Without the Israel lobby

No one I am aware of has ever argued that absent the Israeli Lobby the US would suddenly turn into Sweden. What critics do argue is that absent the lobby there would be an open debate in the mainstream media, that the Palestinian viewpoint might actually be represented, that Congress might actually raise the issue with their constituents instead of solely the Israeli lobby. In short, that we the people, win or lose, might actually have a voice in our own foreign policy. While such a debate played a vital role in the fight against Reagan's brutal policies in Central America, it was crucial to the victory over South African apartheid. While the Reagan administration supported the apartheid regime, the American people came to feel different and forced the policy to change. This was accomplished only through the free and open exchange of information, the very thing the Israeli lobby works so hard to stifle.

Is support of Israel([search]) in America's interest? George C Marshall in 1948 certainly didn't think so. As secretary of state for Harry Truman, Marshall argued angrily against recognition of Israel. He claimed it would be a betrayal of our interests in the Middle East, that we would be hated soundly for it, that the region would be plunged into warfare for a century or more. Why, he asked the president, are you doing this? To which Truman famously replied, "I have no Arab supporters amongst my constituency." Even then, the Israeli lobby.

Account Login

Media Centers


An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software