"I've often wondered why Noam Chomsky, the darling of the peaceniks and others on the left, took issue with the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, The Israel Lobby, a few years ago. Did he actually believe what he said? Or did the professor have an ethnic blind spot as suggested by Professor James Petras(portraited here)? What if Chomsky purposefully mislead us and committed the sin of all sins, perpetuated an intellectual fraud?
The Walt Measheimer paper(W-M) claimed that the Lobby caused American foreign policy to be biased in favor of Israel to the detriment of America's real interests in the Middle East. Imagine that. They further contended that it was these advocates for Israel that pushed America into war with Iraq. Chomsky responded with a critique of W-M suggesting that corporate influence(the oil industry and military industrial complex in particular) drove US foreign policy far more than the the Lobby, which he believed had no more influence than any other major lobby in Washington. To many of us on the left, this just seemed silly. In responding to Chomsky, Petras laid out the Lobby's trail of influence doo-doo in a convincing fashion. I will not rehash it all here.
In the past few years Zionist academics and journalists have done their best to refute the W-M paper in those few media outlets that allowed discussion or debate about the topic. Those refutations however struck most of us paying attention as ridiculous in light of the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's, comments on the topic a few years back.
In 2001, and in response to a suggestion by Shimon Peres that refusing an American request for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us," a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying this. "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." I would point out here for those worried about political correctness, that Sharon didn't just refer to Zionists or limit his comments to influence in foreign policy. The question that academics should have been asking then was not whether the Lobby has extraordinary influence on American foreign policy, but why it does. This doesn't seem to be a question our academic or journalistic community is even willing to ask, let alone explore. So let me attend to the question since our academic fraudsters are apparently afraid.
Lets examine what Chomsky said in his criticism of the M-W paper in reference to his argument that corporations likely yield far more influence on American foreign policy than the Lobby.
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.
The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle(sic). And there is plenty of conformity.
But is there any real distinction in A and B above as Chomsky would suggest. In regard to concentrations of economic power and state-corporate linkage, lets take a look at the trend in corporate ownership in the last several years.
From the New York Times:
In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data. The top group’s share of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent.Not only are the rich getting richer, they seem to be doing so at an alarming rate. Remember also that households don't include pension and retirement plans of course which hold a significant portion of remaining corporate wealth outside of the one percent of Americans that hold the overwhelming majority. Can anyone think of the most dominate ethnic group responsible for the management of those retirement assets at banks, investment houses or other financial institutions. Think about that one for a minute. I know you're feeling naughty just thinking about it. That's the way you're supposed to feel.
Now lets analyse the composition of the one percent of Americans that control almost sixty percent of the corporate wealth. Forty-five percent of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish. As many as one-third of American multimillionaires are believed to be Jewish. This is a phenomenal concentration of wealth within an ethnic group comprising only two percent of Americans. It is likely more than enough wealth when added to the value of stock controlled by Jewish managers of retirement assets, to effectively control corporate board rooms across America. Especially those that may have importance to Israel and those serving Israel's interests here in America. Media corporations, energy corporations, those peddling military hardware or other warfare profiteers, just to name a few.
So let me now add based on my observations, an equation to Chomsky's A or B question. Here it is, (A) = (B), where A equals corporations who influence American foreign policy and who are effectively owned or controlled by Zionists, and B equals, the same God Damn Zionists belonging to AIPAC and other Israel centric organizations, who own or effectively control the corporations.
So how is it that some one as brilliant as Chomsky could not put A=B together? Is this an honest mistake by this brilliant man or is this intellectual fraud? Is there anything about a Zionist or Zionism that is not fraudulent? I think I now have my answer."
Also see: Noam Chomsky fails 911 Litmus Test Again
