanging chads in Florida in 2000 and the ruthless competence of James Baker in outmaneuvering Al Gore’s efforts to claim the White House amid the Forida recounts?

Blame first his mother, Barbara Bush, an unpleasant creature who never forgave George Sr for dragging her from behind the lace curtains of respectability in Connecticut to West Texas where she endured the miseries of a frontier wife, helpmeet to a failed wildcatter. She let her hair go white, grieved for the daughter that died and snarled at the lads while her faithless husband gadded about the world. It was Barbara who gave George his petty, mean-spirited vindictiveness and George Sr who passed on the relentless philistinism. Blame Laura who took in hand the lay-about cokehead of the Houston years and nudged him into politics.

How did it all go so terribly wrong?

Bush passed his final White House years in morose seclusion, despised by all, obeyed by none – a welcome rebuke to the concept of “unitary power” and an omnipotent executive.

Now Obama proclaims his mission of renewing America, always a sinister prospect. We’re heading back in to the high country of moral uplift, and dispiriting talk of America’s “mission”. I live in hopes of an acrid manuscript from Laura Bush, blaming everything on Dick Cheney.

The Mysterious General Jones

Who is General Jones? Why is there so little reporting on this figure? Why did Chevron and Boeing want him on their Boards of Directors? Why did the Chamber of Commerce want him as CEO and President of its Institute for 21st Century Energy? Why does Obama want him as his "National Security Advisor"?

In a similar vein, who called upon W. to let him know that Rummy had become a major liability to the Empire's image and that it was time to bring in a "grown-up" to head the Pentagon. Obviously, on a metaphoric level it was Daddy Bush. But how exactly was that decision made and by whom? I suspect that it was the same network that "reached out" to Obama to let him know that it might be a good idea to keep Gates on for the long-haul. I think this is where we'll find the Shadow State -- the Deep State. This is where we find the structural continuities animating US policy. We have a ruling class that dominates the state apparatus, and controls its bureaucratic inner-workings. The 30%-40% of Americans who participate in America's periodic elec-shams choose from among candidates selected by the ruling class.

There is a pernicious myth that surrounds the "power of the presidency." The presidency has increasingly become an object of veneration in our postmoderrn celebrity culture. Obama feeds, and feeds on, this myth when he declares: "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost, it comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."

President's, particularly attractive ones, help sell copies of People Magazine, but they also operate within severely constrained institutional confines. We don't have an "imperial presidency" in practice. Only in symbol. The All Powerful Presidency is a useful myth for the shadow network of forces that actually controls the bureaucracy. We have Government by (anonymous, unelected) Committee hiding behind a figurehead.

















Amy Goodman on why having a Chevron Exec serving as "National Security Adviser" is not a good idea; and Steve Weissman on the dangers of Jones' brand of "Kool-Aid."

Change you can predict?

Talk about government of AIPAC, by AIPAC, and for AIPAC. Wow:

First Joe "I am a Zionist" Biden as Veep, Rahm Israel Emanuel as CoS, Hillary "let's build and Apartheid Wall and invade Iraq" Clinton as SecState, and Joe "let's save Western Civ from Islamo-Fascism" Leiberman as a top "Dem" on the hill... Where will "AIPAC's lawyer" Dennis Ross (the one who wrote Obama's AIPAC speech) end up?

oh but not to worry, Obama's read Team of Rivals... so he has a healthy respect for having diversity of opinions around him: I'm sure a breakthrough in America's relationship with the Mid East is just around the corner.... "change" (you can believe in) is coming. i'm sure Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bob Malley, Bill Quandt, Bill and Kathleen Christi will be given a "seat at the table" and will be able to "balance out" out the AIPAC hawks in the room... yeah, and I've got a mortgage backed security to sell you.... what was it they were were so fond of saying back in the 60s, something about, "we turned a corner," or something about a "light at the end of the tunnel," or "critical turning point" .... something like that. something to the effect of: just be patient, "change" is coming, we're winning, so sit down, shut up and don't ask any questions...

but you know, on second thought, maybe the Dems are right. Bipartisanship IS, after all, a supreme virtue. how else would we have gotten the joys of the Cold War, the GWOT, the Patriot Act, the $700 billion bank heist, ect.... Maybe we shouldn't "look back, we want to look forward," right? yeah that's great logic. why would anyone ever want to look backward? What could you possibly learn by looking backward? Forget about the past. the past is over. It has nothing to do with the present. What good could possibly come from looking back to (say) america's experience with Vietnam? The Phillipines, El Salvador, or countless other places (Alabama, Ukiah, etc...)? What could we possibly learn by looking at those sad and "divisive" experiences in American history? Can't the Republicans and the "Me Too Party" just get along? Why on earth should a "people of plenty" ever become engaged in any kind of social conflict?

The Christisons are not exactly enamoured with this logic.

Bill and Kathleen Christison are ashamed to say that years ago they were both analysts with the CIA. In recent years Bill has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies, while Kathleen for over 30 years has written on Middle East Affairs. She is the author of two books on Palestinians and U.S. policy on Palestine-Israel. Bill and Kathleen visit Palestine frequently and are joint authors of a book, forthcoming in mid-2009 from Pluto Press, on the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinians, with over 50 of their photographs.