In fact Chomsky has not changed his mind. He answered exactly this question last Sunday in Boston and downplayed the importance of a Jewish cabal or organized Jewish lobby.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have to take serious exception to Mr. Noble's characterization of anti-Zionist protestors in Seattle as "vipers." I was at the protest he is referring to, and they were the only people who brought up the issue of Israel's involvement in the war. They were well received by most other protesters, and when some pro-Zionist "ARA" types verbally assaulted and threatened them, the Muslims in the march started a chant to drown out the hateful threats and slurs.

As for the website Mr. Noble mentions, I first linked to it from Israel Shamir's website if I remember correctly. I don't really care much about David Duke either way, yet I don't see how the truth could be any less true simply because he is speaking it.

Unfortunately, the usual anti-war protesters in Seattle have failed again and again to adequately address the issue of Zionism. Perhaps this is because Seattle is a provincial town that is slow to pick up on political trends, or perhaps it is because people on the "left" in Seattle care more about gay pride than they do about children being killed with the tacit approval of the United States.

I find it ironic that Mr. Noble chooses to characterize those protesting Zionism as a "nest of vipers," given that those were the words used by Christ to condemn the pharisees, the spiritual antecedents of the current generation of Zionist vipers that relishes in its blood-soaked power.

The people slurring legitimate protests against Zionism in Seattle are the same who are calling Wendy Campbell a nazi in San Francisco. They are the failures Mr. Neumann so eloquently described, and they are just one more obstacle in the path toward peace.

In conclusion, I would like to include a verse from the book of Matthew; one which I believe honors the sacrifice made by several young Americans in recent weeks:

Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicks under her wing - Matthew 23:37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I fully agree with Elias Davidson that it is wrong to suppose there is a simple, monolithic entity, that is <<the Jews>>. However, by using the term in a way that presupposes a monolith, Blankfort is merely accepting thoughtlessly the fundamental premise of Zionist propaganda. Above all, Zionist propaganda seeks to convince people who consider themselves Jewish that all the world is hopping from foot to foot, eager to send them to the gas chambers. Today's constant barrage of <<news>> reports, movies, novels and television programs about the Nazi Holocaust 60 years ago is aimed at uniting Jews behind Zionism. The propaganda has the unfortunate effect of deceiving many of its Jewish recipients, and many in the non-Jewish public that overhears it. The paranoia is intended to create a coherent <<Jewish community>> of support for the genocidal aims of Zionism. It creates the very anti-Jewish loathing that it pretends to deplore, but, in fact, nobody is happier about anti-Jewish anti-Semitism than the Zionists, because it confirms their argument that all the world threatens <<the Jews>>, who therefore require a refuge in Palestine, even though, regrettably, they must reproduce the Nazi Holocaust against the Palestinians to achieve it.

Elias's argument that there is a class of non-Jewish rich people in the United States who could stand against the Zionist millionaires and billionaires is simply naive. As Blankfort noted, almost half the billionaires are Jewish, and those who are not lack the single minded Zionist fanaticism of AIPAC and the MEGA group of Jewish tycoons. Elias is mistaken to suggest that the non-Jewish billionaires in America care at all about the atrocities the US government funds in Palestine. They are no political counterweight to the Zionist billionaires because they are not united and, besides, they have no desire to oppose the Zionists. Although people who consider themselves Jewish are only two percent of the US population, 40 percent of the 400 richest Americans identified by Forbes Magazine consider themselves Jewish. And, unfortunately, they do yield to the racist propaganda of Zionism in numbers in which, fortunately, white Protestants do not yield to the racist propaganda of the Ku Klux Klan. And clearly their money does control the US government as Blankfort demonstrates, and the media, as Eric Alterman has demonstrated.

But I think we must make the intellectual effort, in all of our discourse, to penetrate Zionist propaganda, just as we penetrate Ku Klux Klan propaganda. To be a Jew is not to be a Zionist any more than to be a white Protestant is to be a Ku Kluxer. Hence, if we are to overcome the paranoia that is the bedrock of US Jewish support for the Zionist Holocaust in Palestine, we must attack the big lie that all Jews are perforce Zionist. We must attack the Zionist lie that Judaism is monolithic, because the purpose of that lie is to create a monolith. To destroy that big lie will be to liberate Jews from the monolithic paranoia that is the substance of popular Zionism. Most American Jews do not subscribe to the Master Race superstition of Sharon and the Likud, but they have been immersed all their lives in the bath of Nazi Holocaust mythology, a mythology that is particularly puissant because of its roots in historical reality. We must understand that 50 years of Zionist propaganda have been tremendously effective - not surprisingly, given the Zionist virtual monopoly over American print, broadcast and film media. We must understand therefore that the fears of the people among us who call themselves Jewish are genuine, subjective fears, and no less so because they are without objective foundation. We must be careful in our discourse to distinguish the racist reincarnation of Nazism that is Zionism from the religion that is Judaism, which has its decent and despicable adherents, just like all other religions.

John Wheat Gibson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Israel,

When Chomsky suggests that the Israeli lobby would be unlikely to have the influence that it does unless the U.S. economic/power elite perceived that Israel serves its interests, Chomsky engages in a fairly traditional economic-class analysis. That analysis provides a powerful explanation. Blankfort, however, suggests that Chomsky's analysis is somehow meant to absolve Jews of any need to feel responsible for Israel's atrocities. That contention is not credible.

Chomsky has consistently and stridently criticized Israel and its Jewish/American supporters. Blankfort suggests that the power elite has embraced Israel primarily because it has been bullied by the Israeli lobby. Although that contention has a grain of truth, it is far too simplistic. A comparison with the Black lobby is illuminating. Groups that lobby for African-American issues have been quite successful in encouraging an appearance of tolerance and support. Overtly racist comments are often severely attacked and reprimanded (note the Trent Lott travesty). Yet, in recent years the Black lobby has been notably unsuccessful in getting the substance of its policies adopted. Why? Because the power elite does not perceive those policies to be in its interest. The Israeli lobby probably can bully American politicians into moderating the tone of the debate. But it is difficult to imagine that policy makers would continue to support an Israel in conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors as long as it has and to the extent that it does unless they believed that a militant Israel furthered the interests - not only of the Israeli lobby - but also of the American power elite.

The topic is complex, of course, and I do not intend to write another essay. I believe, however, that Blankfort's criticisms of Chomsky, while interesting, do not give a fair hearing to Chomsky's position.

James Essig

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hello all,

I totally agree with Andrew Hanos about Michael Neumann's strategy - that it is complete genious! Unlike the endless recounting of all the atrocities Israel commits against the Palestinians under false and selfish pretenses and just moaning and groaning about it, and unlike the illogic of so many leftists of placing all the blame on the US for the genocide of Palestinians at the hands of Israel (which has up to rather lately, has been going on pretty covertly for decades!), Michael Neumann is one rare voice who actually puts forth a STRATEGY that we can surely act upon!! It's obvious that it's not out of some irrational hatred of Jews that he came up with this brilliant strategy - this strategy makes perfect sense and it is something we must embrace if we are to stop endless war and Zionist-dominated/inflluenced US imperialism.

It's as simple as that. We must declare Israel (and the ideology of Zionism) as our adversary to defeat acting in compliance with the UN, completely side with the Palestinians and the Muslim world with regards to their right for equality and self-determination. We must embark on Operation Palestinian Freedom with great intensity and urgency - another issue Neumann brought up - a sense of urgency!!

The persecution of the Palestinians has been happening at least since 1948 and we must confront the genocide, the apartheid and the ethnic cleansing that has been and IS happening in Palestine NOW - even though some people may not be "ready" for it or find those words to be "inflammatory". Time to grab the bull by the horns. As the saying goes if you gingerly touch a thistle, it will prick you. Grab it bolding and you will squash it. Time to let any bogus, deflectionary charges of anti-semitism or whatever go it one ear and out the other - just move on boldly with the mission! Operation Palestinian Freedom! As Neumann said, we would use every action against Israel that the UN would back: sanctions, cessation of all aid (military, financial, economic), complete condemnation of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign and stealing of Palestinian land for a Jewish supremacist state, demanding Israel's compliance with all UN Resolutions (Israel has defied over 70 to date), demand that Israel get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction, and delegitimize the racist ideology of Zionism both in US policies and any country we would give aid/support to.

We would demand that UN peacekeeping troops be sent in as necessary to stop Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes and other Palestinian property, as well as stopping Israel's extradicial executions and rounding up of Palestinians and illegally detaining them, etc.

We would demand all this until Israel is transformed into a true democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or sex, INCLUDING for all the Palestinian refugees who have the right to return to their ancestral homeland of Israel-Palestine which is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion.

We would demand that the one-state solution of Israel-Palestine have a constitution protecting the rights of all its citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race or sex. There would also be a new flag for this new country - since the Israeli flag is obviously for Jews only and also has colonialism symbolically built into its flag since the two blue stripes stand for acquisition of Greater Israel between the Euphrates and the Nile rivers! The Israeli flag has got to go!!

Any Zionist Jews who don't like this new state will be free to leave. If they choose to stay and commit criminal acts and also break anti-discrimination laws they will be penalized accordingly.

This is the strategy. If anyone wants to discuss this strategy with me off this list, please e-mail me at wendy@sanfranciscoandbeyond.com. All those who are in basic agreement with me on this strategy are welcome to e-mail me. Otherwise, please don't waste my time.

Thanks!

Wendy Campbell Oakland, CA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A couple of comments:

Martin Kessler suggests "Have all Arab nations recognize the existence of the state of Israel and sign a peace treaty" as a way of getting Israel out of the occupied territories faster (than trying to get the US to switch sides). Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. I mean something we could work for, not something someone else could: Arab nations would not and should not take their cue from American dissidents. And unless the treaties specified complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, such agreements would only give Israel more incentive to stay, because they would have not even residual worries about the hostility of Arab states. In fact, Israel would never vacate the occupied territories just to make peace with states it neither respects nor fears.

Besides, Kessler's suggestion rests on the outrageous fiction that Israel's occupation is defensive. In fact many right-wing Israeli security experts think unilateral withdrawal will enhance Israel's security:

Israel will make peace only when the balance of power changes, and it can change only if the US-Israel alliance is thoroughly broken. Otherwise Israel can always invent or generate some new threat to itself that will bring the US running back to its side.

Jeff Blankfort's work is in my opinion essential. The influence of the Jewish lobby can't very well be countered if its activities remain a taboo subject. And what Chomsky "said 10 or 15 years ago" will have to do, because he silence on the key issues relating to Israel has been deafening. Ensconced in the view that the US must only whisper about reducing aid to secure Israeli capitulation, he has consistently avoided recommending any measures that might actually hurt Israel - a total embargo, sanctions, military aid to Syria, and so on. Endless analysis of Israeli misdeeds should be an incentive to such recommendations, not an excuse for failing to make them.

If only in the interest of encouraging critical thinking, it is high time that Chomsky fans realized this. The problem with the Israel-as-cop-on-the-beat thesis is simple: there evidence for it is trivial, and against it, overwhelming. Has it escaped notice that, for over a decade and through two gulf wars, the US has had to bribe Israel *not* to be a cop on the beat?

Michael Neumann

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have responded personally to both Miriam and Elias, but please allow me to do so to them and to a wider audience. (See below):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> From Elias Davidsson in Iceland:
>
> I read with interest Jeffrey Blankfort's article, " The Israel Lobby and the
> Left: Uneasy Questions". I have some problems with the arguments advanced by
> Jeff.
>
> First, the fact that some people decry as antisemitism any allegation that
> "Jews control the US" isn't the issue. Surely some will do so. The question
> is not whether this charge is antisemitism, but whether the charge is true.

For years, I accepted without a second-thought that the allegations of Jewish control of this or that sector of society was a continuation of a long history of baseless anti-semitic canards. What I have come to see after more than three decades in struggling for Palestinian rights, mostly within what is generally considered "the Left," that on key issues involving Israel and Palestine, the debate and the policy, in every sector of society, is dominated by Jews, from those who are fiercely Zionist to those who are anti-Zionist, but insist on what has become a specious argument, that being Jewish does not necessarily mean Zionist. The latter is true, of course, but since it is obvious that the majority of Jews support Israel as a Jewish state, that makes them, regardless of the level of their activity in behalf of Israel, Zionists.

Consequently, when I write that Jews control the media, a fact that is easily proven simply by looking at the various media organizations and who controls them which I have done (and have on my computer for any who are interested), it is logical that in issues involving Israel and Palestine, they will be looking out for Israel's interests. And the proof of the pudding is available at any given moment whether it is on your movie screen or front page. To prove that there are exceptions, I would appreciate any of my critics or supporters sending me evidence that the $1 billion plus $ 8 billion in loan guarantees for Israel, which was included in the $80 billion appropriation for the war, was reported in any American newspaper. Since I have not seen it, I assume that such an important fact being left out was just another proof of Jewish control of the media, not that it will change the minds of those whose was made up long ago. Moreover, the fact that on two occasions, an Israeli delegation was in Washington, discussing Israel's economic demands was also excluded from the papers of record. And was there anything sadder than to see the great actor Marlon Brando forced to beg forgiveness from the Lords of Hollywood for having identified them as Jews and having gone on to criticize some their horrible wares?

> Second, the designation "Jews" is vague. What is meant by this designation?
> All people who in some form or other are Jewish by descent, confession, faith
> or organisation ? Some of them, and if so who ?

What is meant by Jews is all of those, the majority of whom are Zionists of one degree or another, a passive Zionist being a Jew who accepts with questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state.

> Third, in order to prove "control" the traditional method is to infer it from
> circumstantical evidence. But such a method has been used by others to
> demonstrate that it is the military-industrial complex that rules Washington,
> to mention another candidate.

Two more examples. Congresswoman Barbara Lee from Oakland/Berkeley can be the lone vote against the war and then one of 21 House members to vote against the war appropriation, but not once, but twice she voted for a resolution praising Israel for the election of Sharon and for its "democratic values." Does she truly support Sharon or is this yet one more proof that it takes more courage to criticize Israel in the halls of Congress than it does the President of the United States. If that isn't a demonstration of the lobby's power, any other further argument I would make is a waste of time.

As far as the military-industrial complex goes, and it goes very far. Some of its leading CEO's (presumably non-Jewish) have been recruited into the ranks of JINSA, the Jewish Inst. for National Security Affairs) whose mission statement posits a US controlled Middle East with Israel playing a central role, but one Egyptian-born Israeli and now naturalized American, Haim Saban gave almost as much ($12 million) to the Democrats last year as all the military defense PACs gave to both parties ($14 million). (See www.opensecrets.org under Communications). I am at the moment doing research on an article that will indicate that if the Democratic party was a corporation, the Israel lobby would be the majority owner.

> There is, in addition, something utterly illogical in concluding - beside all
> questions of factual evidence - that a cabal of "Jews" would factually
> overrule the formidable power of the numerous non-Jewish millionaires and
> billionaires. To make such presumption is simply not plausible. If the most
> wealthy strata of the US were not well served by the efforts of the "Jewish
> lobby", they would have long intervened and fanned antisemitism. It appears
> that the "Jewish lobby" serves them very well.

Elias, I have written you before that according to the Mother Jones list of the 400 leading individual contributors to both political parties, eight out of the top ten are Jews , 13 out of the top 20, and so on down the line. The numerous non-Jewish millionaires and billionaires simply don't contribute as much as individuals as both Mother Jones and Open Secrets' lists shows. While most of the time the interests of "the Jewish lobby" coincides with that of other sectors of our capitalist society, when the two have clashed, such as over agricultural issues, the lobby has won. The other industries don't have the troops. (What I neglected to send to Israel for his list is a short sidebar that went with the story that described the components of the lobby. It is unique.)

> In my opinion the Jewish lobby is left to act as it does because its agenda
> fits perfectly the imperial agenda of the US. Such imperial agenda reflects
> not the view of one person or group but the convergence of multiple interest
> groups, the arms industry, oil industry, coca cola, pharmaceutical, Microsoft,
> the "Israel lobby" and many others. This is how politics are made.

Given, the lobby isn't the only operative force, but perhaps, you, Elias, can answer the question as to why it is permissible to speak publicly about these other lobbies but to speak of Jewish power is taboo? And that is the point of my article.

And now on to the next response.

> Elias Davidsson
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From Henry Noble
>
> Other than that I'd say it in terms of Class, I absolutely agree with Elias.
> Does the placing of Powell father and son and Rice in the Bush administration
> prove an African American usurpation of power?

I can't seriously believe an intelligent person would compare the obvious placement of Powell and Rice in the the administrations with the manifest presence of Jews in the halls of power which even the Israeli press finds remarkable.

> Here in Seattle, we've run into a nest of vipers associated with KKK'er David
> Duke who carry signs with the message "No Wars for Israel" and have a website
> with the same name that's full of lists of which Jews are in seats of power.
> As though that proves the Jewish conspiracy. Good grief.
> Henry Noble

This is an issue that, of course, will attract folks who seize upon Israel's manifest misdeeds to pursue their own anti-semitic agenda. But while I abhor David Duke, he is hardly in the class of Ariel Sharon and the unindicted war criminals who run Israel, and he has done far less harm than those in Congress and the White House, or in the offices of the major Jewish organizations who have supported Israel to the bloody hilt and were their any applicable standards of justice, would be viewed as accessories to war crimes.

As to the slogan, "No War for Israel," that is what I had written on a large banner at the time of the first Gulf War which was only approved after AIPAC's careful manipulations, designed to disguise Israel's interest in having that war. This was reported at the time in the Washington Jewish Week and by Benjamin Ginsberg in his "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State." And can anyone forget that arch Zionist and pathological liar Tom Lantos, who helped to create the phony story of the incubators that Iraqi soldiers had allegedly stolen from a Kuwaiti hospital after throwing the babies within on the floor. The report of that "incident" is what switched the needed anti-war votes in the Senate to vote for war. And in this war, there should be no question about it, unless you think Perle, Wolfowitz. Feith, Wurmser, Bolton, etc. are Irish.

Next.

>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From Dr. Jo Tavener
>
> Regarding Blankcroft's article on the Israel Lobby, it seems to me that
> Said's book on media coverage of islam says alot about the time it has
> taken for the left to come around to a more vocal and adamant
> pro-palestinian and anti-zionist view. In any event, the strength of the
> Israeli lobby, though important, seems to be the foundation of an argument
> - an argument never made clear in the article.

I was limited to 5000 words and my point was to illustrate the failure of the left. One part that didn't make it was how Ari Fleischer, yes, the president noxious mouthpiece, addressed an AIPAC sponsored meeting of college students who were gathered to learn how they could oppose campus campaigns to divest from Israel.

> Furthermore, it is important to realize that there are a number of vocal
> palestine solidarity groups in the US now - I'm a member of one in Pittsburgh.
> As an American Jew it has taken me time to come around to this anti-zionist
> position. I know my reasons - none of them has been clarified in this article
> though Said's stuff on Islamic media representations has. Mostly, I think it
> was an issue for my feminism. I never really supported the notion of a jewish
> state. In any case, last Spring's demonstration in Washington against the war
> et al. has a very strong pro-palestinian contingent. The word is getting out
> despite the Lobby - so....what's going on. This article says nothing that
> can illuminate this growing solidarity. Besides Michael Tarazi, counsel for
> the PLO, who was here recently, kept telling us that the Lobby wasn't so
> organized and powerful as most thought.

No movement for liberation has been so badly led as has been the Palestinian movement. If Michael Tarazi said that he only proves my point. The pro-Palestinian organizations blindly supported the PLO despite the visible signs of its deep corruption which I saw for myself when I went to Lebanon in 1983. From 1988 to 1995 I edited the Middle East Labor Bulletin which was the only publication dealing with the issues of Palestinian workers and going beyond the issues of Palestinians simply as victims. When I reported that the editor of Al-Fajr, a Jerusalem -based Palestinian paper that was historically the voice of Arafat and Fatah, carried an editorial criticizing corruption within the PLO and welcoming input from its readers, the PLO office at the UN refused to allow me to place the magazine on the literature tables at the annual UN meeting on the Question of Palestine to which I was accredited. That wasn't as bad as what happened to he paper. Arafat had it put out of business. So whatever some PLO or PA spokesperson has to say doesn't impress me, nor does it impress any of my Palestinian friends.

> Anyway, the point now is to stand in solidarity, to stop the US from
> sending military aid ( I was against embargo of Iraq and I am against
> economic embargo of Israel - and guess who would suffer most!) and
> convince those not involved in actively supporting Israel to reconsider.

Why should the US give any aid at all to Israel? And if you are not for economic sanctions against Israel what contribution are you making to producing justice for the Palestinians, if that is your goal. The situation in Iraq and Israel aren't comparable. Why not try Israel and South Africa? Did you support the sanctions against that apartheid state and if you did why that one and not Israel? And who would suffer most? Certainly, not the Palestinians.

Here is what Nehemia Stressler wrote in Ha'aretz on May 12, 1989:

"Without the American veto, we would long been expelled from every international organization not to speak of the UN, which would have imposed sanctions on us that would have totally paralyzed Israel's international trade, since we cannot exist without importing raw materials.

"For the same reason, it is wrong to divide the American money up into military aid of $1.8 billion and civilian aid of $1.2 billion. What we are getting is really unmarked dollar bills...."

At this point in time, with Israel's oppressive actions against the Palestinians proceeding at a gallop, with its' deliberately targeting members of the ISM in order to discourage witnesses to whatever enormities the Judeo-Nazis who run the government are planning in the future, to oppose sanctions against that miserable regime is , in essence, to become a member of that significant grouping of Jewish activists engaged in "damage control" for Israel (whether consciously or unconsciously is immaterial) who have penetrated the Palestinian support movement over the years and succeeded in neutralizing it. In other words, it is unacceptable.

Next.

>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Jo Tavener
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> From Miriam Reik, New York
>
> I like Jeff and respect his opinions, but I am tired of his jumping all over
> Chomsky, who has done singular service in drawing people's attention to US
> imperialism. That doesn't absolve Chomsky from criticism, but it requires at
> least fair play:"

Since whenever I have raised the issue of the Israel lobby, I have invariably been told that "Chomsky says......" one cannot avoid criticizing him if one wishes to engage the subject. He is a public figure, identified with a theory as Marx was identified with his. In 1991, after he and I had an exchange in the old National Guardian newspaper, a mutual friend wrote to Chomsky suggesting that he and I debate the role of the Israel lobby as the Socialist Scholars Conference that year. Chomsky wrote back, declining, writing that "It wouldn't be useful. When through an intermediary I asked Phyllis Bennis to do the same earlier this year, her reply was the same

> 1) If you want to criticize a person's opinion, don't keep quoting what he
> said 10 or 15 years ago: the things he said may have been true then and are no
> longer (in this case, the Jewish lobby has, in fact, become far stronger in
> that period). He may have changed his mind - fair play, Jeff!

If one has read or heard much Chomsky, it will be noted that he says the same thing in the same words over and over, and on this issue there is no exception. Except, it gets worse. In the Fateful Triangle (1983), he made at least two references to the power of the lobby but these seemed to have ceased by 1991 when he made the speech in Berkeley which began my article. However, one of my three references ot his writings was taken from his introduction to The New Intifada (2001) which was so historically disingenuous ( a polite word) and manipulative that I had envisioned writing a critique simply of that article. Example of what is pure nonsense: "There is an illusion that the (first) Bush Administration took a harsh line toward Israel. The truth is closer to the opposite." Chomsky, ignoring the arguments against such a position that I mentioned in my article, uses a secondary source, Jimmy Carter, that the former president wrote in 2000 in the Washington Post, regarding the first Baker Plan in 1989. Two pages later he refers to the "US-Israel settlement program" as if it was US policy and the policy of the first Bush administration to increase Jewish settlements. That statement is fundamentally dishonest and flies in the face of the facts that I presented in my article. I would be very happy to debate Chomsky again on this entire subject. And I think it would be useful.

> 2) Arguing the importance of the Jewish lobby is important - but since foreign
> policy is not always (perhaps never) determined by one consideration alone, it
> is probably more worthwhile trying to evaluate the extent of the influence of
> others things and undermine them, such as the idea that Israel is a useful cop
> on the beat. If you are afraid to argue that we don't need Israel as a cop on
> the beat because it MIGHT support Chomsky's position, you have become a less
> useful advocate for Palestinians.

Israel has never been the cop on the beat for the US and that's what I tried to show, given the space limitations, in my article. What it has done in terms of its wars it has done for itself. At best it has provided a useful foil for Arab regimes who criticize Israel publicly while colluding with it under the table . Finally, I don't have to make a case for my history of advocacy of the Palestinians

Jeff

Next.

>
> Best,
> Miriam
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Martin Kessler, Miami:
>
> Neumann says: If someone knows of a way to get Israel out of the occupied
> territories faster, let's hear it. Good grief! You mean you - Michael
> Neuman - learned student of the Arab-Israeli conflict - cannot think of a way
> to end the conflict? I can tell you a million ways, but how's this for
> starters:
>
> Have all Arab nations recognize the existence of the state of Israel and sign
> a peace treaty and welcome all bona fide Arabs into "The Arab Nation", where
> this or that government will graciously make the accommodation and put an end
> to this madness born of intense mortification as a result of getting their ass
> whipped 5 times! That's a downright dirty shame! Should never have happened
> but for bigotry and prejudice..
>
> "They" - and you know who I mean - are not going to get "driven into the sea"
> or get on a boat and go back where they came from anymore then American
> Negroes can be driven or shipped back to Africa, much to the consternation of
> the American KKK. Get it? See the parallel, or do I need to draw a picture. [
> Sorry, I do not mean to be insolent, but for heaven's sake will the visceral
> Jew haters please shut up and leave the scene so honest people can work to end
> the conflict much to the delight of all the involved combatants !]
>
> That's a course of action, Michael; not talk, talk, talk! Stupid talk!
> martin Kessler
> mdk4130@aol.com

I cannot resist replying to this, although it is directed to Michael, it might as well be directed at me, as well. Black Americans came here as slaves, some to become slaves of Southern Jewish slave holders, maybe after having arrived on ships owned by Jewish slave traders who had gone into that business in Brazil and Curacao after being expelled from Spain. The overwhelming number of Jews who came to America, of course, were neither and I would not have even raised that issue if Kessler had not made that ridiculous comparison. The Jews who came here, came her by choice. A bit of a difference between that and coming in the hold of a slave ship.

But I will guarantee you that if the future of Israel unfolds as it has, those Israelis who maintain a sense of decency will find life in Israel suffocating as life in any fascist state must come to be. Because that is the direction in which Israel is heading.

What Kessler seems to be advocating is let Jews like him do it, or rather, do the Palestinians in. Take a hike, chum.

Jeff Blankfort