http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein12082006.html
Professor Norman Finkelstein : Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in
America--The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter
Norman Finkelstein's most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of
anti-Semitism and the abuse of history (University of California Press). His
web site is www.NormanFinkelstein.com.
CounterPunch December 8, 2006
It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of
Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book,
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard
Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace
process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is
accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.
A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no
Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times)
and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature
stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter
Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering
story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who
(the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the
Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in
Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan
Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it.
He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion.
Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the
Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and
dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - so the Zionist
ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred
Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in
Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).
The Pravda ( NYT) story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a
beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the
effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials
not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented
segments". I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is
Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his
note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics...have
taken issue with the book". Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David
Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.
Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on
fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the
Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party
discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the days when
commissars quoted Stalin on linguistics.
http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein12082006.html
---
Robert Fisk & Amy Goodman, Keynote Speakers,
will be speaking from 4:30 - 5:45 PM on
"MEDIA, GOVERNMENT AND THE RE-SHAPING OF THE MIDDLE EAST"
"Reform, Relevance and Renewal: Understanding Islam for the Future."
Muslim Public Affairs Council
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16th
10:00 AM - 6:00 PM
Long Beach Convention Center Convention
Admission: $35.00
Convention & Banquet: $65.00.
Info and online payment: HYPERLINK
"http://www.mpac.org/convention/index.php"http://www.mpac.org/convention
/index.php
Info: 213.383.3443
***
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15853.htm
Baker vs "The Lobby"
By Mike Whitney
"Expect Baker to wheel out the heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-nail to
reassert the primacy of the American ruling class. "The Lobby" may be
powerful, but it's going to be tough-going to take the country away from
the people who believe they own it."
12/09/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The tension between the Bush
administration and the members of the Iraq Study Group, illustrates the
widening chasm between old-guard U.S. imperialists and "Israel-first"
neoconservatives. The divisions are setting the stage for a major battle
between the two camps. The winner will probably decide US policy in the
Middle East for the next decade.
The failed occupation of Iraq has put the entire region on the fast-track to
disaster. That's why James Baker was summoned from retirement to see if he
could change the present trajectory and mitigate the long-term damage to US
interests. Baker was opposed to the invasion from the onset but his 4 day
trip to Baghdad convinced him that something had to be done quickly. The ISG
report reflects the unanimous view of its authors that Iraq is
disintegrating into chaos and that action must be taken to reduce the level
of bloodshed.
Baker is not merely an objective observer in this process. He clearly "has a
dog in this fight". As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan he put
together the basic scaffolding for America's imperial presence in the region
and he continues to be connected to many of the corporations which benefit
from US relations in the Middle East. But he has also always taken a
"pragmatic" approach to regional policy and cannot be considered a
war-monger. Some critics of Baker say that his business interests suggest
that he indirectly supports the Bush policy. But this is an
oversimplification. In fact, Baker sees war as a blunt instrument that is
essentially incompatible with commercial interests. There are simply more
efficient ways for clever men to achieve their objectives.
In Antonia Juhasz's recent article "Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group
Recommends Privatization" shows how Baker was more than happy to overlook
Saddam's domestic repression as long as it didn't damage business dealings.
As Juhasz's says:
"Baker's interest was focused on trade, which he described as "the central
factor in the US-Iraq relationship". From 1982, when Reagan removed Iraq
from the list of countries supporting terrorism until August 1990, when Iraq
invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked with others in the Reagan and
Bush administrations to aggressively and successfully expand trade.
The efficacy of such a move can best be described in a memo written in 1988
by the Bush transition team arguing that the US would have 'to decide
whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where
possible, or to recognize Iraq's present and potential power in the region
and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the latter view.'
Two reasons offered were Iraq's 'vast oil reserves' which promised 'a
lucrative market for US goods' and the fact that the US oil imports from
Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush and Baker took the transition teams advice and
ran with it".
This is the real James Baker. He's not ideological and he's certainly not on
a religious crusade. His approach may seem cynical, but it shows that he
prefers commerce (even with a brutal dictator) over war. This proves that
his role with the ISG is not simply to provide cover for Bush. Baker's task
is to salvage the imperial system which he helped to create. Besides, it's
clear that Bush is unhappy with the report and has already rejected its two
critical recommendations; negotiations with Syria and Iran, and a commitment
to troop reduction. Furthermore, Bush is doing everything in his power to
minimize the effects of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair to
Washington so that he wouldn't look as isolated in his position.
Baker has done a good job grabbing headlines and making his case directly to
the American people, but his effect on Bush has been negligible. Bush
appears to be brushing the report aside just like he brushed aside the
results of the midterm elections. His summation of the ISG's work was
intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as "interesting" and "sincere",
blah, blah, blah.
But Baker won't be patronized or put-off. In fact, his tone has been
unusually threatening at times. As more than one critic has noted, Baker
appears to be offering Bush an "ultimatum" not merely recommendations. He
warned Bush not to "pick and choose" the recommendations as he saw fit:
"I hope this is not like a fruit salad and I say I like this but I don't
like that. This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this
problem we're facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems
that we face in the region to restore America's standing and credibility in
that part of the world".
Baker is courteous to the point of seeming unctuous, but his point is clear.
He is demanding that Bush execute his plan in its totality and without
deviation. This is the cautionary advice of a Mafia consigliore not the
empty musings of a retired bureaucrat.
Whatever one thinks about James Baker, he is a seasoned diplomat and a
serious man. His record shows that he has broad support among the leaders in
the American oligarchy, so he can't simply be ignored. He represents a
powerful constituency of corporate chieftains and oil magnates who are
conspicuously worried about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and want to
see a change of course. Baker's their man. He's the logical emissary for the
growing number of jittery plutocrats who see that the Bush policy-train has
jumped the tracks.
But if Big Oil wants a change of direction than where is Bush getting his
support for "staying the course"?
An AP poll conducted this week shows that only 9% of Americans believe that
"victory" in Iraq is possible. Even the hard-core Bush loyalists have
abandoned the sinking ship. The only group left touting Bush's failed policy
is the "Israel first" camp which continues to wave the bloody shirt of
incitement from their perch at the Weekly Standard and the American
Enterprise Institute. These same diehards are leading the charge for a
preemptive attack on Iran; a criminal act which will have catastrophic
effects on America's long-term energy needs.
An article which appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz shows how
confident Prime Minister Olmert is in the ability of the Jewish Lobby to
torpedo the Baker-Hamilton report and steer the US away from changes in
Iraq:
"On his way home from Los Angeles, the Prime Minister 'calmed' the
reporters -and perhaps even himself-by saying there is no danger of the US
President George Bush accepting the expected recommendations of the
Baker-Hamilton panel, and attempting to move Syria out of the axis of evil
and into a coalition to extricate America from Iraq. The Prime Minister
hopes the Jewish Lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress
to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians. (Akiva
Eldar, "The Gewalt Agenda") http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789919.html
Olmert has good reason to be "calm". While the new Congress is being
apprised of its duties to Israel, the Brookings Institute is convening a
forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy entitled: "America and
Israel: Confronting a Middle east in Turmoil". The meeting will be attended
by Israeli right-wing extremist, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as political
big-wigs, Bill and Hillary Clinton.
The context of the meeting suggests that right-leaning Israelis will be
informing their friends in the Democratic Party about the anticipated attack
on Iran, as well as discussing strategies for sabotaging Baker's report. If
we see the Dems lambasting the ISGs recommendations next week; we'll know
why.
So, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side we have James Baker and
his corporate classmates who want to restore order while preserving
America's
imperial role in the region. And, on the other side, we have the
neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and chaotic
Middle East where Israel is the dominant power. (see "A Clean Break")
The one group that has no voice in this "Battle of the Titans" is the
American people. They lost whatever was left of their shrinking
political-clout sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush.
In any event, Baker and his ilk are not going to sit back and watch the
empire (and the military) they put together with their own two hands be
systematically pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an agenda that only
serves Israeli hardliners.
That ain't gonna happen.
Expect Baker to wheel out the heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-nail to
reassert the primacy of the American ruling class. "The Lobby" may be
powerful, but it's going to be tough-going to take the country away from the
people who believe they own it.
The struggle between the political heavyweights is about to break-out into
open warfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
