The United States is not seeking to “control” the peoples it has freed.  Its troops are laying down their lives so that these peoples may have a say in the government that henceforth rules them.  Untold billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to afford those we liberate with the opportunity for a far more prosperous and healthy, as well as freer, life. 

America is building bases in such countries not to occupy them permanently, let alone to colonize them.  Rather, these facilities will be used by us, with the host government’s assent, or by the latter’s armed forces (which we will help train and equip) to combat our terrorist foes. 

Far from imperially controlling the oil of Iraq, we have relinquished it to the Iraqis, for their benefit and that of the “people of the region.”

To construe all this as imperialism, colonialism or some Machiavellian scheme to control the world’s destiny is more illuminating about the anti-Americanism and ideological blinders of the critics than it is of the actual character and purposes of the Bush Administration’s foreign and security policy.

Jensen: Mr. Gaffney’s debating strategy is predictable: Ignore challenges to his position that are rooted in fact and clear, reasonable analysis (as Mr. Estabrook provides), and simply repeat the same claims over and over. I say predictable, because when one is merely parroting the conventional wisdom -- which is supported by the indoctrination systems we call mass media and public education -- it is easy to win with such tactics.
 
Dr. Chesler claims that “Jensen’s movements” are pro-Arabist, Jew-hating, Israel-demonizing, and anti-American. Well, I can’t speak for entire movements, but I can say that I am not pro-Arabist. I have no particular love of the Arab world over any other region or people. I am pro-justice, which leads me to oppose U.S. support for the Israeli occupation, just as it leads me to reject U.S. support for tyrannical Arab governments. The assertion of Jew-hating is the usual attempt to squash criticism of Israeli policy with an ugly slur, and no response is necessary since no meaningful critique is being made. I also do not demonize Israel; I simply believe it should be held to moral and legal standards, as should all nations.
 
On the question of being anti-American: As I have argued many times, such a claim shows the deeply authoritarian instincts of the people who make the claim. The basic idea of democracy is that the people are sovereign, which means that citizens have a right -- indeed, an obligation -- to debate policy. If one disagrees with existing policy, one has a right -- again, I would argue, an obligation -- to voice that opinion and work to support a more just policy. Trying to tag such activity with the label “anti-American” is a sad debating tactic. But, sadly, it often is effective in the United States, which says much about the current state of the political culture in this country.

Estabrook: Ms. Chesler's suggestion, that Arabs may rightly be despoiled of their oil because they're not using it well, would be hilarious, were it not monstrous.  It's reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt's condemnation of those "foolish sentimentalists" who thought that the American Indians who had some claim to the land that they inhabited. This is historic racism.

Ms. Chesler is right that there is a new anti-Semitism abroad today, but not in the way that she means it.  Anti-Semitism in the sense of prejudice against Jews is insignificant in the US and universally condemned in the public press, but anti-Semitism in the sense of prejudice against Arabs (Arabs being Semites as well as Jews) is perfectly acceptable -- the stuff of everyday editorials, where the distinction between Arab and Muslim is often elided, in spite of the fact that many Arabs are not Muslims and the majority of Muslims are not Arabs.  One can produce statements that all would recognize as anti-Semitic by taking what is said of Arabs and Islam there and simply substituting the words "Jews" and "Judaism." Even the stereotypes of Arabs today are those of 19th-century anti-Jewish anti-Semitism -- cosmopolitan plutocrats and terrorist anarchists.

Ms. Chesler's historical observations are generally fantastic, in the great tradition of McCarthyism and American Cold War rhetoric.  Does she seriously believe that there was no clash of American and Japanese empires that led to the Pacific War?  (The establishment historian Arthur Schlesinger points out that the Bush administration's doctrine of preventive war "was the doctrine with which the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor.") And US motives in World War II were never to "free the surviving concentration camp prisoners and effect any lasting democratic change," except incidentally. Not only did US government and business (including Mr. Bush's family) deal happily with Axis powers up to Pearl Harbor, the US didn't even declare war against Germany until Germany had declared war on the US. Even in Churchill's memoirs one can find the rueful recognition that the European War was largely a contest for Britain's empire – and that the British government preferred it fall into the hands of the Americans, if they had to choose. It was by succeeding to the British empire's position in the Middle East (and conducting such things as the coup against an elected government in Iran in 1953) that the US established its hegemony over the oil-producing region, which has been the corner stone of its foreign policy for generations.

What can it possibly mean to say, "For more than sixty years, America did not confront Soviet Russia during the Cold War?" -- when anti-Communism was the universal excuse for American depredations around the world for years.  (To her credit, Ms. Chesler recognizes that "America has had a terrible record in central and South America" -- established notably by the same people now in power in Washington when they were members of the Reagan administration -- but apparently there is no continuity between that record and US foreign policy elsewhere, notably the Middle East.)

And whom can she have in mind as "American intellectuals [who] brilliantly and soulfully romanticized Stalin even as he murdered and imprisoned millions of his own people?"  The only person who occurs to me as fitting that description is Harry Truman, who thought that "Uncle Joe" was a good guy with whom he could do business -- but I'm not sure that Truman counts as an intellectual.

But European fascists and Soviet communists are mere forerunners for Ms. Chesler of the real bearers of "radical evil" in the world today, "Arab Muslim and central Asian Muslim nations ... Arab and Islamics neo-Stalinist dictators" -- a rather confused set of categories that curiously would not include Osama bin Laden.  She herself nevertheless adopts a classic totalitarian trope by declaring that criticizing America ("even if some criticism is deserved") at this moment in history is "disloyal to our fighting forces."

As Noam Chomsky has said, it is hard to craft a definition of terrorism that doesn't also describe the actions of the US military, CIA, special forces, and client regimes around the world -- unless terrorism be specifically limited to "what They do."  The crimes of the loose network of al-Qaida are condemned in the Arab and Muslim worlds as well -- even by governments, who fear similar things directed against them.  But there is indeed sympathy for the motives that provoked 9/11, about which Osama bin Laden was quite specific: the oppression of the Palestinians, the near-genocidal sanctions against Iraq, and the US support for repressive governments in the Islamic holy land.  Unquestionably the greatest recruiting drive for al-Qaida has been the invasion of Iraq and the system (some of it learnt from the Israelis) of torture and humiliation that we have operated there.

"How desperately Israel wants peace" is shown in the historical record for example in the case of Lebanon, which Ms. Chesler mentions.  In 1982 the Israelis invaded Lebanon precisely from the fear that "peace might break out" and to impose a Christian dictatorship on that state. In the process, as Norman Finkelstein points out, they killed over 20,000 people, the vast majority non-combatants, a number equivalent to the number of Jews killed in pursuit of the Zionist dream from 1880 to the present.

Now of course the cynosure of US/Israeli propaganda is Iran, as Ms. Chesler makes clear. As the prime minister of Israel observed to a British newspaper on the eve of the American assault on Iraq, "First Iraq, then Iran."  The Bush administration's wars have led to the US occupation of the countries bordering Iran on the east and west.  Now the US fulminates at the audacity of the EU in trying to work out an arrangement with Iraq on nuclear power and threatens to unleash the Israelis for a series of new Osiriks in Iran.

The contrast of US policy toward North Korea (which may have a nuclear weapon) and Iraq (which didn't, as it said) is not lost on the rest of the world, and a simple lesson is drawn: the only way surely to prevent America's launching an aggressive war against your state is to have an effective deterrent, and that probably means a nuclear device. Is it only Israel, and not Iran, that "has a legitimate right to self-defense or survival, or to the use of such weapons as deterrence"?  Ms. Chesler is finally quite right that we should not be "silent about this."

Chesler: In listening attentively throughout this Symposium, I see that true dialogue with the left is not really possible--although I congratulate both Mr. Jensen and Mr. Estabrook for joining Mr Gaffney and myself here; many of their colleagues would not do so. These days, "politically correct" thinkers have closed minds. It is a tragedy of monumental proportions that they would say the same of anyone who does not think exactly as they do.  

While Mr. Jensen may say that he's pro-justice his opposition to a U.S. backed so-called "Israeli occupation" shows us that he does not understand the situation in the Middle East at all. Let me suggest that he read my book "The New Anti-Semitism" where I ultimately argue that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism and where I also criticize the various imperfections and flaws of Israeli society. Yes, one can do so and still understand that morally, Israel stands heads and shoulders above all her Arab Muslim neighbors and in no way can be described as an Apartheid, Nazi, or colonial state. By definition, anyone who uses such inflated language does not understand matters.  Israel is indeed held to diabolically higher standards than any other nation state and is quickly demonized for the most minor failing. Yes, of course, Americans have the right and the obligation to criticize our own government but professors and intellectuals must also be careful not to lower the bar for tyrannies and to not  justify fascism, totalitarianism, or terrorism as due to poverty or oppression. Indeed, most Muslims are more seriously oppressed by their own leaders and tribal and religious customs than they are by western democratic powers. 

As to Mr. Estabrook:  Anyone who quotes Chomsky and negationist Norman Finkelstein has a closed mind and prefers cultic to independent thinking. Jew-hatred is anti-Semitism; Islamophobia is something else entirely. I also discuss this in my book and suggest that Mr. Estabrook consider reading it. If Eurabia and America are now, somewhat belatedly, worried about Muslim populations who have no intention of integrating into the western democracies but wish to lead separate anti-dhimmi lives or to conquer their host countries--this does not amount to "anti-Semitism" against Muslims. Please understand that almost all terrorists are Muslims and that while not all Muslims are terrorists they are also not publicly opposing violent jihad against the West. According to Yossef Bodansky, the author of "Bin Laden: The Man who declared war on America," since 9/11, "the number of people trained and willing to die has more than doubled to an estimated 500,000-750,000. Intelligence estimates say another 10 million (Muslims) are willing to actively support them while another 50 million (Muslims) would provide financial report." I hope Professor Bodansky is wrong. Does Mr. Estabrook believe that such terrorism will spare him or that he is not in its cross-hairs? Why does he want to die?

Quickly, in response to some of his remaining points:

First, American did not confront or invade Soviet Russia on behalf of it's record of domestic atrocities. America and the world engaged in diplomacy with a country in which Stalin murdered at least forty million of his own people and imprisoned the entire country, either physically in the gulag or psychologically everywhere else. Today, in his new book, "The Case for Democracy," former gulag prisoner Natan Sharansky suggests that America peg it's foreign policy to how a country treats or mistreates it's own citizens--a very powerful idea with which I agree. The entire American Left (with the honorable exception of Emma Goldman and some others) absolutely refused to see what Stalin was doing, minimized it, even justified it. Years later, their intellectual children and grandchildren refuse to acknowledge how bloody awful Stalin's totalitarian regime was or to draw any necessary conclusions from the fact.

Second, the Palestinians have been "oppressed" by the Arab League decision which refused citizenship in 21 Arab countries to anyone consider "Palestinian" which, for the record, used to mean anyone who came from Jordan, Egypt, or Syria. For millennia, the Jews in exile were called "Palestinians," which was based on the name ancient Rome gave to the region in order to wipe out it's previous and long-standing name of Judea, Israel. Palestinians oppressed? Arafat and UNRWA pocketed billions while his own people were left to rot in make-shift refugee camps where they were fed a steady diet of hatred against Israel and America and indoctrinated to become mass murderers and homicidal human bombs.

"Peace" breaking out in Lebanon? Lebanon has been drawn, quartered, and occupied by Iran, Syria, and the terrorist Palestinians. They have used Lebanon to constantly launch attacks against Israeli civilians--that is why Ariel Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982. He did not stay. Unlike Syria and Iran, Israel had no imperial or occupation-oriented designs on Lebanon. Muslim Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians persecuted Lebanese Christians mercilessly--please visit my website where you may see a video by Maronite Christian Brigitte Gabriel originally of southern Lebanon who talks about her experiences. (www.Phyllis-Chesler.com).

Finally, unlike Iran and al-Qaeda, Israel has not declared war on the western democracies. Perhaps Mr. Estabrook wishes to apply for political asylum in Iran or North Korea whose nuclear weaponry and potential for attack he does not seem to fear--but I bet he won't because, just as clearly, he fears even more America's and Israel's capacity for such attacks. He'll stay put right here loudly criticizing both America and Israel as others die for his right to do so. 

Gaffney: Mr. Jensen chides me for not responding to the plethora of allegations of American wrongdoing, criminal conduct and imperialism that have largely comprised his and Mr. Estabrook’s contributions to this dialogue.  This broadside calls to mind President Bush’s recent retort dismissing claims by Sen. Kerry to have a “plan” for dealing with every problem under the sun:  “A litany of complaints does not constitute a plan.”  It is no less true that a litany of complaints about past American activities does not constitute an empire.  Focusing on the bottom line is considerably more illuminating than challenging and rebutting a series of charges that are, in the end, irrelevant.

The fact is that there is no American empire.  Instead of conquering foreign nations and then willfully subjecting them to open-ended and exploitative colonial rule, our interventions around the world have generally contributed to the spread of freedom and economic prosperity.  To be sure, it has sometimes taken longer for those ends to be realized than in other cases.  But compare our record with that of actual imperial powers – notably, France, Britain, the Soviet Union and Communist China.  It is clear that the United States alone among these has proven itself over the years to be a nation determined to encourage the independence and sovereignty of nations with whom we have gone to war and the establishment in them of responsible, accountable governments that respect human dignity.

This is, of course, not the view of Noam Chomsky and those who persist in imputing to him absolute wisdom on all matters. But Chomsky is in this matter, as in most things, wrong.  Take for example the quote attributed to him by Mr. Estabrook to the effect that it is hard to find a definition of terrorism that doesn’t also describe American actions.  Interestingly, a blue-ribbon panel calling for reform of the United Nations has done just that, concluding that terrorism is “any action…that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”  This definition not only explicitly repudiates self-styled “national liberation” terrorists’ claims that “occupation justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.”  It also clearly establishes a line U.S. forces do not intentionally cross, even as bona fide terrorists execute just such attacks – or aspire to do so – every day.

Despite the seemingly reflexive tendency on the part of Messrs. Jensen and Estabrook to find fault with the United States on the one hand and to exonerate totalitarian regimes when they engage in behavior that is manifestly aggressively oriented, their model of moral equivalence, or worse, of blaming America first is utterly wrongheaded.  In particular, the Iranian mullahocracy is not simply seeking to deter attacks against the regime.  It is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons for offensive purposes to which its representatives routinely refer in the context of calls for the destruction of Israel and “death to the Great Satan” (i.e., the United States) – goals that have been consistently pursued by the Islamofascist clerics since they came to power twenty-five years ago.  Their instrument of choice has to date been state-sponsored terrorism.  Nuclear arms in the hands of such a regime constitutes a threat that can be ignored only at our peril.

FP: Phyllis Chesler, Frank Gaffney, C.G. Estabrook and Robert Jensen we are out of time. It was a pleasure to have you with us. We hope to see you again soon.