Ilan Pappe Exposes the Sins of Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky has an incomparable record of revealing the machinations and the deadly effects of United States foreign policy for decades. He has justly earned international respect, and even admiration, for his brilliant analyses and intellectual courage and integrity. It is only natural that many on the left wished to hear his response to a recent study by two prominent academicians in the United States, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, (henceforth, M-W) who caused a sensation by scrutinizing the exploits of the Israeli lobby in Washington. M-W had done an excellent job of describing the brutal antics of the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States and its central player, AIPAC.

I have no reason to believe that either M or W were ever considered leftists. Thus, it is no surprise that their critique of the pro-Israel lobby is based on the assumption that this lobby has succeeded in undermining and perverting a basically honest and fair minded, almost angelic, institution, US foreign policy. Is this a good way of looking at the problem? Does the M-W approach give us a full and accurate picture of the interaction between the different US administrations over the years and the pro-Israeli lobby?

Chomsky’s article appeared in ZNet (March 28, 2006). After noting that, “M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations,” Chomsky comments that “we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is?”

Chomsky proceeds to a nuanced analyses of the interaction between the two elements: ” “Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.”

Chomsky easily demonstrates the determining and overriding role of U.S strategic-economic interests. But little did he know that he was incurring the wrath of Prof. Ilan Pappe from the University of Haifa (see ALEF, Academic Left Website in Israel – Pappe’s article is appended in full). Pappe uses this opportunity to expose any number of Chomsky’s serious failings. In a few short paragraphs of dense and strangely sloppy text, Pappe presents us with a serious indictment against Chomsky. (Text quoted from Pappe includes all the spelling and grammatical errors in the original).

The First Offense – A Sin of Omission

Pappe charges that “Chomsky never paid too much and enough attention to the impact of AIPAC on American policy.” Leaving off the problem of measuring “too much” and “not enough attention” , is there anyone, including Chomsky, who doubts the impact of AIPAC on American policy? Chomsky relates in his article to the question of the “relative” impact of the Israeli lobby and this makes it crystal clear that he pays ’sufficient attention” to AIPAC. Chomsky it appears is guilty of not stressing something that does not need to be stressed, for the simple reason that it is something which is known and totally uncontroversial, such as the role of AIPAC or the role of the Christian Zionists in supporting Israel. Pappe’s accusation is silly nit-picking. Just how much must Noam Chomsky repeat well known and uncontroversial facts to satisfy Pappe’s demand for ’sufficient attention’? Pappe blames Chomsky for not “highlighting” and “illuminating things” that are clear and simple unchallenged facts. Isn’t it completely reasonable that Chomsky should devote his main attention to more controversial elements of any issue, especially those usually hidden from the public.

Chomsky’s Cardinal Sins

At this point, Pappe, stops playing around and trots out the really important sins of Noam Chomsky: “Chomsky also claims that a two state solution is still viable and opposes sanctions on Israel. Intersting positions but hardly ones the invalidate the counter positions.” Aside from problems of grammar and spelling it is difficult to even understand these sentences. Chomsky did not deal with either of these two questions in his article on M-W! Pappe might mean that these two positions on the two state solution and sanctions do not prove M-W wrong. But Chomsky never made such a claim. The only possible explanation for this attack is that Pappe is grandstanding for a certain constituency where he occupies guru status. This way he can score some points in his own circles by making Chomsky appear anti-Palestinian.

At this point, Pappe tries to poke some holes in Chomsky’s evaluation of US policy ( “a remarkable success and quite similar to those pursued elsewhere”). Pappe has found two isolated instances that do not fit into Chomsky’s generalization of US success in ME policy. He cites a shift in the post-Kennedy period that doesn’t fit into Chomsky’s thesis and then denounces the whole approach (”utterly wrong”). Why, because US non- typically “alienated traditional allies”. Now this did happen, but the US didn’t leave its traditional allies out in the cold. After helping them to get used to the idea that they were on the same side as Israel, the US actually married Egypt and Jordan off to Israel in formal peace agreements.
Here is another Ilan Pappe “clincher”. Though the Saudis profited from the US-Israeli alliance, the rhetoric coming out of Saudia didn’t fit the real situation, namely that Israel was its de facto ally. Whether the Saudis understood this at the time is a moot point. If they did not, time and U.S. diplomacy soon wizened them up. Maybe the Saudis believed that Nasser disappeared, not because of the Israeli military victory over Egypt, but because he was “an infidel.”

Pappe’s final summation is a gem of fogginess and malice and is quoted here in full :”
“It is not that Israel is a sui generis case. But due to the Zionist Lobby and Jewish money in the US it appears to be so and no other regional case of the many cases we learned so much from Chomsky’s ecxellent journeys into the past has ever constitued such a place in US policy. You probably have to be on the receiving end of the US-ISrael speical alliance to understand why it is not a typical American stance and why for re-formulating that policy you need a special campaign and effort; one that is focused on the unprecedented power Jews and Zionists have on America policy in the Middle East in general and Palestine in particular. Unpleasant maybe, but nonetheless the only valid target if indeed one believes US policy should change before peace can come to this area.”

Pappe wanders about in a cloud of confusion. First: “It is not that Israel is a sui generis case.” But his whole argument is precisely that it is just that. He writes: “But due to the Zionist Lobby and Jewish money in the US it appears to be so [sui generis]. Pappe says “appears” when he wants to say that in reality it is just that.

Indeed his argument is the same as that of M-W, but couched in a vulgar and irresponsible language. No serious public intellectual could conceive of using the phrase “unprecedented power Jews and Zionists have on America policy in the Middle East in general and Palestine in particular.” This description of the Jews (not some Jews, not many Jews, but the Jews - is indistinguishable from and easily understood as “all the Jews”). According to Pappe, the Jews, the Zionists and Jewish money have a stranglehold on the US establishment. This thesis is not only inaccurate and grossly exaggerated. It is also formulated in a wild and irresponsible language. But even more important, the very essence of the argument is wrong in that it ignores the overriding force and factor, United States hegemonic interests and imperial domination.

Pappe concludes his short, distortion-packed article, with the most amazing and startling piece of advice. He writes: “If we want to fight US policy we must focus on the only valid target, the unprecedented power of the Jews and the Zionists.” Not just one of the targets. The only valid one!

---

The Pappe Article
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:43:06 +0200
From: pappe@poli.haifa.ac.il
Subject: Fwd: Re: [alef] Chomsky: The Israel Lobby?
To: alef@list.haifa.ac.il

So what do we learn from the Chomsky reaction?: We can find out what Noam has missed in his analyses in the last twenty years - as this was clear before the LRB article: Chomsky never paid too much and enough attention to the impact of AIPAC on American policy. He identified other factors and grounds, but failed to highlight something which was next door. Nor did he ever write anything of signficance on the Christian Zionists and only recently came to appreciate their role and still did not illuminate their connection to AIPAC. Chomsky also claims that a two state solution is still viable and opposes sanctions on Israel.
Intersting positions but hardly ones the invalidate the counter positions.

Now the most strange para. in his argument is ‘When we do investigate (1), we find that US policies in the ME are quite similar to those pursued elsewhere in the world, and have been a remarkable success, in the face of many
difficulties: 60 years is a long time for planning success. It’s true that Bush II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that’s an entirely separate matter’.

Now this is utternly wrong - the US position shifted in the ME since Kennedy’s death, whereas it remained the same elswhere. Only in the ME did the US alienate regimes that were pro-American and were supported by all the traditonal groups that inform and form US Policy.

The rest of the arguments seem to stem from this faulty assumption and hence comes another unsubstantiated assumption that the ‘As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to> divert resources to domestic needs’.

Performed or was seen to perform? Nobody thought in Riyad that this is what Israel was doing - in fact the Saudi stance became more anti-Israel at that time. It was AIPAC that made it seem like it.

It is not that Israel is a sui generis case. But due to the Zionist Lobby and Jewish money in the US it appears to be so and no other regional case of the many cases we learned so much from Chomsky’s ecxellent journeys into the past has ever constitued such a place in US policy. You probably have to be on the receiving end of the US-ISrael speical alliance to understand why it is not a typical American stance and why for re-formulating that policy you need a special campaign and effort; one that is focused on the unprecedented power Jews and Zionists have on America policy in the Middle East in general and Palestine in particular. Unpleasant maybe, but nonetheless the only valid target if indeed one believes US policy should change before peace can come to this area.

Elections - Elusive Stability

A funny thing happened to the Israeli bourgeois on its way to dismantling the last remains of the welfare state and privatizing its way through those pearly gates into a globalized heaven. The ball was handed to Ariel Sharon precisely in order to execute game plans for remodeling the Israeli political system. The goals had been defined by the poli-sci and media mavens: The means to the goal was the creation of a hegemonic centrist party that could secure a coalition for far reaching structural changes in the Israeli political system.

The first short term goal was to lower the number of parties by raising the threshold for representation. The plan worked out in the previous Knesset was to raise the 1.5% threshold to 2.5%, but a last minute clash with the ultra religious groups (which can unite or run together on any given day) resulted in a compromise of 2%. The 2.5 % threshold, if imposed in the recent elections would have eliminated the representation of Azmi Bashara’s National Assembly Party, Balad (three seats) and the other two parties, HADASH (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality) and the Arab Unity List would have squeezed through this time, only because of the low turnout. The parliamentary representation of the Palestinian Arab community could have been wiped out, transferring ten seats to the Zionist parties, to be divided up according to their relative strength. This electoral catastrophe was averted almost by chance

The second element of the electoral reform strategy is the so-called movement for an Israeli constitution. The movement camouflages it real goal with pious references to constitutional rights and regional representation, but its actual target is the Israeli proportional representation (PR) election system. Money wants stability and stability loves the two or three party system, and therefore PR is passé. The campaign for a constitution went on and goes on all the time, targeting schools and universities and preparing the ground for a new attack on PR, in the event of extreme political crises.

We cannot know if Sharon would have pulled it off. Olmert didn’t. Sharon had succeeded in discrediting the settler right and its allies to the point that they were unable even to gain from his absence. Olmert did not have Sharon’s status and the resulting vacuum was filled with angry voters demanding the return of entitlements taken away from them by Sharon’s finance minister, Netanyahu. They streamed in mass numbers into the fold of those parties who could claim that their hands had not spilled blood during the 2004-2005 social welfare cuts. Shas, which was in the opposition, and the ultra religious parties did well. A previously non-existent party of pensioners came out of nowhere and received seven seats. A reformed Labor survived the anti-Netanyahu landslide by electing Peretz, who had opposed Labor participation in the Sharon government, as its leader.

The disentitled, the victims of reduced social spending among the ill, the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor have presented a 12 billion shekel bill to the Olmert coalition before it comes into existence. Labor, Shas and even the pensioners wouldn’t mind some sort of wiggle room to get out of their clear commitments to their voters which include a state pension plan for all citizens, a rise in the minimum wage, restoration of children allowances and the like. But the meaning of their election success is simply unequivocal. Olmert could, of course, turn to the settlers and the racists who had attempted to devour Sharon alive. Olmert could ally himself with them by guaranteeing the uneasy occupation status quo. But then it would be clear to all that he is befouling the grave of Ariel Sharon.

The United States has showered compliments and good will on Olmert. He, it appears, understands their need for some sort of motion necessary to give, at the least, a semblance (howsoever ephemeral) of progress towards peace. After having undermined the prestige of Abu Mazen and enthroned Hamas, the U.S would like to think that there is someone in charge who can hold the fort in this part of the Middle East. This is quite important since no one running things in DC is capable of thinking simultaneously about all the US problems in the region. Bush is up to his neck in the Iraq muddy-muddy and he hopes that Ehud Olmert can prevent any more waves out this way. This might be expensive.

Of the Dog and His Tail

Is the Israeli lobby ultimately responsible for the unwise, unfair, and unbelievably skewered policies of the US government towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Can the real bosses of the pro-Israeli lobby, the Israeli government(s) take credit for shifting the orientation of a gigantic world power away from its authentic interests towards total and unqualified support to Israel.

This is not a new argument. The earlier form in which it appeared dealt with the problem of the dog and his tail. The analytical innovation, now taken up and promoted by Messers Walt & Mearsheimer in their now famous article, was the discovery of a tail which wagged the dog. In terms of appearances, it certainly looks like that a lot or most of the time. The tail does seem to wag the dog. Ah, but appearances are deceiving. There is a slight problem. Who taught the tail to wag the dog? Any dog lover will tell you not to underestimate the intelligence of a dog, nor his ability to teach his own tail to wag him when he wants to be wagged.

Another Election Comment – Pray for Us in Jerusalem

Please offer up a bit of sympathy for your friends in the left in Jerusalem. What a town. Get these numbers. The leading party is the Ultra-Orthodox Aguda Israel with 18%. In second place, we have the fundamentalist Sephardic religious party, Shas, with more than 15%. In third place, the fanatical settler party formed by National Unity and the National Religious Party received more than 12%. Lieberman’s racist, transfer party received more than 6 %. The Likud went down from 30% to 10 % (I guess that one can find some solace in this). Kadima (12%), Labor (10%) and MERETZ (3%), all together, came up with a quarter of the votes. The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality received one third of one per cent. It’s a very tough town.

Lurch to the Left

Sharon is a militarist and a chauvinist, but he is not a messianic fundamentalist. Reading changes and fluctuations in the regional and international map, Sharon is convinced that Israel needs room for maneuver. For this, he is forced to move to the center. This dynamic was already at work in the background when the Labor Party chose its new leader. It was either move to the left and distinguish its image from that of Sharon, or see its voters desert it in droves. It was quite a week in Israeli politics.

Israel has lurched to the left. This kind of motion implies both suddenness and reversibility. Meanwhile, Israeli politics are in the process of realignment, with major groupings and figures moving to the left.Israeli politics were and are still steeped in colonialist logic. Movement to the left in our context means a growing understanding that the occupation of the Palestinian territories is not, in its present parameters, sustainable. Current evidence indicates that the shift is for real and is finding expression in a sea change in the prevalent discourse.

Understanding Sharon

Sharon’s break with the settler right became inevitable after he came on board as a team player in Bush’s global anti-terrorist strategy. Bush’s vision of a Palestinian state (June 2002), though far from an authentic commitment to a viable sovereign entity, was an absolute necessity to prevent the total diplomatic isolation of the U.S.A. in the region. The military, diplomatic and domestic political debacle regarding events in Iraq makes it increasingly important for Bush to appear as a potential partner to consensual diplomatic action on the Israeli-Palestinian peace front.

As far back as April 2004, Sharon stated openly that the Gaza disengagement plan was designed to prevent pressure on the United States and Israel in the face of a virtual flood of two-state based peace initiatives. Sharon had to invent a pseudo peace process. He proved his loyalty to the team by presenting to Bush something that Bush and his administration could pass off as forward motion in the ‘peace process’. Working within unilateralist parameters he chose disengagement as a impressive act which did not involve serious negotiations with the Palestinians. No one except the settlers themselves believed that Israel could keep the Gaza project in a negotiated peace.

The settlers, basing themselves on theological categorical imperatives, (God told us to settle the land and keep it) could not play this game. Sharon had to choose between his former cronies in the art of expropriation and his links to Bush. It did not take him to long to decide. The disengagement break with the settlers meant a major split in his party. Sharon, it transpired, had more support in the public and among Likud voters, but the anti-disengagement forces had more strength in the party apparatus. Sharon, pressured to declare that the Gaza disengagement was the last and only Israeli concession, had to accept the shackles or split the Likud down the middle.

Sharon is in a position to know that Bush will need more ‘concessions’ of the unilaterlist kind. He trusts that his prominent standing on Bush’s team and his own skills and maneuverability will enable him to devise a series of policies which will feed the peace process with an infinite number of phases and stages. He is convinced that even if Israeli is forced into really serious bargaining with the Palestinians he, as the only person able to do so, will use his hard earned international credit to sabotage a deal or alternatively to minimize the damage. This is, in his eyes, a rather delicate operation, and he is probably right. He does not want to work on this kind of surgery with a gang of chauvinist annexationists telling him what he can and cannot do. However, despite his demand for flexibility, his basic goal remains unchanged. To save as much of the West Bank as possible for the Jewish state, to prevent an overall settlement based on the internationally recognized formula in all the two-stage initiatives: borders based on the 1967 lines, two capitals in Jerusalem and a serious international and local effort to basically ameliorate the situation of the Palestinian refugees. Sharon needs entrance to the Bush control room to prevent the only decisions that could give peace a chance.

Thus, Sharon drags serious chunks of the Israeli right to the center of the political arena. His former comrades in the Likud argue quite logically that had he intended to hew to their official line against any further concessions, he would not need to bid them farewell. Interestingly enough, even the post-Sharon Likud will not be easy pickings for Netanyahu and the settler political block. Many figures close to Sharon, like current Defense Minister, Mofaz, and Foreign Minister, Shalom, both of whom supported the disengagement, remained in the Likud out of personal and tactical considerations. Sharon rid himself of the Likud but the Likud is not yet rid of Sharon.

It is worth recalling that Sharon is still the most reliable Middle East player should Washington opt for an even more desperate path in its attempt to avoid the total collapse of its Iraqi adventure. New adventures do not seem overly attractive to Washington these days, but losers are always tempted to play one more hand (Syria? Iran?), before getting up from the table. Sharon, whether in the right or the center, will make certain that Israeli advice and services are available for any reckless scheme.

Sharon, the Candidate of the “Left”

It is a criminal offense against the very foundations of the concept of “Left”, but the media around here insist, for their own sweet needs and purposes, on calling the Labor Party in this country “Left.” By the time Sharon had inducted it into his government and pulled off the Gaza disengagement, the Labor party found itself facing a serious parliamentary election without a single issue that differentiated it and many of its mainstream supporters from Sharon. Polls held a month back showed that Sharon was the preferred candidate for prime minister among Labor Party voters (!). He also led all other candidates among members of the Labor Party elected bodies (!!). The strategy of national unity foisted on the Labor party by Shimon Peres had come full circle.

Amir Peretz, the Candidate of the Left

Somehow, enough voters in the Labor Party primary sensed that the unending liquidation sale had to end if the party was to survive. This sentiment was buttressed by some real clout, i.e., Peretz’s control of the Histadrut, the trade union organizations, which provided him with the strongest political machine of all the candidates. Peretz is impressive, he has a colorful background, he is unique in that he openly opposes the social polarization in the country and voices dove positions regarding the conflict with the Palestinians. But a sense of proportion is still valuable. He is not a revolutionary, and he does not represent a revolutionary movement. It is more than likely that Peretz will be hemmed in by the party’s ‘old guard’ and his media advisers.

But whatever his chances for electoral success or his personal ability to maintain his integrity in an environment dominated by backstabbing colleagues, Peretz has pushed the political establishment to the left by insisting on a clear connection between the fight for peace and fight against social repression. But it seems that, already, this early in the game, he is acting as if he was surprised by his own audacity. Peretz has already been pressured into modifying his super-dove image and issued some retrogressive declarations regarding the refugee issue, Jerusalem and expansion of settlements in the so-called settlement blocks.

Helpful Hypotheses

Though, the thesis that Israeli politics have moved to the left is shared by all serious observers, questions do remain as to the depth of the trend and the reasons for it. It is too early for any definite answers, but there sufficient grounds for examining what may be some helpful hypotheses.
It is common knowledge that there are serious tensions in Washington and in the ruling circles in the United States. These tensions reflect different views and approaches to international realities. Analysts speak, on the basis of credible information about camps: Ideologues versus Realists or Hegemonists versus Globalists. Whatever the background for these tensions, the Iraq crisis is exacerbating them day by day and they must of necessity influence thinking regarding the “special relationship” with Israel and dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, the resilience of the ‘special relationship’ should not be dismissed easily. After all, Israel extends a vast array of open and secret services on behalf of U.S. political and military interests.

Even so, a series of mini-crises seems to have cast some dark shadows on the clear skies. The indictment of two top officers in the ‘AIPAC’ scandal is of no small significance. There is no reason to doubt the culpability of the AIPAC officials and their willing assistance to some Israeli info gathering operation. But this could have been considered a misunderstanding among friends. Friends do not put each other on trial and matters of such a nature have always found a solution with a slap on the offending wrists.

In the same period, the U.S. Defense Department, was forced to clarify to Israel that much of its business in Beijing is ‘monkey business.’ One wag explaned that the neo-cons hate China more than they love Israel. Israel tried to ‘explain’ but the Pentagon wasn’t buying explanations. Just to make sure that Jerusalem got the message, the Pentagon demanded, with straightforward brutality, the head of Israeli Defense Department Director-General Amos Yaron. Of course, Amos was only a clerk. But Amos, doesn’t work there anymore.

Paul Wolfowitz was a serious allay of Israel in top Pentagon quarters. Wolfowitz, a neo-con icon closer to Sharon than to the settlers, but many other neo-cons such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were on coziest of terms with the settlers. Wolfowitz, the architect of the war in Iraq, got kicked upstairs and was given – what a nice consolation prize – the directorship of the World Bank. As part of a very strange gambit, James Wolfenson, whom Wolfowitz replaced at the World Bank, surfaced in the area as the special representative of the Quartet responsible for the implementation of the Road Map. Wolfenson could not have been appointed without Washington’s backing, but he is certainly not the run of the mill Bush appointment. His presence seems to be that of fair-minded, very shrewd and independent operator.

Condelleza Rice, busy positioning herself against Rumsfield, ‘happened’ to be in the region when Wofenson’s efforts to conclude an agreement on the vital Gaza border crossings were being shot down due to some classic Israeli obstructionism. Rice, getting her feet wet in the local conflict, succeeded in forging a settlement (at least for now). Israeli diplomacy, it should be appreciated, has a distinct distaste for high profile, high level U.S. diplomatic proximity and prefers very much to have Washington receive and rely exclusively on Israeli reports and interpretation.
While it would be wrong to conclude that there is a structural shift in U.S.-Israeli relations, it would be equally wrong for any serious observer to ignore many indications that there is a growing sensitivity in Washington to the price it pays for indiscriminate total deference to its local partner. Iraq means volatility all over the place. Sharon’s gambit expresses a sophisticated understanding of the importance and possible danger of different trends in Washington, and the need to respond to these tendencies creatively.

Palestine Still in the Picture

Sharon would like, as far as possible, to ignore the existence of the Palestinian partner. The Israeli mantra demanding the ‘dismantling of the terrorist infrastructures’ as a precondition for serious negotiations rings increasingly hollow, after Abu Mazen has brokered an internal Palestinian agreement which has had unprecedented success in reducing violence and tensions. Sharon, fearing enhanced prestige which the Palestinian Authority and Abu Mazen might earn from a successful electoral process, builds on the inability of the Authority to impose its discipline and would like to see Palestinian society descend into chaos. The critical weaknesses of the Palestinian Authority are no secret. Many, saddened and discouraged by this state of affairs, are all too willing to accuse the Palestinian leadership of collaboration with Sharon. Sharon knows better. He uses every conceivable strategy to avoid serious negotiations. With all its dangerous shortcomings, the Palestinian Authority still symbolizes the fact that without the Palestinians there will be no peace in the region. It can still seriously improve its local and international prestige and such an improvement would be an important contribution to the hopes for peace.