What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
THE INSIDE HISTORY OF THE
ISRAEL LOBBY
Former top
CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison give CounterPunchers
the real scoop on the Israel lobby and precisely how powerful
it is. Read
how US presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated
by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton
to its purpose; how Bush's White House has been the West Wing
of the Israeli government; how Washington's revolving doors send
full-time Israel lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security
Council and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. For all who want a
true measure of the Lobby's power, the Christisons' 8-page dossier,
exclusive to CounterPunch newsletter subscribers, is a MUST read. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains
fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation
for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
A group of left intellectuals have recently
issued The Euston Manifesto.
The signers are mostly British, and the American signers include
both editors of Dissent magazine (Michael Walzer and Mitchell
Cohen), a member of the Dissent editorial board (Paul Berman),
a Dissent contributor (Kanan Makiya) and a contributing editor
to The Nation (Marc Cooper).
The Euston Manifesto consists
of (A) Preamble, (B) Statement of Principles, (C) Elaborations,
and (D) Conclusions.
(A) In the preamble, the signers
declare themselves "democrats and progressives," proposing
a "fresh political alignment". The identify themselves
as people on the left, reaching out to others (whether leftist
or not) who have "an unambiguous democratic commitment".
(B) The 15-point Statement
of Principles is a catechism of positions:
(1) For democracy,
(2) No apology for tyranny,
(3) Human rights for all,
(4) Equality,
(5) Development for freedom,
(6) Opposing anti-Americanism,
(7) For a two-state solution
(In Israel and Palestine),
(8) Against racism,
(9) United against terror,
(10) A new internationalism
(in favor of "humanitarian intervention"),
(11) A critical openness,
(12) Historical truth,
(13) Freedom of ideas,
(14) Open source, and
(15) A precious heritage.
In part C, "Elaborations,"
we finally we get to the point: support for the US occupation
of Iraq.
The signers explain that "the
founding supporters of this statement took different views on
the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize
that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification
for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through,
the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects
for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are,
however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist
and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we
recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people.
We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this
occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members
of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq
a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure,
to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life
for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for
granted--rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments
over intervention."
Translation: the signers proclaim
that the Left should be helping, not opposing, the US occupation
of Iraq. After all, teaching the backward natives the art of
self-government is part of the White Man's Burden!
(D) Conclusion, quoted in its
entirety: "It is vitally important for the future of progressive
politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist
outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against
those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been
subordinated to a blanket and simplistic 'anti-imperialism' and/or
hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals
which properly make up that agenda--the values of democracy,
human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege
and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and
oppression--are what most enduringly define the shape of any
Left worth belonging to."
They have not noticed that
some of their principles are contradicted by their political
positions.
For example, consider Principle
#8, "against racism". The signers write that "the
recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism,
is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles.
Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people
under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the
Jewish people behind the formula of 'anti-Zionism'. We oppose
this type of racism too, as should go without saying."
The manifesto signers do not
consider that the "legitimate grievances of the Palestinian
people under occupation by Israel" arise because the Palestinians
are the victims of Israel's racism. In this connection, what
about Principle #3. "Human rights for all"? Do they
really mean all, even including Palestinians? In that case they
would be severely critical of Israel, but they are not. Dissent
magazine's editor, Michael Walzer, actually endorsed Israel's
1982 invasion of Lebanon! To the manifesto signers, anyone accusing
Israel of systematic racism against the Palestinians is guilty
of "anti-Zionism", and of course this equals anti-Semitism.
So there you have it! Anyone accusing Israel of racism must be
an anti-Semite!
Among the Statement of Principles,
there is no mention of opposition to war or imperialism. There
is only a passing mention of colonialism in point #15, "A
precious heritage":
"We reject fear of modernity,
fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and
we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls
of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty,
equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness.
These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all
by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial
transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries--by
the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the
brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women."
Finally they mention the "anti-colonial
transformation." But isn't the US invasion and occupation
of te Persian Gulf (today Iraq, and tomorrow Iran?) a modern
form of colonialism, motivated by the US desire to control the
oil of the Persian Gulf? Aren't the efforts of the Iraqis and
Iranians to resist US imperialism therefore an anticolonial struggle?
Of course, the signers of the Euston Manifesto have absolutely
nothing good to say about the "the gangs of jihadist and
Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance."
The Euston Manifesto was written
by social democrats who support the US invasion and occupation
of Iraq. They are pleading for support from other leftists and
from the broader community of liberals. I predict that this manifesto
will fail to rally pro-war sentiment. It's too late, and opposition
to the war is by now nearly universal among the people they hope
to convince. Instead, the likely effect will be the political
isolation of the signers.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.