Has anyone read the Counterpunch lead by former cia analysts KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON on the power of the pro-Israel lobby?

It has an intro by both Cockburn and StClair. Hard to say whether that is because it directly challenges some views which the Christisons claim are held by Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein or because the editors are concerned that it may be perceived as anti-semetic rather than anti-zionist.

The point of view the Christisons argue is that there has never been a consistent thread running through amerikan foreign policy since ww2 despite whichever party holds power in the US, which has been blindly supportive of Israel because supporting Israel is a pragmatic decision which favours US interests.

There's actually two points there I suppose. The first is that the pro-Israeli policy hasn't been consistent and secondly that a pro-Israel policy hasn't always been believed to favour US interests ,or maybe that a pro-israel policy hasn't always been adopted because it is believed to favour US interests.

Normally it could be considered that such hair splitting is pointless since the reality of amerikan pro-israel policy is more important an issue to deal with than any guesses at the cause of it.

However I suppose it is worth considering if only because of this point the Christisons make.

That is if it has always been perceived to be in the best interests of amerika to have a pro-israel policy, why bother with such an expensive and potentially embarassing monolith such as the AIPAC lobby? ie If being pro-israel always favours amerikan corporate and strategic goals, why bother?

I tend to go with some of what the christisons argue if only because it explains the lack of amerikan support for the anglo-french suez adventure in the 50's.

As well, since then there has been a difference in attitudes toward Israel as presidents' administrations have changed.

Up until BushCo it certainly felt like the rethugs were less inclined to toss all of amerikas chips into the israeli lobby. Interestingly the Christisons argue the Carter administration wasn't particularly pliant when subjected to zionist pressure.

The christison's are particularly scathing of the left, which they argue is mistaken to claim that a pro-israel stance has always been perceived to be in amerika's best interests.

This is where it gets tricky because I'm not certain that Chomsky has maintained that. And if he did say something like that it may have been to avoid the huge pitfall that the Christisons may have fallen into.

That is that their point of view leaves itself open to an interpretation of being motivated by anti-semitism. It begins to sound like an evil jewish banking conspiracy a la Rouche of that ilk.

It's an extremely long piece, but worth reading at least some of if only because it is provocative.