Andrew Sullivan: "A False Premise"

"A False Premise"
Andrew Sullivan

<snip>

I took neoconservatism seriously for a long time, because it offered an interesting critique of what's wrong with the Middle East, and seemed to have the only coherent strategic answer to the savagery of 9/11. I now realize that the answer - the permanent occupation of Iraq - was absurdly utopian and only made feasible by exploiting the psychic trauma of that dreadful day. The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into. Cheney saw America as Netanyahu sees Israel: a country built for permanent war and the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business" of waging it (with a few war crimes to keep the enemy on their toes).

But America is not Israel. America might support Israel, might have a special relationship with Israel. But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.

<more>

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/a-false-premise.html

~PEACE~

can say a lot in a few paragraphs. Excellent.

is Israel.

It's not

never will be

and if the love for Israel is so great - move there - leave here

now

ETA: having read the article, Sullivan seems to be suggesting that some (neocons) regard America as being in a similar position to Israel, and draw inappropriate parallels. I don't think he's right (see my other post); but at any rate Sullivan isn't seriously implying that anyone thinks that Israel and America are absolutely identical.
And frankly your comment reminds me more than a bit of the righties' 'love America or leave it!'

for the RW to push parallels between USA vs Iraq/Islam as being a bigger version of Israel vs Palestine/arab world.

I've noticed it many times over the years.

Nixon armed right wing fundamentalist Israel ---

which eventually has buried the liberal, peace loving Israelis.

Further, evidently Israeli and US weapons manufacturing has been so intertwined

that you can barely tell the difference between them.


There were many concerns for Israel when Nixon became president because he was

quite correctly judged to be anti-Semitic. Like many other political uses of

religion in conquering nations and co-opting governments, it has been used by our

government for hundreds of years and not so long ago in Afghanistan.

And Nixon repeated this pattern giving us a foothold in the ME/OIL via Israel.

I think that the neocons look at everywhere, including America and Israel, as parts of the battleground in some 'culture war' against the Islamic world in general and Iran in particular- just as their precursors looked at everywhere as parts of the battleground against communism. Hence the support for - and indeed egging on of - the Israeli Right.

My own view is that the neocons and Bushies sometimes treat the Israelis as pawns in a proxy war against Iran, just as Iran sometimes treats the Palestinians as pawns in a proxy war against Israel and America. This is not a popular view either with those who think that 'Israel is always right' or with those who think that 'Israel has some sort of sinister control over America' - but I strongly suspect that it's been happening quite a lot recently. After all, America holds a lot of purse-strings over Israel. I'm not implying that this 'proxy war' is all there is to the Israel/Palestine conflict, which has been going on for decades; but it does aggravate it.

if you see Sullivan's point as relating to the message/PR of the neocons and your point as relating to the underlying geopolitical reality that it hides.

" 'Israel is always right' or ... 'Israel has some sort of sinister control over America' "

It's just a rhetorical flourish. Kind of cartoonish, really. "Sinister control" gives me a laugh.

Here are two words that don't make me laugh: Douglas Feith.

See him in his office manufacturing actionable intelligence for King Doofus of America in the lead-up to the invasion & occupation of Iraq.

Not control but pretty sinister.

Here's an interesting report that appeared in everybody's favorite news source back in Feb. '04: http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

Here's what I think & it can be distorted, the name calling can begin, yada yada yada, whatever, but it won't change the price of eggs (or oil).

The far right in Israel has too much influence on American foreign policy. I'm glad to notice reasonable people are catching on.

And I understand that he is one of those most concerned for his future where Bush administration investigations/prosecutions are being considered.

definitely some Americans who think Israel 'runs the US' - I've even seen posts to that effect on DU, using those exact words

As regards the rest - I think that the far right in *America* has too much influence on Israeli (and British and some other places') foreign policy. The rightist in the allied countries collaborate with it, and in that sense exert their own influence, but the main influence comes from America, the bigger country and the one that holds the purse-strings.

Hopefully, now that Obama has replaced Bush, America's influence on its allies will be much more positive, for peace rather than war.

have done great damage to the nation in supporting neo-cons.

And as the tables turn, so do they!

30% of Americans still support Bush, think he was great. 46% of Americans voted for Palin to be VP, PALIN for gawds sake.

The tables turned but only a few turned with them. Those people deserve a listen if for no other reason than to know what made them "see the light" so we can better enlighten the 46%.

Sullivan turned over torture. Yes, it was a big deal, but it was also 5 years ago. He supported the war in Iraq but so did Friedman and I don't hear people scream each time Tom is quoted (I find Tom to be a much bigger idiot and worse writer than Andrew). And, don't forget, Huffington was a HUGE right wing nut case. She and her hubby gave millions to the GOP. And Brock of Media Matters. Do you trash each one of them when they are quoted? Do you say they only turned once the tables did? Do you constantly point out that the people who profit from Huffington Post and run Media Matters did great damage to our country by supporting the GOP for so long?

Sometimes I wonder if it is because Andrew is gay.

have moved back up on the fence always ready to jump down again on the side

of power. What value is Sullivan? He's a homosexual who supported a political

party who would oppress him. He's a Catholic -- again supporting a church which

oppresses homosexuals. Any journalist's value is in standing against power --

not for it.

BTW, yes, I would always remind people of Brock's background and Arianna's . . .

we'd be foolish to forget it.

As far as Sullivan being "gay," personally I think that's the most interesting and

positive thing about him! And he should separate from parties and church's which

show intolerance and hatred for homosexuals! That would be a great first step.

I've never seen anyone criticize a post quoting Media Matter or Huffington Post. Glad to hear that you always do. I must have missed your previous criticism although I always look pretty carefully since I think Sullivan is treated differently here.

I'll look more closely from here on out.

which kind of matches the tone of your last post.

Meanwhile, I would NOT criticize what Media Matters choses to alert us to ---

it's generally quite legitimate. On the other hand, I no longer subscribe to

their alerts because they were overdoing it --- not justifiable for the time it

was consuming. HOWEVER, I do mention Brock from time to time. I think he has kind

of faded, however. That's quite a long time ago now.

As for Huffington, I no longer subscribe to or read her website either because

I found too many rightward tilting articles being published there.

When something really interesting comes up from either Brock or Arianna, you'll

usually find it posted here.


PS: Re this . . . 30% of Americans still support Bush

As I recall, Bush was in the mid 20's for most of the year . . .

At one point, I think he was lower than Nixon???

A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/

I've never seen anyone criticize Huffington or Brock for their prior political beliefs. Ever, not here on DU, at least. Likewise, I've never seen a thread about Sullivan without at least one, and usually more than one, nasty comment on his prior politics.

I'm interested in knowing why.

Like you, I don't read many posts about/from Media Matters or Huffington so maybe that's why I don't see each of them trashed regularly. I'm interested in knowing the tone and content of the posts that trash them so I'll be reading out of interest.

My dad was a lifelong republican until Reagan. It impacted him profoundly to switch parties, almost like religion is for people. He felt betrayed, like he'd wasted his life believing in a bunch of idiots, and went into a 2 year depression. When he came out of it, he was more liberal than any of us. I find people who actually do switch parties/philosophy fascinating probably because of dad. Also, I think we'd be better off if we turned more of them which is why I find the criticism of Sullivan so pissy. It's as if we refuse to allow dissent just like the GOP and value loyalty above ideas and as if we insist you have been one of us blue bloods your whole life.

much more that Sullivan was on the right far LONGER than some of these other people. He was a Thatcher supporter in the 80s. It's not as though he just had a brief flirtation with the right.

In my case, I have to admit, it's also that I know more about Sullivan than the others as he's of British origin. I have only the vaguest knowledge of what Tom Friedman thinks about anything; I have to admit that whenever I read anything, especially anything negative, about him, it takes some time for me to work out that it's not referring to Milton Friedman! Whereas I know Sullivan's views fairly well.

is that, with a last name like that, you'd think the man had a pretty strong Irish strain in his ancestry. Why would anyone of Irish descent living in the UK ever support Thatcher? This was the old bat who starved the hunger strikers, for G-d's sake.

:dem:

-Laelth

Doesn't say much for his judgment.

-Laelth

something that I certainly find hard to get over.

Being an ardent Thatcherite, on the other hand, is like gonorrhea ... an embarrassing disease for which, mercifully, there is a cure.

:dem:

-Laelth

I was saddened that Labour in the UK went the same way the Democratic Party did here in the States, i.e. marching ever-rightward since about 1980, but I have hope that both allegedly liberal parties will reverse that trend soon--out of nothing less than pure necessity.

:toast:

-Laelth

corporate media must figure among the most pernicious agents of evil in Western societies; which, of course, are not starved for choice in that regard. Sullivan is just a myrmidon. Not the sharpest tool in the box, but then it's full of mallets, like him.

"Iraq is Israel's fault (sort of)." "The US is beholden to Israel."

But, as expected at DU, anti-Israel bigotry is accepted and even revered. The "far-left" and "far-right" always seem to meet in one place: Israel.

far-right like what? Like Avigdor Lieberman?

Lieberman is a xenophobic isolationist who makes a career out of building up suspicion of the loyalties of a significant proportion of his country's population, and treating them as scapegoats.

Just like similar xenophobic isolationists - Pat Buchanan in America; LePen in France; the BNP in Britain - do and have done over Jews, Muslims and 'immigrants'. The accusations one sometimes sees of Jewish 'dual citizenship' and 'dual loyalties'; of 'Zionists' getting America into wars; the readiness to suggest that if people 'love Israel so much they should move there' - all these xenophobic isolationist attitudes to Jews (and others) remind me VERY strongly of Lieberman's attitude to Arabs! I disagree with the notion that these views are particularly characteristic of the 'far left'. However, some antiwar leftists are prepared to join hands with the xenophobic isolationists who also oppose the Iraq war; and sometimes catch fleas by lying down with dogs.

It is my profound belief that fascists and racists are all alike, independently of colour or creed,
and their evil ideas must be fought relentlessly by the people on the left, be them, Neo-Nazis, Neo-Cons,
christian fundies, wahabbis, american, british, french, german, italian, japanese, saudi, israeli,
spanish or portuguese like me.

Even when neo-fascist/racist types seem to oppose each other, they're really peas in a pod. The attitude that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't apply when both your enemy and their enemy are far-RW xenophobes and mirror-images of each other.

I know buddy, it gets harder & harder all the time to frame the debate into a simple binary 'for us' or 'against us' format.

It's people like Sullivan & Klein who get the boys & girls at Commentary so upset.

Many of the same people who authored "A Clean Break" for Bibi Netanyahoo also authored various PNAC position papers for President Yahoo.

People; regular common, mainstream people, are just going to start to draw their own conclusions from that.

Better late, than never.

That's what's happening. The jig is up. Far right Zionism is not to the 'taste' of average Americans.

As far as 'joining hands' with anybody, I guess I would rather join hands with the paleocons at PJB's American Conservative magazine than with the Xtian Zionists at Rev. Hagee's church. But I don't have to join hands with anybody.
Lack of enthusiasm for war-war-war all-the-time is becoming a mainstream political value in the US. Some people in mainstream opinion media are starting to write for that audience. Thank goodness. I hope more people join them.

But for some here you can be against american neo-conservative policies and politicians
and for israeli neo-conservative policies and politicians at the same time... go figure...

though it may happen at times; there are all kinds of attitudes you CAN get here; e.g. I've come across people here speaking enthusiatically about Chinese use of the death penalty. But I think that sometimes any criticism of Hamas is misinterpreted as indicating enthusiasm for the Israeli Right (just as the reverse can also happen at times).

Someone posted on the IP forum: "No lefty should support right-wing parties like Likud and Hamas." Amen.

ETA: also sometimes people defend Israel against allegations that it's to blame for other countries' misdeeds, and it's taken as unreserved defence of Israel. Certainly that's happened to me at times - if I defend Israel against accusations that it 'got America into Iraq' or 'plunders America's treasury', it has been taken as meaning that I love everything Israel does in Gaza which I most emphatically do not! People are often concerned that any criticism of Israel may be misinterpreted as antisemitic, and sometimes that happens, but the reverse also happens.

aproved of "shock and awe" in Gaza City (and before it in Lebannon). I'm not sure if they were for or
against it in Baghdad but doesn't seem to me very "leftish" of them...

but Andrew Sullivan *was* a fan of it in Baghdad, and earlier was a Thatcherite. It makes it hard for me to trust his judgements, especially as it's not as though he was briefly swayed by neoconservativism; he'd been a neocon since long before the word existed.

But I wasn't talking about him, I was commenting on this mythical "bigoted far-left"
that this poster screams about when something is posted that doesn't conform
to his narrow worldview.

As for Sullivan I think he parted company with the neo-cons when the influence
of the "culture warriors" allied to them rose to a point that started to scare him...
Pretty selfish of him but, hey, sometimes it's the only way some people learn...

There is a strong level of bigotry in the far-left; though, I am being told they really aren't "left" they are just fake and 'faux-gressives.' Just because you are unable to identify bigotry against Jews, it isn't because of me, but you. When I see bigots like David Duke getting play here in issues of race, then I will amend my thoughts about the nature of leftist bigotry.

I've never read a reference to David Duke anywhere on DU except in your posts.

Of course, you missed this: Pat Buchanan's essay about race is on David Duke's Website.

I am sure you never saw that post. It even has a direct link.

ETA:

Nope never:

I admit it, I am forgetful, especially regarding loons like Horowitz & Medved.

They do that thing where they change the subject & bring up extraneous matters in arguments. Arguments that convince no one except for people that already believe their gas.

But, you got me. I did post a poem by the amazing Amari Baraka that mentions David Duke. Good work!

http://www.amiribaraka.com/

There were people with links to Israel, more precisely Likud (Richard Perle et al), that advocated the overthrow of Saddam,
just as, for different reasons, there were people with links to Iran (Ahmed Chalabi) that advocated the
overthrow of Saddam.
Ultimately Cheney and his sockpuppet went in because they wanted to, as a side effect the others
got what they wanted.

A modest 2002 accounting:

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

Is U.S backing of Israel worth it?

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

Glenn Greenwald tells a similar story of awakening to the neocon nightmare:


The Mind(Control) of Padilla

The menticide of Jose Padilla


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x269385

Here's Sully in 2002: "This was George W. Bush’s year. Slowly building toward ridding the world of Saddam’s threat, shrewdly identifying North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an axis of evil, demanding democracy from the Palestinians, presiding over modest economic growth despite a terrible global outlook, winning an almost unprecedented vote of approval in the November elections, capping it all with a Philadelphia speech that was a watershed in the GOP’s struggle with its own internal demons - by any measure, this was a spectacular performance. Forget the bloviations of the Hate-America-First crowd. History will one day credit Bush with patience, multilateralism and conviction. But right now, history is still being made. And there is a war to be continued and to be won."

I'm sorry, folks, but any discussion of what this man has to say must include some rememberance of the fact that he has been very wrong about important things for long stretchs of time. If you can not agree with him about Bush and the war then, why agree with him now, when he's simply changed his methods for better financial gain. 'Now we all wear blue hats!'.....his opinion is sullied by his other opinions.

But yeah, his credibility as a commentator is not much.