Matthew Yglesias (July 20, 2007) - Israel Project Background (Foreign Policy)

Re: "Once again, one is left to wonder why Israel went through all the trouble of building the most powerful conventional military in the region and acquiring a nuclear arsenal if all this actually leaves the country more vulnerable than it was in 1966 or 1948."

Well, one could argue that they are vulnerable despite their awesome military, due to the proliferation of nuclear technology. I don't think they are because Iran is a ways away from nuclear weapons, and because the MAD doctrine will almost surely work if Iran does in fact acquire weapons.

I think Israel is rational to have a strong military, and even to worry a little bit about Iran. To find the nation that is irrational, we only need to look in the mirror.

Posted by Jim W | July 20, 2007 3:27 PM

1. Actually, I found Ms. Mizrahis' op-ed to be rather mild, at least compared with the types of comments heard from Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol. For instance, she is not calling for an immediate military strike on Iran.

2. As to Mr. Yglesias' comments about Israels' mighty military machine, the concept of deterrence only works if the opposition is willing to be deterred. Many of us are very uncertain if the whackjobs currently running Iran will be deterred from a nuclear strike against Israel because of a likely nuclear response, thinking that Iran can survive a nuclear strike by Israel but Israel can't survive a nuclear strike by Iran.

3. Ms. Mizrahi claims that Iran is fomenting trouble in neighboring countries. Is Mr. Yglesias denying that Iran is arming Hizbollah and Hamas and egging them on and is providing support to some of the Shiite militias in Iraq? This, of course, is in addition to their alliance with Syria which houses many of the Palestinian terrorist groups.

Posted by SLC | July 20, 2007 3:29 PM

"if I go to yet another synagogue that has a sign about Darfur and nothing about the threat of Iran, I think my heart will break."

"Worry about Darfur? Yes. But why can’t we worry about Iran — perhaps the greatest threat to Israel ever?"

Perhaps if she actually paid attention in synagogue, i.e. to the Torah portions recently, she'd know that the greatest threats to the People of Israel are not external but internal. Balak may have tried to get Balaam to curse Israel, the Amalekites may have tried to obliterate Israel ... but the tradition teaches us that the greatest threat was from Midian which posed as our friend at times and then seduced us (literally) into betraying our ideals.

Today the right is posing as the friend of Israel but seducing the Jewish people to betray our ideals. The greatest threat to we the Jewish people is not the enemies we can overcome but if we betray our ideals.

Similarly, the first Isaiah (the opening parts of which we read this week on the last Shabbos before Tisha B'av) warns Judah against alliance with Egypt in facing the Assyrian threat -- as it turns out, the Assyrian threat was passing (the Chaldeans took over Assyria and then the Levant), but the internal threat of Judeans who were so obsessed with the particulars of their sacrificial cult as well as playing games of alliance (one imagines that among whatever Jews were in Egypt at the time were those saying that any Jew who did not support a "pro-Judean" policy by Egypt was anti-Semitic) in order to fight an external enemy, they forgot the broader, liberal message of Tikun Olam.

Is Iran a threat to Israel? Perhaps ... but the greatest threat to our people? The prophets would tell us, no! ...

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 3:45 PM

"Many of us are very uncertain if the whackjobs...."

Many of us immediately understand idiocy in this idiotic sentence and what follows. Carry on being uncertain....

Posted by Jennifer | July 20, 2007 3:56 PM

As to Mr. Yglesias' comments about Israels' mighty military machine, the concept of deterrence only works if the opposition is willing to be deterred. Many of us are very uncertain if the whackjobs currently running Iran will be deterred from a nuclear strike against Israel because of a likely nuclear response, thinking that Iran can survive a nuclear strike by Israel but Israel can't survive a nuclear strike by Iran.

But if deterance is so futile, why not follow the advice of the Prophet Jeremiah and "turn the other cheek"?

Perhaps Israel is less secure in spite of or because of its military build up. The problem may be cultural: Israel's always seeking to project "strength". The problem is that it uses its superior technology to do so, which projects "we're hiding behind our weaponry because we're cowards" and reenforces anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews (in general, many Zionists seem almost keen on reenforcing anti-Semitic stereotypes, such as dual loyalty -- but nu? it's part of the psychology of the movement ...) and our cowardly cleverness and too strong love of life (nu? why shouldn't we love life? what is it with these krenks who make religious and military decisions based on their own psychological issues ...) ... which emboldens Israel's enemies.

Israel needs to think a little bit that it's sending the message it really wants to send. Remember, only weak people/countries/etc. go around puffing and making all sorts of displays of "strength".

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 3:56 PM

Yhank you for such fine comments, DAS. I am proud our Temple members care so much about Darfur.

Posted by Jennifer | July 20, 2007 3:59 PM

I must confess Jennifer, what have I done (what can I do?) personally about Darfur? Likely not enough ...

Anyway, if you'll pardon some silliness, I presume "Yhank you" is a typo, but it does remind one that the Old English symbol used to represent the "th" sound (I forget the name) looked like a y. Whence "ye olde" for "the old[e]" ... so, I guess you should have wrote "yank yee"? ;)

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 4:11 PM

1. Withut Israel's millitary buildup, it would already have been destroyed in 1974. So to say it's millitary buildup has made it less safe, is absurd on its face.

2. The dual loyalty point is completely illogical. She is not saying american Jews should worry about the security of Israel as much as the security of the United States, but as a region of the country Sudan. How does caring about a staunch US ally with significant strtegic value to the US as much as Darfur show dual loyalties?

Posted by Dave | July 20, 2007 4:16 PM

Dave's second point above is instructive, and has implications far beyond Jews on the left. The truth is that many lefties do care more about the well-being of the hapless Darfur residents than they do about the security of the United States. If there were some way that intervening in Darfur could be construed as aiding U.S. national security, they'd probably be against it.

Posted by Juan | July 20, 2007 4:33 PM

1. Withut Israel's millitary buildup, it would already have been destroyed in 1974. So to say it's millitary buildup has made it less safe, is absurd on its face. - Dave

I think that's kinda MY's point: Israel was sufficiently militarily built up decades ago to keep it safe under far worse and more direct threats than it is under now. So why the hyperbole?

2. The dual loyalty point is completely illogical.

If what Ms. Mizrahi was saying was being said in a vacuum, your point would stand. But we keep hearing from various people -- friends, aquaintances, leaders within our community -- that we Jews need to be more loyal to Israel than to the US. Or, at the very least, base all our decisions, opinions, etc. on "is it good for Israel?" And yet, these same people complain whenever anyone accuses any Jew of the old anti-Semitic canard of dual loyalty?

We Jews can and should have opinions independent of what's good or not for the current State of Israel. Even from a Zionist point of view, the idea that good Jew = prioritizing the needs of Israel above all else is narishkeit. After all, Zionism is the idea that we Jews should have country like any other nation (a narisher view per se, IMHO -- we Jews are not like any other nation, we're the chosen people ... although we ask as Tevye did of God, "couldn't you choose someone else for a change?").

Nobody would say to someone of English ancestry who is an active member in the Episcopalean Church "you are a bad Brit if you don't support the most hawkish factions in British politics" or "you are a self-hating Brit if you don't judge all political candidates in your non-Britain country by whether they'll support the most aggressive policies of national security in Britain or otherwise support British issues" or "as a Brit, even if you are an American citizen, you ought to prioritize your political issues of choice by what affects Britain the most". Such statements would be considered just as racist if they came from a proud expat Brit as if they were someone claiming all people of English ancestry who worship in a Church of the Anglican Communion are dually loyal.

And yet proponants of Zionism, which holds Jewishness to be no different than being an Anglican of British ancestry, are making the argument that we diaspora Jews should prioritize always the needs of Israel even as they (quite rightly) realize dual loyalty is an anti-Semitic canard?

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 4:45 PM

Philip Weiss is worth reading on dual loyalties, bad Jews and so on.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/

Posted by otto | July 20, 2007 4:47 PM

"The truth is that many lefties do care more about the well-being of the hapless Darfur residents than they do about the security of the United States."

This is absurd, the reality is there is a significant infrastructure in most Western nations (and most certainly in the US) that is dedicated to ensuring public safety. So much so that we have to maintain a sort of balancing so that the state's security apparatus does not overreach.

The people of Darfur have next to nothing. They need all the help they can get.

Oh, and for what it's worth about the only signs I see around synagogues in my area (which has a high Jewish population) concern either rebuilding northern Israel or finding Gilad Shalit. So rightly or wrongly Israel would strike me as the central focus there.

Posted by Dan | July 20, 2007 4:50 PM

DAS,
I think you protest too much. Did you read the article? All it is saying is that Jews should be concerned for Israel too. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Posted by Dave | July 20, 2007 5:15 PM

Again, thank you DAS for inspiring words and thanks for the other humane comments. Though I always wish Israel peace and well-being, I never have the least worry about the security of Israel as a whole, nor of America. I do worry all the time about professional fear-mongers who would drive Israel or America to self-defeating fierceness.

That enough American Jews do what they can to call attention to and help in Darfur is a source of complete satisfaction to me. We do what we can, if that means buying solar stoves and water purifiers, and flashlights, then that is what we do. Not enough, but we try. This, to me, is a Jewish strength and even Israel's or America's. This is the strength of any humane institution.

Posted by Jennifer | July 20, 2007 5:19 PM

Iran hasn't lauched an aggressive war in more than a century, and of course the US itself has supported far more oppressive and brutal regimes in the past, so I think we can safely dismiss the childish propaganda about 'mad mullahs' and 'tyrants'.

However, it's obvious that an independent Iran is an obstacle to US/Israeli control of the region, with its tremendous energy reserves, so there is a genuine issue of power at stake here, and I think an expanded war is still quite likely.

The fact that we haven't seen at attack yet (I would have expected it before Iran took delivery of the TOR anti-aircraft system from the Russians, but whatever) probably means that U.S. policy-makers are divided on the question of whether or not further violence will advance US/Israeli interests in the region.

The attack on Iraq has demonstrated that America has power to destroy, but it has so far not been able to compel obedience. Israel's assault on Lebanon had the same result. It may be emotionally gratifying to the US/Israeli right-wing to do it, but there's no point to destroying Iran if the end result of it is nothing more than staving off the collapse of 'our' influence in the region.

Perhaps now we are at last seeing momentum in the US at least to take policy out of the hands of violent idiots and into the hands of people who at least try to look forward and see consequences before acting, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Posted by RLaing | July 20, 2007 5:21 PM

"[I]f I go to yet another synagogue that has a sign about Darfur and nothing about the threat of Iran, I think my heart will break."

This is a patently horrid immoral statement, and DAS was not even near protesting too much. Get it?

Posted by Jennifer | July 20, 2007 5:22 PM

All it is saying is that Jews should be concerned for Israel too. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Most Jews will be concerned about Israel, too. E.g., even a moonbat like me finds a lot of "leftist" criticism of Israel to really come from a place of double standards that can be anti-Semitic ... and non-Jews might simply be too removed to notice the double standards. It is not dual loyalty that we Jews have such a special concern. Would people accuse an Episcopalean of English ancestry of dual loyalty for being supportive of an Anglo-American alliance? No ... they'd call that person a patriot.

OTOH, should we Jews feel concerned for Israel? Is it our obligation?

Again, even in the framework of Zionism, I think not. Why should a Jew in the diaspora have any more obligation to be concerned about Israel than my hypothetical Episcopalean Anglo-American?

Certainly, we Jews, as tribal people, do have a special obligation toward other members of our tribe. But Israel is not, by moral/religious lights, a Jewish State to which our tribal obligation extends as the Moshiach is not yet come (and the Moshiach won't come until we get going with that Tikun Olam project!).

To say, especially from the Zionist point of view, that Jews should have an obligation to Israel is begging for an accusation of dual loyalty. Why the begging for anti-Semitism? I wonder if the whole "Jews should" as opposed to "we Jews naturally will" view of concern for Israel is correlated to the increasing influence of the American (and, I might add, anti-Semitic) religious right on the most self-proclaimed "pro-Israel" Jews. Who says Israel and its backers in this country can take the support of the religious right and ignore the motivations behind that support -- influence can be pernicious, eh?

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 5:40 PM

Why should a Jew in the diaspora have any more obligation to be concerned about Israel than my hypothetical Episcopalean Anglo-American?

DAS, your obligation is to the Jews in Israel, not the state itself. That doesn't obligate you to support any particular policy of the state, but certainly you have an obligation to be concerned about the lives of millions of Jews living there.

How you balance your obligation to stand witness against the ongoing genocide against the people of Darfur with your obligation to guard against the unclear threat that Iranian nuclear weapons could result in the mass-murder of Jews at some point in the future, is up to you.

Have a restful Shabbat.

Posted by mhp | July 20, 2007 6:01 PM

"To say, especially from the Zionist point of view, that Jews should have an obligation to Israel is begging for an accusation of dual loyalty."

The Dual loyalty accusation means that someone is putting the interests of Israel above that of the United States and I don't see anything remotely approaching that in this article. I don't even see anyone saying it is their obligation. I just see someone advocating for people to worry about Israel.

Under your definition, for a Jew simply to express concern for Israel and advocate other to as well is to question their loyalty to the United States. This has frightening implications and borders on "moonbattery".

Posted by Dave | July 20, 2007 6:03 PM

1) I agree that claiming all American Jews --or even claiming that many American Jews -- place loyalty to Israel above loyalty to America is deeply unfair.

On the other hand, I think it is fair to point out where some people have hurt this country greatly. Such Americans should not escape judgement just because they are Jewish or because the acts could be justified as supporting Israel.

2) I've cited several cases in the past:

a) The New York Times ran a story "Israel as Flashpoint Not Cause" on Sept 23, 2001 arguing that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was not a motivation for the Sept 11 attack -- while deliberately refusing to inform its readers that Bin Laden had cited the Palestinian plight as one of the 3 main reasons for Islamic Jihad against the USA in several interviews he gave to US TV networks in 1998.

The Times also refused to inform its readers in Nov 2001, when Bin Laden cited US sale of advanced weapons to Israel --and Israeli use of those weapons against civilians in Gaza -- as justification for the Sept 11 attacks.

b) While people nowdays claim George Bush lied us into Iraq, they seem to forget that George got a lot of help from ghost stories written by Jewish American Judith Miller and published repeatedly on the front page of the Sulzbergers' New York Times. The source? Jewish American Scooter Libby.

c) George also got a lot of help from Jewish American Kenneth Pollack , who published a best-selling book "The Threatening Storm" in 2002 warning us that we need to take out Saddam Hussein right away because Saddam is working feverishly on building a nuclear bomb and is likely close to success.

d) I don't recall anyone pointing out that Pollack's employer --The Saban Center for Middle East Policy -- was set up by Israeli billionaire Haim Saban -- whose fanatical devotion to Israel was loudly proclaimed by Haim himself in a Haaretz interview a few months backs.

e) Haim Saban was the largest donor to the Democratic politicians in 2000-2002 -- so it was kinda redundent for Ariel Sharon to come over here in 2002 and tell Democratic Senators that the best way to settle the Palestinians hash was to overthrow Saddam.

Especially after Democrats had seen how AIPAC had destroyed Cynthia McKinney and her father.

f) Plus how Billionaire Jewish American S Daniel Abraham destroyed Howard Dean's Presidential campaign in Iowa with a series of TV attack ads --after Dean merely told Joe Lieberman during a debate that the USA needed to be evenhanded in the Israel-Palestinian issue.

g) George Bush was also helped greatly by Jewish American Jane Harman's silence while Harman was ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI).

Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi and Jewish American Diane Feinstein largely stood alone when they argued that they had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US.

But then Jane Harman feels that if she needs to know anything , she merely needs to ask Haim Saban's Center --as quoted in the Time article last year.

h) Of course, when Tim Russert pointed out Bob Graham's comments to Richard Perle on Meet the Press in Sept 2002 --after Perle had gravely warned of the need to overthrow Saddam because of Saddam's WMDs -- Jewish American Richard Perle had no problem in claiming that the head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had not seen the intelligence. Maybe Fat Richard could give us that intelligence now so we can find those WMDs?

i) I will not bother to point out all the false and misleading propaganda that Jewish Neocons put out to scare Americans while beating the drums for war on Iraq. Just go back and read the articles by Bill Kristol , Charles Krauthammer, etc in the National Review and Weekly Standard.

3) Were the above the only guilty parties? Of course not. Big Oil and Dick Cheney probably drove the Iraq invasion.

But any opposition to their murderous plans was kneecapped by strong supporters of the Israel Lobby on the left. As a result, 6000+ of our citizens have died, we have lost $2 Trillion and we are sliding into an unnecessary long-term war with 1 Billion Muslims that's destroying our Bill of Rights.

4) Should Jewish Americans be blamed for the acts of a few? Of course not. But America has been a good home for Jews for centuries -- a far safer home and larger home than the Middle East can ever be. The acts of a few are endangering the Jewish community.

5) After all, the 5 million Germans who died in the Holocaust had nothing to do with deals rich Zionists made with Britain in WWI -- the deals that led to the Balfour Declaration, the defeat of Germany, and the economic starvation of Germany under the Versailles Treaty. But those 5 million Jews got the blame for the acts of a wealthy and powerful few.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 6:07 PM

Under your definition, for a Jew simply to express concern for Israel and advocate other to as well is to question their loyalty to the United States. - Dave

No. Of course not. But people will so question things (c.f. our very own Don Williams). To therefore say that we Jews should have concerns vis-a-vis the State of Israel is rather problematic, isn't it?

*

I dunno how to respond to Don Williams, though -- what did rich Jews care about the conditions of Germany post-WWI? That's some craziness. Anyway, OBL and his ilk care about Palestinians as much as GW Bush and his ilk care about the citizens of Iraq (we're bringing democracy to them yet we also chose their country to serve as "flypaper" to fight terrorists -- who weren't there before -- "over there so we don't have to fight them over here"? way ta show ya care!).

If OBL really cared about the Palestinians, he'd put some of his organizational know how to use in helping the Palestinians build a state, e.g. as India built itself up as a state while occupied by Britain. What are the Palestinians and their so-called friends in the Arab world doing to actually build a Palestinian state? The only people doing anything are Hamas ... and they also wanna drive Israel and all the Jews in it into the sea. If Palestine had a Nehru and a Gandhi et al, they'd have a state by now.

So the NYT, contra Don Williams' fevered imaginings as well as the general wankerishness of the NYT on other, related matters, is right -- the Palestine issue is a flashpoint and not an actual cause. To believe it's a cause really is giving a bunch of common criminals a fair shake they don't deserve (the same thing could be said about treating terrorists as if they were soldiers or even "enemy combatants" rather than as common criminals -- see, the paranoid left and the paranoid right aren't that different, nu?).

AFAIC, the Israeli lobby, while it likes to think it's all powerful (they think of themselves the same way anti-Semites think of them -- talk about a psychological krenk!), really are a bunch of tools ... does all this hawkery really help Israel? Does Israel really want to "control" the Middle East? Why should it? But it does help further the agendas of others ...

To focus on Jews who so-called "support" Israel is somewhat to miss the point. And that's what they want you to do.

The real question is why do some Jews let themselves get used as tools? And why do they label us Jews who don't want to get so used as not being sufficiently concerned about the Jewish people?

And again, forgive me for sounding like Don Williams here -- but what, according to the Torah and Prophets, can really destroy the Jewish Community?

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 6:32 PM

Have a restful Shabbat. - mhp

A restful and joyous Shabbos to you! And Shabbos peace and rest and joy to all!

Posted by DAS | July 20, 2007 6:50 PM

Re DAS

Mr. Don Williams is typical of the antisemitism of the left. He is right up there with such folks as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, Stephen Rose, Sue Blackwell, etc. When one bashes Israel, one gets into bed with Mr. scumbag Williams. I would point out to Mr. DAS that on an earlier thread, Mr. Williams leveled the blood drinking libel against Jews.

Re Jennifer

I am certainly glad that Ms. Jennifer is totally certain of the deterrent capability of Israels' nuclear arsenal and the total sanity of Mr. Amadinejad and his compatriots in Tehran, and that she considers anybody who has the temerity of being uncertain to be an idiot. It's certainly fine that Ms. Jennifer has no fears for the safety of the State of Israel from the rather safer environment of the United States.

Posted by SLC | July 20, 2007 7:26 PM

Don Williams is of colurse a vile anti-Semite and neither left or right, just a vile anti-Semite, but the mean craziness of SLC is mean craziness indeed.

Posted by Jennifer | July 20, 2007 8:10 PM

"...if I go to yet another synagogue that has a sign about Darfur and nothing about the threat of Iran, I think my heart will break."

I read this somewhat differently: from MY's brief descriptor, it sounds as if Ms. Mizrahi is bewailing the lack of interest in the obsessive and basically political issue her organization is trying to push into the limelight (said issue, of course, wrapped in the usual moralistic "survival of the Jews" hysteria).

She sounds, in this excerpt, more like a Madison Avenue exec ticked off that her expensive and heavily promoted ad campaign hasn't acheived its market-penetration goals - and "heartbroken" lest her client decide to change agencies.

Posted by JAy C | July 20, 2007 8:21 PM

"If there were some way that intervening in Darfur could be construed as aiding U.S. national security, they'd probably be against it."

As a lefty myself, I can tell you that you are off the mark here. By your logic I should have supported the Iraq War, since there was no rational way to construe it as aiding U.S. national security, but I did not, and neither did most of us on the left.

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2007 8:30 PM

Re Jennifer

Well, well, Ms. Jennifer seems to have promoted me from idiot to crazy. Actually, I thought that my postings here were, for me, quite mild. I merely indicated that is was less confident of the sanity of Mr. Amadinejad and his compatriots then Ms. Jennifer apparently is; unlike Ms. Jennifer, I don't advise the Government of Israel to gamble on the sanity of the Iranian Mullahs from the safety of Falls Church, Va. As for Mr. Don Williams, he only hates Jews who don't keep their mouths shut and don't refrain from lobbying the Government. I'm sure he has no problem with Ms. Jennifer.

Posted by SLC | July 20, 2007 9:03 PM

Re "I dunno how to respond to Don Williams, though -- what did rich Jews care about the conditions of Germany post-WWI? That's some craziness."
------------
1) Actually, I was referring to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's description of the geopolitical machinations that led Britain to create Israel -- to issue the Balfour Declaration ,which was addressed "To Lord Rothschild". All for the purpose of defeating Germany.

2) In David Lloyd George's own words, it was a deal Britain made "with world Jewry" because Britain was close to losing the war to Germany.
In actuality, the deal was with some rich Zionists who put their political agenda --creation of Israel -- ahead of the welfare of their fellow Jews.

3) You can read Lloyd-George's account -- from his "Memoirs of the Peace Conference " (i.e the Versailles Conference ) here: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/l-george.html
Note: I checked the first several pages of the above internet copy against the actual book -- it is a true copy for at least the first five pages.

3) Per Lloyd George, Britain created Israel circa 1917 because:

a) The Germans had realized the war value of world Jewry -- Jewish agents had helped the Germans overthrow the Russians in Poland (due to the Russian Czar's severe persecutions of Eastern European Jews in the late 1800s-early 1900s). Britain needed to counteract German approachs to Jewish leaders. Plus, Britain needed to overcome the American Jewish support for Germany that had been created in opposition to Russian pogroms.

b) Some Jewish leaders in America had strong influence over Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and had previously restrained Wilson from entering the war to aid Britain.

[Note: Lloyd George is referring to American Jews influential in the Democratic Party who were also supporters of the Zionist Movement to create Israel --Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Rabbi Stephen Wise, etc. ]

c) Lloyd George owed a strong debt to Jewish chemist Chaim Weizmann, who had solved a difficult problems affecting British manufacture of essential high explosives. As reward, Chaim Weizmann asked Lloyd George to support creation of Israel.

d) Britain was on the verge of losing the war in 1917, desperately needed America to make an immediate, enormous push to help, and thought Jewish leaders would have a major effect on American public opinion needed to bring this about.

(?? NOTE: Not clear Why? Because of Jewish ownership of major newspapers like the Washington Post (Eugene Meyer) and New York Times
(Sulzburgers) ??)

e) It was VITAL that Germany not receive resources from the new Communist government of Russia. The Jews of Russia wielded considerable influence in the Bolshevik movement which had just overthrown the Czars. The Zionist movement was strong both in Russia and America. Hence, Britain desperately needed to gain the support of the Zionists. To do this, Britain needed to block German maneuvers to have the Ottoman Turks create Israel.

f) According to Lloyd George: "Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers (Germany) from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution"

g) Finally, Britain desperately needed the help of Jewish financial interests because Britain had exhausted the gold and marketable securities she needed to buy war material from American corporations. ( Note: Lloyd George is referring to superrich Jewish financiers like Jacob Henry Schiff of Kuhn Loeb -- who helped bring down the Russian Czars by giving loans to Japan during Japan's war with Russia and by financing the Communist Revolution. See,e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff )

4) Note that Lloyd George is not speaking just as
British Prime Minister -- he is speaking as someone who also received all the information of the global British intelligence service and who was one of the 3 major leaders at Versailles.

5) What is interesting is that the major OPPONENTS to the Balfour Declaration were some British Jewish leaders like Lord Curzon and Edwin Montagu. Lloyd George notes Montagu's strong objections -- that it would make Jews everywhere suspect of "dual loyalty".
Most of all, Montagu felt that to be Jewish was to belong to a religious community -- and felt that he was a Jewish Englishman.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 10:40 PM

6) In his Memoirs , David Lloyd George gloated over the success of the Balfour Declaration --without stopping to consider the effect his words would have on German veterans of WWI who had spent years in hideous trench warfare -- men like Adolf Hitler:
----------
"The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally to the Allied cause Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world. They kept their word in the letter and the spirit, and the only question that remains now is whether we mean to honour ours. Immediately the declaration was agreed to, millions of leaflets were circulated in every town and area through - out the world where there were known to be Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air in German and Austrian towns, and they were scattered throughout Russia and Poland. I could point out substantial and in one case decisive advantages derived from this propaganda amongst the Jews. In Russia the Bolsheviks baffled all the efforts of the Germans to benefit by the harvests of the Ukraine and the Don, and hundreds of thousands of German and Austrian troops had to be maintained to the end of the War on Russian soil, whilst the Germans were short of men to replace casualties on the Western front. I do not suggest that this was due entirely, or even mainly, to Jewish activities. But we have good reason to believe that Jewish propaganda in Russia had a great deal to do with the difficulties created for the Germans in Southern Russia after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering to-day for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist p]edge to the Allies. "
-------------

7) Note also that David Lloyd George can hardly be called an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. He was one of the strongest Gentile allies the Zionists had.

But note that he was devoted to HIS (BRITISH) INTERESTS -- NOT to the interests of German Jews.

He USED the ZIONISTS --just as Big Oil is today using the Israel Lobby -- and was indifferent if his actions brought disaster down upon common German Jews who were largely ignorant of what was going on.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 11:16 PM

Mea culpa. I apologize for thinking (to myself; but this deserves a public apology) all this time that Don Williams was an ordinary -- hot-headed but ordinary -- leftist whose antipathy to Israel and to its supporters derived (perhaps a bit distortedly: one doesn't have to support a genocidal organizations to be pro-Palestinian; that is the common mistake of some left-wingers who approach this particular Middle East conflict from a hatred of Jewish "particularism" instead of concern for the well-being of two peoples) simply from laudable desires to see a Palestinian state established. There were plenty of clues that this wasn't the case -- sweeping generalizations, vile terms seemingly borrowed from hate sites, etc. -- but so determined was I to avoid the "anti-semitism!" trap, that I ignored them. I was wrong. The evidence is incontrovertible. Don Williams is exactly what Jews (if you'll pardon a gentile for saying so) would assert he is. They are right and I was wrong. Indeed, he is the poster boy for the dictum that "not all critics of Israel are anti-semites but all anti-semites are critics of Israel". I'll avoid his comments from here on.

Posted by Frank | July 21, 2007 10:37 AM

1) Sigh. It is curious that people speak of "blood libels" and yet so readily resort to those libels themselves.

2) I started out my posts above by noting that:
"I agree that claiming all American Jews --or even claiming that many American Jews -- place loyalty to Israel above loyalty to America is deeply unfair.

On the other hand, I think it is fair to point out where some people have hurt this country greatly. Such Americans should not escape judgement just because they are Jewish or because the acts could be justified as supporting Israel."

3) I then noted the specific actions of several specific individuals who I judged had misled American voters into an unnecessary war that has killed 3500+ of our sons.

4) I argued that it was not in the interest of the Jewish American community to support and become identified with what,in my opinion, is the deliberate deceit of a few wealthy and powerful egotists that has greatly hurt America.

5) To support that argument, I pointed to past history -- of how the Zionist manipulations to create Israel in the middle of a World War had led to the death of 5 million German and East European Jews in the Holocaust.

6) To say that I "borrowed from hate sites" is a lie. The source I quoted above was the Memoirs of the man who created Israel -- who was regarded by the founders of Israel as one of their strongest allies.

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 11:16 AM

Thank you for understanding, Frank.

As for SLC, simply a crazed hate-mongering creep who I happpened to read by chance but never will again.

Posted by Jennifer | July 21, 2007 4:52 PM

Don Williams, of course there is no reason to read you either for you are simply a degenerate anti-Semite.

Posted by Jennifer | July 21, 2007 4:55 PM

If you wish to bury your head in the sand to avoid looking at the facts I present, Jennifer, then that of course is your prorogative.

Just don't fool yourself that making false charges without substantiation -- i.e., that I am anti-Semitic -- or rationalizing the acts of the Israel Lobby is somehow supporting Jewish Americans --or is in the interest of the Jewish Community. Because it is not.

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 5:08 PM

Most Jews will be concerned about Israel, too. E.g., even a moonbat like me finds a lot of "leftist" criticism of Israel to really come from a place of double standards that can be anti-Semitic

But I do hold Israel to a different standard. Not because Israel is a country of Jews, but because Israel is a liberal democracy, and it is my general policy to expect more from a robust liberal democracy than from an autocracy like Jordan, or a theocracy like the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was, or the weird fusion of theocracy, totalitarianism and democracy that is Iran.

There is a weird contradiction in the claims of many supporters of Israel. We are often told that we must support Israel because it's a liberal democracy, and we should support it on principle. And yet we are also told, on the other hand, that Israel is allowed to act brutally because its enemies are brutal. But you can't have it both ways; you can't at once praise Israel for its benevolent democracy while excusing its atrocities. It's strange; people who claim to love Israel more than anyone else are constantly in the habit of holding it to standards no higher than those of Syria, or Iran, or Pakistan.

And, by the way, there is the fact of the enormous monetary and military commitment that the United States has made to Israel. I'm an American citizen, I live in a democracy, and it is my responsibility to criticize things that my government does that are against my moral compass. The United States doesn't give billions and billions of dollars to the oppressive Iranian regime; it does give billions and billions to Israel. My responsibility stems from my governments actions.

Posted by Freddie | July 21, 2007 5:42 PM

The only obligation a government has is to the safety and security of its citizens. There is no rational reason why Israel's government should give a hairy rat's posterior what Americans' "moral compass" is.

On the other hand, Israel would not exist if not for the enormous past support America has given her: $91 Billion + in past aid, $3 Billion/year in ongoing aid, massive transfers of advanced weapons like the fleet of F16 fighters,etc. America, on the other hand, has received nothing. No even a major base.

So it would seem only enlightened self-interest for Israel to consider America's interests before engaging in unnecessary aggression with American-supplied weapons.

For example, When Ariel Sharon bombed a civilian apartment building in Gaza in the middle of the night -- and killed 9 Palestinian children as well as wounding close to a hundred civilians -- everyone in the Islamic world knew that the bomb was made in America and the F16 dropping the bomb was made in America.

That makes it a lot harder to gain the help of the Islamic world in finding Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden cited Israel's aggression with US supplied weapons as one of the three main justifications for Islamic war on the USA in 1998. He reiterated that point in Nov 2001 to justify the Sept 11 attack.

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 6:40 PM

The only obligation a government has is to the safety and security of its citizens.

I see. Then I take it you have no objection whatsoever to the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, the Bataan death march, the execution of non-German citizens in the Holocaust, the American and European slave trades, or any atrocities committed by any government against people who aren't its own citizens.

There is no rational reason why Israel's government should give a hairy rat's posterior what Americans' "moral compass" is.

But, of course, I'm not trying to convince Israel's government. I'm trying to convince my own, without whose support, may I point out, Israel's current way of life would be impossible.

Posted by Freddie | July 21, 2007 7:30 PM

Re "Then I take it you have no objection whatsoever to the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, the Bataan death march, the execution of non-German citizens in the Holocaust, the American and European slave trades, or any atrocities committed by any government against people who aren't its own citizens."
-----------
OF COURSE I do. Because such acts are NOT in the interest of the government's citizens.

Only a moronic (or corrupt) government provokes war by engaging in unnecessary aggression -- or by engaging in atrocities
which convince the civilized world that the government needs to be exterminated because it is psychopathic and a threat to everyone.

The past acts of the US government in the Middle East --which brought death, deep poverty and hopeless misery upon so many in the Islamic world -- created the deep hatred that spawned Al Qaeda and the Sept 11 attack. Those acts were not in the interest of US citizens -- they were in the interest of wealthy campaign donors.

Bush is too stupid to realize that his aggression has made EU, Russia and China very wary of the USA -- that the USA is being measured. Al Qaeda may end up being the lesser of our worries.

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 8:00 PM

OF COURSE I do. Because such acts are NOT in the interest of the government's citizens.

Likewise, I find the actions of the IDF (while of course not anywhere equal to the atrocities I listed) to be out of the interests of both the Israeli and American people.

And I personally don't feel that a governments actions, however beneficial to its own people, are immune from moral consideration.

Posted by Freddie | July 21, 2007 8:20 PM

Israel Project Background

Comments (39)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories