My latest series of interviews on podcasts and the texts which I set out on these pages to introduce the video links have stirred up a great deal of comment on my web platforms and email letters directly to me. Some viewers/readers support my contention that the United States is using Israel as its proxy in the Middle East and is not just enabling but even directing Israel’s rampage in the region to ‘kick ass’ generally and to reinforce American dominance there in line with American global hegemony. Far from being outraged by the Israeli atrocities, the U.S. government is satisfied to see Israel take revenge for the many humiliations that the United States has suffered in the Middle East, most recently in the disorderly and disgraceful pull-out from Afghanistan but going back, say, 40 years to the hostage taking at the American embassy in Teheran by the new revolutionary Iranian leadership there that overthrew the American backed Shah.
Others in my audience have not hesitated to say that they think I am wrong, and that indeed Prime Minister Netanyahu is leading Joe Biden & Company around by the nose, which just happens to be the consensus view in mainstream media.
Most of this discussion is not visible to the broad public. However, the ‘Judging Freedom’ channel which has 450,000 subscribers and its host, Judge Andrew Napolitano put my proposition on the dog (USA) wagging the tail (Israel) to several of his best-known panelists in the 24 hours following my interview with him. To be sure, my idea seemed so ‘contrarian’ that it demanded a response from the mightiest minds in the alternative media camp. They obliged. With one exception, the mightiest minds were dismissive of my interpretation in more respectful, less respectful ways.
The least polite, least professional dismissal was delivered by Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA official and member in good standing of VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Before Judge Napolitano could finish setting out my point, Johnson broke into derisive laughter. He then called my analytic framework ‘nonsensical,’ and proceeded to explain that such a sophisticated policy as using Israel in a proxy war on Iran and the greater neighborhood was beyond the abilities of those at the top of the federal government who are utterly incompetent in managing their assistance to Kiev. To be sure, I never expected to hear such across-the-board condemnation of the feds by a fervent patriot, but life does have its surprises.
A more professional but intellectually lazy ‘nyet’ to my analytical tool came from Professor John Mearsheimer. He opined that I was just repeating a rejection of the power of AIPAC over U.S. policy set out more than a decade ago by Noam Chomsky. Perhaps he thought he was doing me a favor by placing me alongside Chomsky, the outstanding dissident, among foreign policy critics going back decades. However much I admire Chomsky’s co-written Manufacturing Consent, my estimation of Chomsky’s other very repetitive and self-plagiarizing books is less positive. See the respective chapter in my 2010 book Great American Post-Cold War Thinkers on International Relations.
No, professor Mearsheimer, what Chomsky said back then has little relevance today when new people at the top of the federal government face new challenges.
It is understandable that Mearsheimer will defend tooth and claw the idea that the Israeli Lobby controls the U.S. Congress and U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East which is totally supportive of Israel’s defensive and offensive actions. The good professor paid dearly in 2007 when he and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard made that case in a book that was heavily criticized by the leaders in the political science world at that time. Their view has since become the general consensus and they are heavily invested in it.
Let us now look at the one guest interviewee on ‘Judging Freedom’, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who agreed with what I am saying about the proxy status of Israel with certain important qualifications that I indeed accept.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_7prnElVTY
Colonel Wilkerson had and obviously still has highly placed contacts in both the military and civilian sides of the federal government. And well he might, given that he is among the Judge’s guests who reached the top levels in the U.S. government as Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Colonel Wilkerson says that the view of Israel as a proxy to be used as required to serve U.S. interests in the region, i.e. to be directed by the United States, does not represent the whole of the U.S. government power structure but of certain elements within it, namely the Neocons, among whom Victoria Nuland is the most visible example. He goes on to say that there are a good number of such Neocons in the government since they were never chased out, never charged or brought to trial for the disasters that befell the countries the United States attacked at their urging and the losses of blood and treasure suffered by the United States itself as a result. No, these Neocons have remained close to the levers of power.
I readily agree with Colonel Wilkerson that the Neocons in the Deep State are not the only ideologues running the show in Washington. As one perspicacious reader wrote to me, there is another big contingent at the federal level consisting of Liberals like Tony Blinken who think only in terms of America’s commitment to Israel’s survival and of its right to self-defense and who overlook the crimes against humanity that Israel is perpetrating using U.S. weapons. No doubt the personal factor of Jewish heritage in the case of Blinken and other fellow thinkers plays its own role, so that the self-destruction of the state of Israel by its pursuit of a faux self-defense does not seem to cross their minds.
Speaking in more general terms about foreign policy, the conflicting concepts and interests between Liberals and Neocons at the top levels of the government with respect to Israel are no different from the division between the loudest representatives of the United States on the world stage who speak only in terms of defending democracy and human rights, that is to say in Wilsonian terms, versus those whose hands are really on the levers of power, the practitioners of Realpolitik and national self-interest.
*****
Before closing this discussion, I am obliged to delve into the elephant in the room kind of issue that presents itself with particular relevance in the Alternative Media community: anti-Semitism. I know that this is a mine field, and I will try my best to cross it without losing a limb or worse. But it begs to be addressed.
Regrettably, ever since the Hamas attack on Israel a year ago, Israeli and many American Jewish leaders have condemned the slightest expressions of sympathy for the civilian victims of Netanyahu’s atrocities in Gaza and now in Lebanon as tantamount to anti-Semitism. Leading American universities, including my own alma maters of Harvard and Columbia, have caved in to the outrageous demands of Jewish donors that they arrest and expel students and faculty who protest the atrocities. In a word, anti-Semitism as a concept is being abused egregiously for the sake of pro-Israeli censorship.
Professor Mearsheimer’s emphasis on the Israeli Lobby as the controlling factor in United States policy towards the Middle East plays very nicely into what are real as opposed to phony anti-Semitic beliefs. His estimation of an all-powerful AIPAC and its destructive impact on U.S. foreign policy is music to the ears of those who say that the Anglo-Zionist gang runs the world and runs the United States in particular.
Now why would this be a special issue in the Alternative Media population? Well, just look at the audience closely and you will understand me.
I have a bit of experience with this issue that goes back well beyond the year long mayhem wrought by Israel in its neighborhood. My relevant experience goes back more than 10 years to when I began republishing essays about U.S.-Russian relations that I wrote on the web platform of La Libre Belgique, where they attracted a couple of hundred readers, onto the Moscow based platform called Russia Insider, where they attracted 40,000 or 50,000 readers each time. Russia Insider was then run by its American born editor Charles Bausman. In those days Russia Insider was the one-of-a-kind place for publishing alternative news about Russia.
In general, about 1% of all readers of material published on the internet send in Comments, if this function is made available. So it was with my articles in Russia Insider. Such people are activists and do not represent all of the other 99% of readers. But they do set the tone for the platform. If what these Comments express are too radical and off-putting, the readership will shrink.
In the case of Russia Insider, too many of the reader comments were by clearly antisocial people who happened to be based in the United States and hated their country. Still more, they hated the Anglo-Zionists whom they believed run the world.
Finally, Russia Insider was consumed by the hatred and anti-social behavior of the minority of readers who set the tone.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Mehr über „der Schwanz wedelt mit dem Hund“ und vice versa
Meine neueste Interviewreihe in Podcasts und die Texte, die ich auf diesen Seiten zur Einführung der Videolinks verfasst habe, haben auf meinen Webplattformen und in E-Mail-Briefen, die ich direkt erhalten habe, für viel Aufsehen gesorgt. Einige Zuschauer/Leser unterstützen meine Behauptung, dass die Vereinigten Staaten Israel als ihren Stellvertreter im Nahen Osten einsetzen und Israels Amoklauf in der Region nicht nur ermöglichen, sondern sogar anführen, um im Allgemeinen „aufzuräumen“ und die amerikanische Vorherrschaft dort im Einklang mit der globalen Hegemonie der USA zu stärken. Die US-Regierung ist keineswegs empört über die israelischen Gräueltaten, sondern zufrieden damit, dass Israel Rache für die vielen Demütigungen nimmt, die die Vereinigten Staaten im Nahen Osten erlitten haben, zuletzt beim ungeordneten und schändlichen Abzug aus Afghanistan, aber auch in den letzten 40 Jahren, als die neue revolutionäre iranische Führung die amerikanische Botschaft in Teheran als Geisel genommen und den von den USA unterstützten Schah gestürzt hat.
Andere in meinem Publikum haben nicht gezögert zu sagen, dass sie denken, dass ich falsch liege, und dass Premierminister Netanjahu Joe Biden & Company tatsächlich an der Nase herumführt, was zufällig auch die vorherrschende Meinung in den Mainstream-Medien ist.
Der Großteil dieser Diskussion ist für die breite Öffentlichkeit nicht sichtbar. Der Kanal „Judging Freedom“ mit 450.000 Abonnenten und seinem Moderator, Judge Andrew Napolitano, brachte jedoch meinen Vorschlag, dass der Hund (USA) mit dem Schwanz (Israel) wedelt, in den 24 Stunden nach meinem Interview mit ihm mehreren seiner bekanntesten Diskussionsteilnehmer zur Sprache. Meine Idee schien so „konträr“ zu sein, dass sie eine Antwort von den klügsten Köpfen im Lager der alternativen Medien verlangte. Sie kamen dieser Bitte nach. Mit einer Ausnahme lehnten die klügsten Köpfe meine Interpretation auf respektvollere und weniger respektvolle Weise ab.
Die unhöflichste und unprofessionellste Ablehnung kam von Larry Johnson, einem ehemaligen CIA-Beamten und angesehenes Mitglied von VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Bevor Judge Napolitano meine Argumentation zu Ende bringen konnte, brach Johnson in spöttisches Gelächter aus. Dann bezeichnete er meinen analytischen Rahmen als „unsinnig“ und erklärte, dass eine so ausgeklügelte Politik wie der Einsatz Israels in einem Stellvertreterkrieg gegen den Iran und die gesamte Region die Fähigkeiten derjenigen an der Spitze der US-Bundesregierung übersteige, die bei der Verwaltung ihrer Hilfe für Kiew völlig inkompetent seien. Natürlich hätte ich nie erwartet, dass ein leidenschaftlicher Patriot die US-Bundesbehörden so pauschal verurteilt, aber das Leben hält immer wieder Überraschungen bereit.
Ein professionelleres, aber intellektuell fauleres „Njet“ zu meinem analytischen Werkzeug kam von Professor John Mearsheimer. Er meinte, ich würde nur eine Verneinung der Macht von AIPAC über die US-Politik wiederholen, die vor mehr als einem Jahrzehnt von Noam Chomsky dargelegt worden sei. Vielleicht dachte er, er würde mir einen Gefallen tun, indem er mich neben Chomsky stellte, den herausragenden Dissidenten unter den Kritikern der Außenpolitik, die es schon seit Jahrzehnten gibt. So sehr ich auch Chomskys Mitverfasserschaft von Manufacturing Consent, bewundere, so weniger positiv ist meine Einschätzung von Chomskys anderen, sehr repetitiven und selbstplagiierenden Büchern. Siehe das entsprechende Kapitel in meinem Buch Great American Post-Cold War Thinkers on International Relations aus dem Jahr 2010.
Nein, Professor Mearsheimer, was Chomsky damals sagte, ist heute wenig relevant, da neue Leute an der Spitze der US-Bundesregierung vor neuen Herausforderungen stehen.
Es ist verständlich, dass Mearsheimer mit Zähnen und Klauen die Idee verteidigt, dass die Israel-Lobby den US-Kongress und die US-Außenpolitik gegenüber dem Nahen Osten kontrolliert, die die Verteidigungs- und Angriffsaktionen Israels uneingeschränkt unterstützen. Der gute Professor hat 2007 einen hohen Preis dafür bezahlt, als er und Professor Stephen Walt von der Harvard-Universität diesen Fall in einem Buch dargelegt haben, das von den führenden Politikwissenschaftlern der damaligen Zeit heftig kritisiert wurde. Ihre Ansicht ist inzwischen zum allgemeinen Konsens geworden und sie sind stark darin involviert.
Schauen wir uns nun den einzigen Gastinterviewer in „Judging Freedom“, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, an, der dem, was ich über den Stellvertreterstatus Israels sage, mit einigen wichtigen Einschränkungen zustimmte, die ich in der Tat akzeptiere.
Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_7prnElVTY
Colonel Wilkerson hatte und hat offensichtlich immer noch hochrangige Kontakte sowohl im militärischen als auch im zivilen Bereich der US-Bundesregierung. Und das ist auch gut so, da er zu den Gästen des Judge gehört, die als Stabschef von Außenminister Colin Powell die höchsten Ebenen der US-Regierung erreicht haben.
Colonel Wilkerson sagt, dass die Ansicht, Israel als Stellvertreter zu betrachten, der nach Bedarf eingesetzt werden kann, um den Interessen der USA in der Region zu dienen, d.h. von den Vereinigten Staaten gelenkt zu werden, nicht die gesamte Machtstruktur der US-Regierung widerspiegelt, sondern nur bestimmte Elemente innerhalb der Regierung, nämlich die Neokonservativen, unter denen Victoria Nuland das sichtbarste Beispiel ist. Er fährt fort, dass es eine ganze Reihe solcher Neocons in der Regierung gibt, da sie nie vertrieben wurden, nie angeklagt oder vor Gericht gestellt wurden für die Katastrophen, die die Länder ereilten, die die Vereinigten Staaten auf ihr Drängen hin angegriffen haben, und für die Verluste an Blut und Schätzen, die die Vereinigten Staaten selbst dadurch erlitten haben. Nein, diese Neocons sind in der Nähe der Schaltstellen der Macht geblieben.
Ich stimme Colonel Wilkerson gerne zu, dass die Neokonservativen im Schattenstaat nicht die einzigen Ideologen sind, die in Washington das Sagen haben. Wie mir ein scharfsinniger Leser schrieb, gibt es auf US-Bundesebene ein weiteres großes Kontingent, das aus Liberalen wie Tony Blinken besteht, die nur an das Engagement Amerikas für das Überleben Israels und an sein Recht auf Selbstverteidigung denken und die Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit übersehen, die Israel mit US-Waffen begeht. Zweifellos spielt der persönliche Faktor des jüdischen Erbes im Fall von Blinken und anderen Gesinnungsgenossen eine Rolle, sodass die Selbstzerstörung des Staates Israel durch sein Streben nach einer vorgetäuschten Selbstverteidigung ihnen nicht in den Sinn zu kommen scheint.
Wenn man allgemeiner über Außenpolitik spricht, unterscheiden sich die widersprüchlichen Konzepte und Interessen zwischen Liberalen und Neokonservativen auf den obersten Regierungsebenen in Bezug auf Israel nicht von der Spaltung zwischen den lautesten Vertretern der Vereinigten Staaten auf der Weltbühne, die nur von der Verteidigung der Demokratie und der Menschenrechte sprechen, d.h. in wilsonschem Sinne, und denen, die wirklich an den Schalthebeln der Macht sitzen, den Praktikern der Realpolitik und des nationalen Eigeninteresses.
*****
Bevor ich diese Diskussion abschließe, muss ich auf das Thema eingehen, das in der Gemeinschaft der alternativen Medien besonders relevant ist: Antisemitismus. Ich weiß, dass dies ein Minenfeld ist, und ich werde mein Bestes tun, um es zu überqueren, ohne ein Glied oder Schlimmeres zu verlieren. Aber es muss angesprochen werden.
Leider haben israelische und viele amerikanische jüdische Führungspersönlichkeiten seit dem Hamas-Angriff auf Israel vor einem Jahr bereits die leiseste Äußerung von Mitgefühl für die zivilen Opfer von Netanyahus Gräueltaten in Gaza und jetzt im Libanon als gleichbedeutend mit Antisemitismus verurteilt. Führende amerikanische Universitäten, darunter meine Almae Matres Harvard und Columbia, haben den empörenden Forderungen jüdischer Spender nachgegeben, Studenten und Lehrkräfte, die gegen die Gräueltaten protestieren, zu verhaften und auszuschließen. Kurz gesagt, Antisemitismus als Konzept wird in ungeheuerlicher Weise für eine pro-israelische Zensur missbraucht.
Professor Mearsheimers Betonung der israelischen Lobby als bestimmender Faktor in der Nahostpolitik der Vereinigten Staaten passt sehr gut zu dem, was echte und nicht nur vorgetäuschte antisemitische Überzeugungen sind. Seine Einschätzung einer allmächtigen AIPAC und ihrer zerstörerischen Auswirkungen auf die US-Außenpolitik ist Musik in den Ohren derer, die sagen, dass die anglo-zionistische Bande die Welt und insbesondere die Vereinigten Staaten regiert.
Warum ist dies nun ein besonderes Thema für die Bevölkerung der alternativen Medien? Nun, schauen Sie sich das Publikum genau an und Sie werden mich verstehen.
Ich habe ein wenig Erfahrung mit diesem Thema, die weit über das jahrelange Chaos hinausgeht, das Israel in seiner Nachbarschaft angerichtet hat. Meine einschlägige Erfahrung reicht mehr als zehn Jahre zurück, als ich begann, Essays über die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Russland, die ich auf der Webplattform von La Libre Belgique geschrieben hatte und die dort ein paar hundert Leser anzogen, auf der in Moskau ansässigen Plattform Russia Insider, wo sie jedes Mal 40.000 oder 50.000 Leser anzogen, erneut zu veröffentlichen. Russia Insider wurde damals von seinem in Amerika geborenen Herausgeber Charles Bausman geleitet. Damals war Russia Insider die einzige Anlaufstelle für alternative Nachrichten über Russland.
Im Allgemeinen senden etwa 1 % aller Leser von im Internet veröffentlichten Materialien Kommentare, wenn diese Funktion zur Verfügung steht. So war es auch bei meinen Artikeln in Russia Insider. Diese Leute sind Aktivisten und repräsentieren nicht die anderen 99 % der Leser. Aber sie geben den Ton für die Plattform an. Wenn das, was in diesen Kommentaren zum Ausdruck kommt, zu radikal und abschreckend ist, wird die Leserschaft schrumpfen.
Im Fall von Russia Insider stammten zu viele der Leserkommentare von eindeutig antisozialen Menschen, die zufällig in den Vereinigten Staaten ansässig waren und ihr Land hassten. Noch mehr hassten sie die Anglo-Zionisten, von denen sie glaubten, dass sie die Welt regieren.
Schließlich wurde Russia Insider von dem Hass und dem antisozialen Verhalten der Minderheit der Leser, die den Ton angaben, in Mitleidenschaft gezogen.
Gilbert Doctorow 
I have to admit that your argument has its merits. It’s indeed become the dominant view to see the U.S.’s attitude towards Israel and the surrounding region as being influenced for the most part by the action of the lobby, which would explain why the U.S.’s policy in the region has pretty much run entirely counter to what would be its own best interests for all these past decades. Yet isn’t that how U.S. foreign policy has likewise been in regions of the world where the lobby plays no part?
The power of the lobby definitely cannot be dismissed or understated, but the fundamental problem with the U.S. is how, ever since the unipolar period had begun, the decision makers at Washington have become increasingly fixated on an ideology of American hegemony and exceptionalism, who are intolerant of any country that doesn’t toe their line, and, as a consequence, are reckless in their behavior and now unable to accept the reality of a changing world.
I also think another problem is that America only knows one way to truly maintain its hegemony, and that’s coercion and military force, diplomacy being nothing more than a facade. I see this as a result of the American empire having established its power and influence in the 20th century for the most part through wars alone. Surely, if the language of force is the one that helped propel you to power, that same language will help you maintain it?
Compare America’s approach to that of China, which mainly employs economic means to grow its influence throughout the world (just think about the Belt & Road Initiative).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the current self-harming behavior by America in the Middle East is enabled by the same ideologues who are likewise damaging U.S. power and credibility in other places such as Ukraine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think that the Prof Mearsheimer’s response was analytically weak and flawed. I fact I think it is a very strong argument because he pointed to his longitudinal analysis of the phenomenon, that only grew in strength.
And there is a parallel that one could see on the influence of the US has gained on European capitals. After the rejection of EU countries to join the US illegal invasion of Iraq, the US has invested tremendous efforts in grooming, bribing, blackmailing European elites (confirmed by Col. Wilkerson in one of his interviews). Now EU is a captive vassal state.
US politics being corrupted to the core and for not that much money, having legalized corruption and bribery as the linchpin of government making and functioning, Zionist supporters can easily have their reps running errands in the halls of power. And as Rep Massie said, there is an AIPAC handler for every rep and senator on the Hill.
Now maybe both things can be true as well: US desire for hegemony, especially in the Western Asia, and a show of force, of what they will do with disobedient population, aligns very well with Israel’s objective. But nobody will blame only Israel for genocide and war crimes, when all the bombs and missiles and some of the interlligence comes from the US. It takes two to tango this well.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with either of you. The golden rule is: the man with the gold makes the rules. Because most all commodity contracts are written in dollars and more commodities are traded in The City of London than anywhere else, more dollars are traded in the City of London. It is just like Boris’ trip to Turkie, ultimately the Party of Venice / City of London call the shots just as they have for a thousand years. Balfour agreement as just one example.
LikeLike
that is I am convinced the crux of power: the controllers of worldwide financial flows set the rulers! Money is power, everyone should know that. So to understand who is actually calling the shots we just need to follow the trails of investments and eventual profits. The ones who consistently pocket the lions share of worldwide profits are also the decision makers, everybody else such as legislative, executive, jurisdiction of any state are just proxies to be bought and sold by a few people who control the purse strings. These people prefer not to be recognised, that’s why the tool of anti-Semitic is invariably used by these people to remain behind dark curtains, they shy the public spotlight, how often do you read main headlines about the Rothschilds, the Murdochs, the Soros etc? So back to the question who is dependent on whom? Is it not that Israel completely depends economically and militarily on the USofA? So to assume that the US is an Israel proxy or that Israel is commanding the US executive what to do and when is ludicrous, even though the US congress is wholly corrupted by AIPAC. But where is that corrupt money flow coming from? From Israel or from US financial institutions and personalities. I allow myself to plagiarise Faulty Towers and conclude for now “don’t mention the Zionist!” There you have it I do not think that in the US-Israel relationship the tail is wagging the dog at all. The US as creator of Israel has always been in command of everything that Israel does or doesn’t do and therefore is responsible for all actions of Israel. To pretend or argue otherwise appears to me a pathetic attempt to whitewash the USofA.
LikeLike
Dr. Doctorow:
I think there may be another factor at work that I’d like to draw your attention to.
The U.S. administration – the so-called Deep State – the careerists, the key players in the Administration, esp. for foreign policy are, and have been since the days of Bush Junior – composed of Zionists and their “We’re Exceptional” co-conspirators.
There has been a systematic, long-term program to install these people. It’s systematic, deliberate, and quite effective.
Then there’s our Congress. Certainly you’ve seen for yourself the reception that Netanyahu gets. It’s a horrifying spectacle to see the lengths our Congress goes to demonstrate support.
And surely you’re aware of the immense influence that Jewish donors exert, directed and administered by AIPAC.
The U.S. foreign and global economic policy is _heavily_ influenced by these players, and Wall Street is every bit as influential, and heavily Zionist, as the rest of the Government apparatus.
The influence even extends as far that the State governments. I think there’s now 30 different states that have enacted anti-BDS legislation. Most of it is unconstitutional, but it certainly delivers a chilling impact on the normal, valid forms of dissent. Would you not agree with that?
Collectively these factors demonstrate an astonishing degree of control over the actions of the U.S. They are coordinated, reinforced, enforced and otherwise influenced by a remarkably stable, coherent force which spans Administrations.
That force is Zionism.
To make matters worse, our social media outlets – which now constitute the dominant means by which the public converses among itself – is also heavily biased toward, protective toward, and actively censoring for … the Zionist political position.
Finally, while Larry Johnson may not have been as polite as he might have been, he’s a _lot_ closer to the situation than you are. He’s more correct than you are.
Some of the best feedback we get in life comes in packages that “ain’t no fun to open”, and I think Mr. Johnson’s feedback falls into that category.
I hope you’ll do some more reflection on the points I offered.
It’s not helpful to blind oneself to reality, however awkward it might appear. We Americans need to face up to the reality that our government has been high-jacked by the Zionists and their fellow-traveler opportunists. Those people are actively, deliberately, systematic threat to the welfare of we Americans, and the world at large.
LikeLike
Dear Sir. There are all too many dogs featured in this discussion, not by my initiative but precisely by Larry Johnson. Take a look at h is latest Sonar website and you will see what I mean. I have no respect for arguments based on the behavior of Rotweilers. Foreign polciy is much too serious fo this kind of argumentation, whatever other ‘packages’ of information Larry may have access to that the rest of the world does not.
The biggest fault with your remarks is that you speak as if the Middle East was the entirery of US foreign policy. Sorry, my friend, but there is the rest of the world, and until the latest flare-up in Beirut, we all thought that the number one issue facing the world was the Ukraine war, where the interests and influence of AIPAC, the Zionist gang, whatever you want to call it, has zero importance. If you want to get a handle on US foreign policy better to look at the Liberal and Neocon ideologiests who infest the State Department. Yes, the Neocons were put there by Dick Cheney when he purged the Deep State, threw out all the Russia specialists in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, ourtsourced American intelligence, or at least half of it to commercial firms on short contracts who reported back to him what he wanted to hear. Where, I ask you, is the Israel lobby in all of this? Answer – nowhere.
LikeLike
Dr. Doctorow:
First, thank you for taking time to respond to my comment. Here is some rejoinder:
a. Whatever Larry Johnson does – the person, e.g. the messenger – is of little importance. I concentrate on the message, not the messenger. I think his message is accurate.
b. You said: “We all thought the number one issue was Ukraine” and the “Zionist Gang” has no influence there”. NeoCons = Zionists. That’s a fair equation; they’re pretty much the same people, are they not? Name some names of the NeoCons in the Administration that aren’t Zionists. Name me some NeoCons that have publicly opposed the actions of the Zionists, domestic or foreign. There’s no daylight between them.
c. The NeoCons were installed by Cheney with the help of a _lot_ of other people. One person can’t possibly root out State, CIA, etc. of careerists. That takes a _long_ time of constant effort.
d. Not only have the NeoCons stayed on post-Cheney, they’ve become vastly more entrenched. These are the same NeoCons that published the Project for the New American Century – PNAC. I’m sure you’re familiar with it; take a look at the proponents, the people that wrote it, signed on, and then executed it over a period of 20+ years. Those NeoCons are almost all raging Zionists. NeoCon = Zionist.
e. To your point that the focus has shifted from Ukraine to Israel. Right about the time the Ukraine project was absolutely un-winnable, then we start with Israel. Why? Because the Zionist-Neocon-Exceptionalist gang isn’t done yet. Let’s pick a new theater for war where Russia has less of an advantage. Where we can pick off the weakest of the Russia-China-Iran team. The same people that cooked up Ukraine (State, CIA and a somewhat more reluctant DoD) – Blinken, Biden, Nuland, … all of them Zionists … are now working on Iran. Same people. There’s continuity.
Let me close with a compliment: I value your insight, intelligence, ethos very highly. You are extraordinary on many dimensions of human performance.
This, so far as I am concerned, is respectful debate, and my, you are a worthy debater.
LikeLike
It is not my practice to allow ping pong conversations on this website because it leads to readers using the platform to freeload and carry on their own private conversations in a public space. I will respond to your latest remarks, leave this on the site for an hour, and then delete it all, yours and mine. I did not say that Dick Cheney personally purged the government and personally installed those who met his ideological demands. But surely you will agree that as Vice President, as a very, very active Vice President serving under a dimwit and lazy president, Cheney could get the job done and purge the government, install his ideological proteges as he wished. I do not agree that Zionists and Neocons are interchangeable terms even if many of the Neocons, especially the founders of the movement were in fact Jews. Francis Fukuyama is no Jew, but he was a seminal thinker for the Neocons as regards their plans to do History’s bidding and remake the world in America’s image.
LikeLike
I agree that the dog analogy was extremely weak. I also agree that the rest of the world matters, it’s not all about Israel – even if Israel is doing things like selling tech to North Korea or whatever.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that there is no dichotomy in reality and that presenting the situation as a dichotomy (A wags B vs B wags A) is not very helpful.
Anyway, the main reason I’m commenting now is to say that I don’t think that link to Wilkerson is the one you meant to share. This is a 2 minute extract from his interview and it does not pertain to the topic at hand.
LikeLike
Many thanks for pointing out the problem with the video. I have just put up the proper 25 minute version of the interviewCOL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Does NATO Want Ukraine?
| | | | | |
|
| | | | COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Does NATO Want Ukraine?
|
|
|
LikeLike
Back in 1981, Alexander Haig commented that “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/25/the-ultimate-ally-2/)
I think that represents a consistent attitude in the foreign policy establishment of the US government. From that standpoint, Israel and America are deeply interconnected and Israel serves the interests of America in the Middle East. And chief among those interests, it seems to me, is maintaining and encouraging instability within the various countries close to Israel (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran) and discouraging cooperation between those countries (e.g., pitting Iran against Iraq; pitting Saudi Arabia against Iran). Recall the outrage when the oil-producing countries banded together to form OPEC.
And there is close alignment between those goals of America and the goals of Israel. Its neighbors disapprove of Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians but internal instability and low trust between neighbors weakens the threat they pose to Israel’s presence.
While there is no question that Israel has tremendous lobbying power in Congress, thanks to the exemption of AIPAC from regulation by the Foreign Agent Registration Act, there is also no question that America is the master power (dog) and Israel the minor power (tail). There are a lot of wealthy Zionists in America (many of them Christian) but they do not dominate the wealth in America.
I agree with Dr. Doctorow that the tail does not wag the dog in this story. But I think the dog is happy with its tail and the tail is happy with the way it is being wagged.
LikeLiked by 2 people
well said!
LikeLike
It looks like Michael Hudson agrees with you over with Nima on the Dialogue Works youtube channel.
LikeLike
I’ve followed International Politics for a long time, and certainly there has been no greater geopolitical “hot spot” since the end of WW II than the M/East. From the 1948 “birth” of Israel onward, one could say — and I’m stretching a metaphor here — that the nascent U.S. Empire and Israel got married, partially out of “love” for each other and partly out of convenience. Thru the years, the marriage has often been strained, mostly by the petulance of Israel, but the parties have remained hitched (the Empire has had a credible proxy to help “manage” the region and Israel got perks). Now, as things have come to a head with the Israelis engaged in genocide and the U.S. forced to protect them, the marriage is more strained than ever. Like an older couple tired of an increasingly toxic arrangement and wishing the other would just “go away,” the U.S. and Israel nevertheless have stayed together to keep up appearances — until now.
Since last Oct 7, Israel has been in a position that for it has become existential and eschatological (hat tip to Alastair). War has been pushed to exterminating the “other” as religious forces galvanize a vision of a victorious Greater Israel as the only path to survival. I doubt that the folks running the State Dept. understand this, but they will soon.
So IMO who is whose “poodle” is not exactly clear. Both have used the other for their purposes. Check Nima hosting Professors Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson in an extraordinary recent discussion centering on the exploding Middle East highlighting the danger (and potential explosion) of the U.S. Empire’s management of the region featuring attack dog Israel and the dire consequences that now present themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao
LikeLike
The point is that Johnson was arrogant, rude and demonstrated the very behaviour he should condemn i.e sneering at those with alternative views. Isn’t he on the receiving end of such ignorant behaviour? I will no longer read or view his offerings due to his petulant, childish tantrum.
As for Tom Pfotzer’s comments: aren’t the American zionist neocons American and largely in control of foreign policy? It seems to rather support your case.
LikeLike
that’s it Chris, couldn’t have stated it better, even if Zionist Neocons entirely control US foreign policy, because they reside in the US and are American citizens, never mind if they are good or bad loyal citizens, the fact remains that ordering US foreign policy is done by the US to Israel, that is command line is linear from US to Israel, not the other way around, clear to me anyway! That is why the current terrorist war being perpetrated by Israel could be stopped within 5 Minutes by picking up the phone and these US executives telling Israel that all weapons supplies and financial support is immediately stopped, simply ordering Israel to stop all their terror activities. And there’s nothing that Israel could counter with!
LikeLike
All of those mentioned, including yourself, have interesting points to make. One thing I think affects the behavior we see that many might be overlooking is the schizophrenic way in which the current US administration (and Democrats in particular) are forced to act in public. This is because a significant portion of the Democrat base is very vocally pro-Palestinian, and the Democrats are trying to straddle the fence on an issue which really admits to no middle ground.
LikeLike
All very interesting discussion. And much might be said on each side — on many sides, actually. But the discussion misses the key point: Do the actions of the US government serve the interests of the American people? And the answer to that is clearly — NO!
The actions of the US government reflect the interests of whatever little faction happens to have the upper hand in the sprawling parasite that is the Federal Government. That is a very strange thing in a country that is supposed to have democracy — rule by the people, for the people — in a representative republic.
It is not the bulk of the people of the United States who want to waste lives & treasure in the Ukraine or the Middle East. It is a tiny (mostly unelected) minority in the bureaucracy. That means “democracy” has failed. That is the truly significant issue — with existential long-term ramifications.
LikeLike
As a follow up to @cathappy62f43f2f77, here is the link to Nima Alkhorshid”s interview with Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff. They both agree with your theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao
Michael Hudson has the advantage that he sat in on some of the early discussions on US strategy on proxy wars with Herman Kahn.
LikeLike
Many thanks for this. Yes, from minute 4 Hudson sets out the whole story of US reliance on proxies, when it started and why
LikeLike
The USA’s behaviour has been consistent since the fall of the Berlin wall. It is and remains the “big dog” by design.
“The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html
LikeLike
Larry Johnson posted an article over at Sonar21 on this issue. Here is the response which I posted there in reply:
Larry, I refer you to the recent interview by Nima with Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff here:
Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: Middle East Exploding, Ukraine Crumbling! the US Take Action?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao
In that interview Hudson recounts his time at the Hudson Institute run by Herman Kahn. I’m old enough to remember who Herman Kahn was – he was the guy who thought a nuclear war was “winnable.” (Keep that in mind when Hudson points out that the neocons don’t care if the world explodes if they’re not in control of it.)
Hudson explains how the entire situation that is unfolding today was created by Henry Jackson and the neocons back then in the 1950s and ’60s.
Hudson and Wolff discuss who is running the show. They conclude pretty much that the USA is the primary power and Israel is full of scared Zionists who are desperate for US support because otherwise their entire project is going to go kaput. They attached themselves to France first, as you no doubt know, but soon switched to the US because, as Wolff says, the US was the only superpower available after WWII. All their infiltration since then has been to insure a connection with the US.
But it is the US that created them (along with the Brits at the end of WWII) through the ’50s and ’60s.
The reality is I said in my earlier post here: it’s not an either-or situation. The US PTB are using Netanyahu for money, power and US hegemony in the Middle East, because of the oil. Netanyahu is using the US for money, power and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East – but under the control of the US.
I’m sure Netanyahu and his crazies would like to be out from under the thumb of the US. This is why I pointed out that Israel has developed nuclear-warhead capable missiles with the range to hit North America and Europe. Not to mention reported biological and genetic weapons aimed at non-Semitic races.
But the reality is that Netanyahu is under the thumb of the US. The fact that the US is not trying to “rein him in” is because – as Hudson establishes and as we can all see from US behavior – the US does NOT WANT to control him. They don’t NEED to control him – because he is doing what they WANT.
He is not the Rottweiler that isn’t under control. He’s the pit bull that is being ordered by his master to attack the master’s enemies – or perhaps to engage in dog fights as the proxy for the US – which as Wolff says Israel is willing to do in order to maintain that lifeline to the US, without which Israel would cease to exist.
I recommend you listen to the Hudson and Wolff interview. The situation is more nuanced than simply saying “Biden doesn’t control Netanyahu” or “Netanyahu is playing Biden.” (Or more
precisely it’s not Biden that is in control – it’s the people behind him.)
LikeLike
Dr. Doctorow:
I agree with your basic point of view that Israel is not running its own show but follows US’ commands. This also seems to be the point of view of Prof Seyed Marandi’s.
That been said, Larry Johnson and Professor John Mearsheimer’s idea AIPAC is running the US’ government in favor of Israel may not be totally off mark but only partially correct.
Let me explain, nobody seem to know for sure who are all the “neocons” (we know several names, but those may be just figureheads that are public) nor the leading group within the “deep state”. We only know/deduct these shadowy power groups are actually steering the “US’ Bus” of world hegemony. AIPAC may represent Israel’s interest but also be part of the “deep state” and the hegemonic (demonic?) neocon leadership. AIPAC may have more goals than represent Israels interest (the US security services would not be allowing it to exist/function if they were not helpful to them too – CIA/NSA/etc do not need political contributions nor needs votes to stay in office). AIPAC maybe a multi-purpose tool at the service of the deep state/neocons as well.
So, my point, Larry Johnson and Professor John Mearsheimer’s ideas might be limited but not necessary wrong.
Pancho
LikeLike
Visualizing the Neocon/Zionist struggle for power dominance I envision Mad Magazine’s Spy versus Spy characters each with a nuclear knife behind their backs, plotting and giving false signals as they publicly swear allegiance to the same goals, while betraying anyone to further their mission, and that self-interested mission is to be the one controlling power.
The struggle has been going on for many years, and over those years, initially the US Neocons thought they had the upper hand, and starting with the USS Liberty, there has been a suppressed uncomfortable realization that irrational Zionist zeal is a force to be reckoned with a soft glove of control.
The Neocons and the Zionist intertwining struggle for dominance with ever increasing actions of upping the ante, doubling down on escalation, while domestically there’s real political chaos in the US and Israel being taken over by religious nutcases, presents a scary scenario with real life consequences that we all will discover in due time.
LikeLike
In the same line of your argument, of using Israel as a Proxy:
“The looming possibility of further escalation of a regional war in the Middle East has led experts to highlight that the current course of hostilities mirrors that laid out in an influential Brookings Institute paper, which was written to provide recommendations on how to pursue U.S. interests against Iran. The 2009 paper Which Path to Persia? focuses on using Israel as an effective proxy for Western Bloc interests to allow the Western world to maintain plausible deniability when internationally condemnable attacks are committed against Iran – namely the devastation of its economy and key infrastructure in strikes which would be considered highly illegal. This possibility is outlined in Chapter 5, titled: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike, with Bibi being a popular nickname for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper notes to this effect: “
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/warplan-iran-2009-paper-israel
LikeLike
Thanks for writingAnother reader brought this to my attention a couple of days agoYes p 89 ff – it is all very relevant
Envoyé depuis Yahoo Mail pour iPhone
LikeLike
It would appear that Michael Hudson agrees with you that the situation in Israel is run by the USA.
“MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the United States doesn’t want a ceasefire because it wants to take over the entire Near East. It wants to use Israel as the cat’s paw. Everything that’s happened today was planned out just 50 years ago back in 1973 and 1974. I sat in on meetings with Uzi Arad, who became Netanyahu’s chief military advisor after heading Mossad.
And the whole strategy was worked out essentially by the Defense Department, by neoliberals, and almost in a series of stages that I’ll explain.”
https://www.unz.com/mhudson/middle-east-exploding-ukraine-crumbling-the-u-s-take-action/
LikeLike
Israel’s leading the US around by the nose is as ridiculous a concept as the Nicaraguan Contras doing the same thing. This is just one more example of Larry’s confused conceptions such as lockdowns (or even vaccines) being the cause of long covid. I used to bookmark his page, but the cumulative effect of all the ridiculousness finally became too much. This is a pattern I have seen before, notably with Naomi Klein, whom I greatly admired for her courage in defending Hugu Chávez in The Shock Doctrine, but became quite inconsistent thereafter.
LikeLike
The notion that Dick Cheney or even zionism controls U.S. foreign policy is an example of thinking that rejects the entire thread of history. Historical developments are governed by material interests, and those that shape the world in profound ways are not done by the pique of individuals. Marxists call this the clash of class interests, and some may instinctively reject an analysis that reflects Marxism; but the reality of historical development should give those who have failed to consider this explanation cause to reconsider rather than those who have bought into a caracature of Marxism a reason to reject its logic.
LikeLike
In summary we have three theories:
1. The Israeli Tail Wags the US Dog
2. The US Dog wags the Israeli Tail
3. A self wagging US Dog and Israeli Tail
The response to the Iranian missile attack on Israel could theoretically be used to asses which of these 3 theories are correct.
If Israeli attacks Iranian oil facilities driving up oil prices during a Biden re-election year then theory 1 would be proven.
If Israel doesn’t retaliate or attacks non energy targets then theory 2 would be proven.
With any Israeli retaliation between these two proving theory 3.
LikeLike
Tonight is the start of Yom Kipput which commences with the Kol Nidre:
“All vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konamei and kinusei and synonymous terms,[5] that we may vow, or swear, or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves, •from the previous Day of Atonement until this Day of Atonement and …• ♦from this Day of Atonement until the [next] Day of Atonement that will come for our benefit.♦ Regarding all of them, we repudiate them. All of them are undone, abandoned, cancelled, null and void, not in force, and not in effect. Our vows are no longer vows, and our prohibitions are no longer prohibitions, and our oaths are no longer oaths.”
Just getting right with God for another years lies.
LikeLike
Hello!
I discovered this blog after seeing the Dr. Doctorow interviewed by Andrew Napolitano. I’m glad it was brought to my attention and look forward to reading more in the future. I hope your comments community will forgive me for dropping in out of the blue. This is the first post I have read, and I am ignorant, of course, about how things are done here.
I was glad to see the passage above: “Professor Mearsheimer’s emphasis on the Israeli Lobby as the controlling factor in United States policy towards the Middle East plays very nicely into what are real as opposed to phony anti-Semitic beliefs. His estimation of an all-powerful AIPAC and its destructive impact on U.S. foreign policy is music to the ears of those who say that the Anglo-Zionist gang runs the world and runs the United States in particular.”
This strikes me as extremely important to point out. Perhaps many of us are too quick to accept Mearsheimer’s thesis because it eases our consciences. This combined with the real bigotries and hatreds that are being stirred up is a dangerous mix.
My gut feeling tells me that Congress and the American foreign policy elite simply do not care about the Palestinians. Congress doesn’t care whether they live or die. In some deeply unsettling way, our leaders consider the Palestinians un-human—not even worthy of revenge, anymore than one would feel vengeful toward ants that inhabit another’s garden. Israel is allowed to do whatever she wants to the Palestinians, because we don’t see them as worthy of the slightest consideration.
Finally, I noticed on so-called “social” media a clip of Nasrallah has been going around in which, he too, makes the point that Israel is a tool of the United States, explicitly rejecting the notion that it goes the other way. He seems to make the point with some humor: “According to some theories, Israel controls America. No sir. It is America that controls Israel. The story about the Jewish and Zionist lobby is – forgive me for saying this – a joke invented by the Arabs so that they do not have to fight Israel. They do this so that they can go to America, deposit their money there, and establish relations with America, under the pretext that they are establishing an Arab lobby. After 75 years, we can see what came out of the Arab lobby. The Arab money is piling up in the American coffers, but that’s it.”
Thanks for the insightful and thought-provoking post.
LikeLike
On so-called “social” media a clip of Nasrallah has been going around in which, he too, makes the point that Israel is a tool of the United States, explicitly rejecting the notion that it goes the other way. He seems to make the point with some humor:
It seems that there are many reasons why one might be anxious to accept the “joke” that Israel controls the United States.
(This is the first time I have read this blog. Found it after seeing an interview with Dr. Doctorow on Napolitano’s YouTube show. Happy to have discovered it. Thanks very much for expressing this important idea. Looking forward to reading more.)
LikeLike