archive.stlimc.org : http://archive.stlimc.org
archive.stlimc.org

Chomsky's views on the lobby

The pro-Israel([search]) Lobby is just like any other lobby; it has no special influence or place in US politics.
The power of the groups backing the Israel lobby are no more powerful than other influential pressure groups
The Lobby’s agenda succeeds because it coincides with the interests of the dominant powers and interests of the US State
The Lobby’s weakness is demonstrated by the fact that Israel is ‘merely a tool’ of US empire building to be used when needed and otherwise marginalized.
The major forces shaping US Middle East policy are “big oil” and the “military-industrial complex”, neither of which is connected to the pro-Israel lobby.
The interests of the US generally coincide with the interests of Israel
The Iraq War, the threats to Syria and Iran are primarily a product of “oil interests” and the “military-industrial complex” and not the role of the pro-Israel lobby or its collaborators in the Pentagon and other government agencies.
 

Comments

Re: Chomsky's views on the lobby

Anderson's analytical commentary successfully rebuts most of the standard ZIONIST claims above. Not only is the Israel([search])/Zionist lobby the most feared lobby in American politics (and indeed has a strangle hold on American foreign policy in the Middle East), but as Anderson explicated in his analytical commentary, it is unique in American politics.

But the Zionsts always want you to look the other way: morally, politically, and intellectually.

As for the ZIONIST "oil interests" argument (I know that the big bad oil corporations are always handy and easy red herrings, because their 3rd World practices often are evil), the U.S. has NEVER militarily attacked, invaded and occupied a Middle Eastern oil country to gain access to its oil. None of the M.E. oil countries have their oil privitized (as the U.S. is trying to do in Iraq). ALL the M.E. oil countries (as most all the non-European major oil countries in the entire world) have _nationalized_ their oil (as a national, not private, resource) and the American oil companies work through that route. (As Zbigniev Brzezinski has said, the days of direct European/American colonization are over.) The U.S. merely installs, when necessary and able, some dictator or dictatorial regime, and militarily supports that dictator's/regime's existence in exchange for ready access to oil. So, American oil corporations - which prefer STABILITY over privitization - have no necessary interest in privitizing the oil of any major M.E. oil company.

If "Big Oil" supported this war, they would have occupied Iraq under daddy Bush's presidency (and oil man who had plenty of oil men in his administration). In fact, American oil interests neither called for the Iraq war, nor do they, in general, support the war. Of course, while the Zionist neocons got the U.S. into the war, of course, the Bush & Co. want to plunder Iraq's oil and tried to use it to pay for the war. But, the British finally pulled its military out of the M.E. (before - Blair forgot Britian's earlier historical lesson), they learned before that, as they put it then, you cannot build a stable base on a wasp's (no pun intended) nest.

Finally, as with any protracted war, while a few military was contractors might do well, in a protracted war other military corporations lose contracts or funding, in military cutbacks to pay for a big protracted U.S. war, for the HUGE 'gold-plated' weapons systems that they really make the most money off of that will never be fully tested except on intercontinental doomsday, and then it won't matter whether it works anyway because either way everyone in an industrially developed worthwhile target nation will all be destroyed (along with most of the world's environment) -- rather than replacing low-tech items like trucks, rifles, uniforms, or even a relatively few tanks or helicopters -- and, in fact, some arms industry corporations have been complaining about just that with the Iraq war.

For further reading on this, see online: "A War for Israel" by Jeffrey Blankfort (anti-Zionist Jewish-American anti-war and pro-Palestinian human rights activist).
 

Account Login

Media Centers

Quote-of-the-Moment

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

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software