Notice that the Mr. Abourezk kept his mouth shut until he could not be controlled by bribes and threats.
James Abourezk, former US Senator from
South Dakota
The following letter was sent to me
today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he
readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list
because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last
month's election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate
previous posting to you and James Petras's article earlier in the day. Dear Jeff: I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all
along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is
simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I
concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress,
the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political
fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I
can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I
served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they
have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly
how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which
members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're
pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the
dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is
willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any
U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only
exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I
believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to
Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make. I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter
friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly
about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries
bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received
threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising
would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's
articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the
paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question
of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is
pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in
the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the
President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties
from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance
where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to
advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War,
Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to
accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any
Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their
involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S.
operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S.
has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle
any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think
of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily
for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi
Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow
the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel
become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the
Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was
merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the
Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition
to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel).
Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is
concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests.
There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress
fell completely silent over the invasion that year.
Errors & omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever;
if you find any I am open to comment. Updated on
Saturday, 23 June 2018 21:29:20
I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an
e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any
congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel
which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I
was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the
press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as
well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly
brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the
newspaper caught sinning.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the
administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up
for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western
world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do
is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping
the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far
they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his
oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S.
policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to
Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and
leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think,
because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing
their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made
with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there,
unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little
about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the
objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their
minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from
the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant
administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."
Jim Abourezk
Email me at Mike
Emery.
All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it
private, use my PGP Key.
Home Page