Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Norman Finkelstein: U.S. elite policy, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, would almost certainly not be the same without the Lobby.
What does the U.S.A. gain, from the Israeli settlements and occupation?
In terms of alienating the Arab world, it’s had something to lose.
The Lobby probably can’t muster sufficient power to jeopardize a fundamental American interest.
But it can, significantly, raise the threshold, before U.S. elites are prepared to act, i.e., order Israel out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
As the U.S. finally pressured the Indonesians out of Occupied East Timor.
Whereas Israel doesn’t have many options, if the U.S. does finally give the order to pack up, the U.S. won’t do so, until and unless the Israeli occupation becomes a major liability for it:
On account of the Lobby, the point at which “until and unless” is reached significantly differs.
Without the Lobby, and in the face of widespread Arab resentment, the U.S. would perhaps have ordered Israel to end the occupation by now, sparing Palestinians much suffering.
In the current “either-or” debate, on whether the Lobby affects U.S. Middle East policy, at the elite level, it’s been lost on many of the interlocutors, that a crucial dimension of this debate should be the extent to which the Lobby stifles free and open public discussion on the subject.
For in terms of trying to broaden public discussion here, on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Lobby makes a huge and baneful difference.
Especially since U.S. elites have no entrenched interest in the Israeli occupation, the mobilization of public opinion can have a real impact, on policy-making.
Which is why, the Lobby invests so much energy, in suppressing discussion.
The Carter Center had arranged for me to meet with Carter, and to invite others as well if I so wished.
So after his speech we assembled in an adjacent room.
I invited eight rabbis (the four Reform rabbis all declined to come hear Carter because of political differences), two nationally respected leaders of the Muslim world, several ministers and activists in the Christian world, several professors, and leaders in the Network of Spiritual Progressives and in Beyt Tikkun Synagogue, as well as Mitchell Plitnick, the national director of Jewish Voice for Peace, and one of the founders of Brit Tzedeck v'Shalom.
In the end, the Secret Service forced me to narrow down the number of participants in this phase.
Carter asked us to tell, how he could be helpful to us, while many of the participants asked, how we could be helpful to him.
... He had allocated an hour and a half to meet with me and whoever I wanted to bring ...
What was particularly impressive to all of us was his humility, good humor, and fundamental human decency ...
The next day, I encountered a Reform rabbi on the streets who, when he heard I had met with Carter, told me, that this was a man who didn’t like Jews and was anti-Israel.
I asked him, if he had read the book (he had not) or ever met the man (he had not).
Wasn’t this “lashon ha'ra”–evil language?
No, he said. He was just trying to defend the Jewish people, from its enemies, like Carter.
Former President Jimmy Carter urged students at a Southern California university — with a history of strained relations between Jewish and Islamic groups — to set differences aside, and work together, to find solutions.
“I’d like to see the leaders form a combined group, and take my invitation, to go to Palestine, and see what’s going on, for yourselves,” Carter told a crowd of about 3,300 students and faculty at University of California, Irvine on Thursday.
“If you take me up on it, I’ll raise the money, to pay for your trip,” he said.
* * *
Carter reiterated his belief that Palestinians “are being persecuted horribly.”
* * *
“There’s political fear in Congress, and among U.S. presidential candidates, to speak out, on a balanced position, with anything that relates to Israel. But college students can play a crucial role in this debate,” he said. “You have nothing to lose.”
Yasser Ahmed, a Muslim majoring in economics, said he was “amazed at the manner in which (Carter) portrayed the conflict.”
“As he mentioned in his speech, it is something that is not mentioned in this country,” Ahmed said.
Robert Jensen: The principled view is that faculty members ... have a responsibility to pursue research addressing relevant questions that are meaningful in the lives of real people, especially the most vulnerable struggling for justice.
That kind of research is likely to lead to trouble (because it challenges the prerogatives of the powerful to rule as they please).
* * *
In the United States there are fewer and fewer spaces where truth-telling is possible.
Electoral politics has become a poll-driven, sound-bite enterprise.
Mass media specialize in the superficial and shallow.
Universities, though dominated by corporate money and the corporate mentality, still provide one of the few remaining spaces for open and honest engagement.
Protecting that space is important not only for those of us in the privileged position of faculty, but for the society more generally.
On Friday, May 18, I meet Jimmy Carter in his office at the Carter Centre in Atlanta.
* * *
I asked whether there had been any response from the White House to his book or his views ...
“No,” he said, “not a word.”
* * *
Carter first travelled to Israel in 1973 as Governor of Georgia.
He left Israel feeling optimistic, and that the “plight” of the Arabs “seemed of relative insignificance to me.”
I ask if, in retrospect, that was naive.
Jimmy Carter: “Well,” he replies, “the Arabs were not being persecuted then.
There were a total of 1,500 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and they had been on kibbutzim — individual farms that they had acquired — for decades.
And that was before there was any massive effort by the Israeli government to colonise the West Bank in order to confiscate it.
I met with the top leaders in Israel, and all of them presumed that that land belonged to the Palestinians, and there was no concept at that point, at least by the ones with whom I met, that they would simply take over that land and keep it permanently, as it seems to be now.”
* * *
I suggest to Carter that Bill Clinton doesn’t come off terribly well in the book.
Jimmy Carter: “Well,” he sighs, “I’ve had somewhat of an altercation with Clinton’s representatives, who say I don’t give Clinton adequate credit in the book.
You know, I give Clinton credit for making his best effort, but the proposals that Clinton made were never clear.
And both the Israelis and the Palestinians accepted the principles, that Clinton put forward, with enormous caveats.
Later, it was politically acceptable for the Israelis and for Washington to say: “We agreed, but Arafat didn’t agree.”
In fact, neither one of them agreed.”
____________________
In New York Times speak, “bestsellers” are the 15 top-selling books of the 35 it lists, the remaining 20 it labels “also selling.”
By CJHjr: Transcribing TV/radio audio (paragraphed/punctuated for speech, the speaker’s rhythm, stress, pace), bold-face, text {in braces}, quotes from printed sources: some added paragraphing, commas.
This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.
CJHjrCharles Judson Harwood Jr.
Posted Dec. 1 2006. Updated June 13 2009.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/palestine-peace-not-apartheid-200705.html
Visitors (all pages, from Feb. 10 2008):