Chomsky has got some big problems of his own (as we have noted), but he is closer to the mark than Pappe here. The problem with too many who are immersed in the Palestine issue is that they are so awed by Israel's Washington political machinery that they lose sight of the inevitable and over-arching context for this privileged position within the beltway elite: US imperialism. It isn't surprising: almost everybody has an interest in upholding the myth of decisive Jewish "influence." It keeps a client state happy and compliant if it is allowed to cultivate the illusion that its lobby bends the empire to its will. So AIPAC itself believes in its own mysterious powers. On the other hand, it allows the Jews to serve as convenient scapegoats for imperialism's aggressions and debacles. Bush (as we have noted) plays this card subtly, and perhaps not entirely consciously. Pat Buchanan does so blatantly. So, shamefully, do Alex Cockburn and too many on what is still called (with ever less reason) "the left," who maintain websites with names like NoWarForIsrael.com.

Pappe is not one of the worst offendors here, and others on the Israeli left have a clearer picture of the satellite-metropolis relationship between Tel Aviv and Washington—e.g. Uri Avnery, who noted that the US is using Israel as a "Rottweiler on a leash" to intimidate Iran with bellicose threats. This has always been the relationship—at least since 1967, and arguably since 1956. But in order for the propaganda charade to work, the illusion must be maintained that the dog is independent of (or even superior to) the master. If Israel were really acting in ways counter-productive to US imperial interests, it would be cut off at the teat toot sweet. Instead, the illusion is cultivated that US interests are held hostage to its own client state's lobby—a circumstance without precedent or even remote analogue in all of human history.

The US position has only "shifted" since Kennedy's death in that by humiliating Nasser (and, by extension, all radical Arab nationalism) in 1967, Israel has proved itself a worthy client to the US. Pappe should recognize the Saudis' outrage at the Arab defeat that year as at least somewhat feigned for public consumption. The fact that the defeat came at the hands of the Jews put them in an uncomfortable position, but how could they have not been relieved at Nasser's humbling? Back in those days, Nasser-inspired Arab nationalism was the biggest threat to the conservative Arab monarchies, and Nasser and the Saudis were fighting a brutal proxy war over Yemen. Remember?

Israel's aggression actually gave the client monarchies a new lease on life—ironically, not only by humbling Arab nationalism, but by doing so while conveniently providing an outside enemy on whom popular rage could be deflected. Even if this wasn't entirely consciously realized in Riyadh, you can bet that it was, by many at least, in Washington.

As for alienating oil-rich clients by affording privileges to rival, more compliant clients—the US makes such strategic sacrifices elsewhere in the world, and nobody attributes this to the mysterious "influence" of the clients. Venezuela has more oil than any other nation in South America (some geologists argue than any nation in the world outside the Persian Gulf). Instead of wooing Caracas back into the US fold, Washington has seen fit to groom Colombia (with smaller oil reserves) as a regional Rottweiler. The aim is to intimidate Venezuela, but meanwhile it has obviously had the effect of hardening Venezuelan anti-imperialism, and spreading it to Brazil, Argentina and, most recently, Bolivia (with the continent's greatest natural gas reserves). Colombia's Uribe is locally known as "the Sharon of the Andes." But the difference is that nobody accuses Bogota of controlling the US.

The big struggle on the planet now is for strategic control of oil as the ticket to continued US dominance, and Israel is just a pawn in this struggle. It is unfortunate that Pappe has allowed his powers of analysis to be overwhelmed by the myth of "the Zionist Lobby and Jewish money in the US."

I agree that the idea of powerful individuals like Cheney and Bush being forced to act against their own best interests by some lobby is absurd. But does that mean that we have to have to look for purely economic reasons for the US to support Israel? People in the west feel bad about the Holocaust; Christians like the idea of the Old Testament world coming back to life through a Jewish state; most mainstream people are revolted by terrorism against Israeli civilians; overblown rhetoric from places like Iran makes the Palestinian cause look bogus. Like it or not, these are the lenses through which many people view the conflict. This cultural perspective surely has an effect on policy?

Chomsky thinks the occupied territories are worse than South Africa, noting that unlike the Occupation, South Africa wanted Africans to stay as a workforce. (http://www.counterpunch.org/barat06062008.html)

Then he says: "Boycotts... against South Africa were effective".

But then he judges that it's sinful to boycott what he sees as the client Israeli state like South Africa:
"There are no calls for boycotting the US, not for reasons of principle, but because it is simply too powerful -- facts that raise some obvious questions about the moral legitimacy of actions targeting its clients".

So in Chomsky's mind it's good to boycott South Africa because it was effective, it's ineffective to boycott the US because it's too powerful, and that it's sinful to boycott a South Africa-like US client state although effective like with South Africa, because why?

Chomsky fails to give an explanation why it would be sinful to take actions that would correct what he emphatically denounces as a sin.

Chomsky's interview raises questions about his own morality when it comes to the issue of actions targeting the client.