Although many things here require a debunking-like critique, Norman Finkelstein correctly points out that a major thesis in “The Israel Lobby” is that because of various forms of AIPAC, etc. lobbying pressure – such as “we will take you out of office in the next congressional election, or tarnish you publicly as a racist anti-Semite, destroying your career and reputation (and don’t forget about those pictures we took) – U.S. foreign policy concerning the Middle East has essentially been taken from the hands, control, and decision making processes of the U.S. Congress, Senate, and the White House, and is now in the control of a foreign lobby that works on behalf of a foreign state. When you have a situation like this, you will often see foreign policy decisions being made, such as the decision to invade Iraq based upon cooked evidence, that turn out to be beneficial to the foreign power who “lobbied” for these moves, but turn out disastrously for the sucker, I mean host-government, who actually carries out the agenda of that foreign power, whose own interests are, in many cases over the last century, ill served to say the least by its own actions and operations. Aside from Israel’s long-proclaimed desire for colonial hegemony over the Middle East by “removing” the Arabs, it also does not serve long-term, regional U.S. policy interests to support an ally which behaves like a racist pariah state, has long been committing regional genocide and ethnic cleansing, and is engaged in building an outdoor apartheid prison that would make any of history’s psycho totalitarians completely envious. This is another point that Mearsheimer and Walt make in their thesis, that it is not in our national, moral interests as a people to support the present state of Israel, but Finkelstein conveniently leaves out the morality part of their thesis in his discussion. He presents their thesis as one based only upon a cold, calculated, utilitarian “neo-realist” look at what is best for America’s political and financial interests.

Would U.S. foreign policy be different without Israel in the Middle East? Absolutely. Everytime an American President has tried to swing a deal with an Arab or Persian power to accomplish something which is in the best interests of America and its workers, the Israel Lobby steps in to squash the deal. The Arab states have been trying from the start to have normalized, rational relations with the U.S., but Israel is always there to sabotage and poison the well, for Israel does not want peace. It wants war and the territory that can be gained by waging war, and always has, at least according to the early Zionists’ writings and publications. Mearsheimer and Walt already prove this point in the book, but Finkelstein conveniently leaves this out in his discussion. Too many pesky nuances, I guess.

For evidence of Zionist pressure and control politics exercised on the policies of the U.S. government, see: Senator William Fulbright’s statement before the U.S. Senate (U.S. Congressional Record, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 106, No. 78, April 29, 1960).

And for early investigations into Israeli espionage against the U.S., see the investigation of the Foreign Relations Committee into the Activities of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), [see Hearings before Committee on Foreign Relations (U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Part 9, May 23, 1963)].

It is all about deception and creating appearances while working evil behind the scenes. Media control and censorship of free speech is essential to this cause. The currently fashionable and ever popular propagandistic notion being pushed by Zionists everywhere these days is that Big Bad Bush, Cheney, and Blair were using poor, innocent Israel as a patsy, as a cover, or a front for their evil Big Oil Agenda. Why this whole idea qualifies as transparently desperate propaganda should be obvious, but a refutation to this apparently logical, yet highly flawed argument definitely deserves an article unto itself. Unfortunately for said argument, from the documentary evidence we have, it would appear that “Big Oil” was dead-set against the invasion of Iraq from the start – bad for business, and business was fine. Oil sanctions, oooh, Gimme a break. The oil was flowing, not a problem. Saddam didn’t need to be taken out for the sake of U.S. security or oil. He was taken out as part of Israel’s “Clean Break” plan. One down, three more to go. Any money or men left? Absolutely not. Will Israel fight? Absolutely not.

The “must protect American taxpayers’ ears from info-leaks concerning all the super crazy shit Israel just pulled” folks, including Finkelstein, are obviously getting desperate in their attempts to shield the public from the realization that, all along, all these many years, Israel has been one of the top three state sponsors of international terror operations, at least seven of which have been launched against its dear ally, friend, and overly generous financial benefactor, the United States of America. Basically, they get us to do shit for them by attacking and terrorizing us as they empty our national treasuries. It’s a “special relationship,” as you might imagine, probably similar to the relationship a beaten wife has with her crazy, unpredictable husband. Truly a relationship made in Hell.

And remember kids, when caught, just deny, deny, deny. Even if they got it on film.

I am truly perplexed by Finkelstein’s statement that Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis “completely misunderstands the special utility and the special value of Israel.” After having just finished the “Israel Lobby,” as well as several other books on this subject, and after coming to understand the albatross-like nature of Israel, this promotion by Norman Finkelstein of the mythic concept of the ‘special utility and the special value of Israel’ is something, the reality of which, I perhaps missed in my readings of history. Although it certainly was a popular idea to promote back in the day, Israel was not in fact an asset during the Cold War, although American politicians pretended she was, but when that era came to a close, Israel needed to come up with something new to prove that it could still be an “asset” to the West in a post-Cold War Middle East; something that would act as a catalyst for the accomplishment of the long-dreamed-of Zionist take-down of the Arab Middle East. Bingo! 9/11 generates a “War on Terror” with Israel stepping in as an experienced, strategic asset in this new, uncharted endless conflict! Unfortunately, Israel’s current concocted value as an asset in the “War on Terror” is completely bogus, seeing as they themselves provided the operational apparatus to start the whole thing in the first place with the big Israeli Mossad-American Neocon 9/11 Operation against their own ally and financial benefactor. The War on Terror is a fraud, and Israel, still not an asset. Are more false flag terror operations against your allies the answer, O Israel?

Finkelstein’s assertion that “the state of Israel” was a creation of the West is also bogus, and historically inaccurate. He has forgotten all his Israeli and British history it seems. All the British and American documents, and investigatory commissions (such as the American King-Crane Commission) by 1920 were saying unanimously that the “Palestine as a Jewish State” idea was going to be a total disaster, and that it should be either stopped, or highly curtailed and controlled. Besides, the original Balfour deal called for supporting a Jewish national homeland IN Palestine, not Palestine AS a Jewish State with political control over an indigenous Arab majority. No, the state of Israel was created by unilateral force, out of Zionist terrorism, criminal thuggery, and guerilla war waged against both the British and the Arabs. Israel is also a state created by its militant, terrorist leaders signing international agreements for conditional UN admission, and then turning right around and giving their finger to all the conditions in the agreements which they had just signed a moment ago. Israel as a state has upheld 0 (as in zero) international agreements that it has signed. In international legal terms, it is indeed a bonafide pariah state that needs to wake up and smell the coffee of modern reality, so to speak. The actual Zionist-Israeli agenda for the Middle East is just sheer madness and needs to be stopped by a unified and awakened world community.

It most definitely seems here that old Norm, a well-informed scholar, for some strange reason is preferring to leave out any inconvenient information that doesn’t fit his present propaganda gig. He begins by saying he wants to avoid all the nuances in the book (i.e. the voluminous details that prove the thesis) to concentrate on the incomplete version of the thesis he has been paid to put forward.

How was he approached? I wonder. “Norm, here’s the deal, see. If we set you up on a little lectchuh tour where you go around puttin’ on a little show and takin’ down the Mearsheimer-Walt book thesis, we’ll throw in some decent cash to help you make a new start, ‘cause we know that you are unemployable presently, after that Dershowitz bitch-slapped you outta De Paul, just after friends of ours kicked you outta New Yawk. And Norm, if you’re a good boy on the tour, and rehabilitate yourself like we know you will, we might sees about getting’ you a little teachin’ job somewheres.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are the big movers behind the Iraq War?!? Jeez. As Rabbi Weiss would say, Finkelstein is “lying like a Zionist.”