Since there is no Israel lobby, and if there is one it's not influential at all, then obviously these attacks on Zbigniew Brzezinski couldn't possibly be politically damaging, and therefore Barack Obama must be distancing himself from Brzezinski's views on the matter for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the political clout of this non-existent lobby. Obviously, anyone who says otherwise is an anti-semite.
« Surge Ads | Main | Cameragate »
Oh, The Irony
13 Sep 2007 11:32 am
Comments (126)
Indeed, there has been no suggestion that Obama, who appeared at AIPAC’s annual conference in Washington, objects to the role of the so-called Israel lobby in American politics.
So-called Jewish people objecting to the so-called insights of advisers like Brezinski, and reacting like so-called Pavlovian dogs to the criticism of so-called racist bigots like Dershowitz and so-called publicists like Rabinowitz makes the so-called "Israel Lobby" the so-called powerhouse it is today.
allegedly.
Start your stopwatch for when Brzezinski's gone from that campaign.
It's a miracle somebody still thinks that Brzezinski can be damaged politically. He's a political corpse for many years now. What do you do to hurt the corpse?
Obama has already distanced himself from the book, with his campaign saying in a statement earlier this week that
"the idea that supporters of Israel have somehow distorted U.S. foreign policy, or that they are responsible for the debacle in Iraq, is just wrong."
--------------
Gee, and here I was thinking that Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and the other Neocons had somehow lied us into the Iraq disaster.
Or that it was Israeli billionaire Haim Saban who funded that think tank whose Director of Research put out a book warning us in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was working feverishly to develop nuclear bombs and that he was probably close to getting one.
Or that that same Israeli billionaire's think tank still proudly displays that 2002 LA Times OpEd "Lock and Load" --which told us that we need to take out Saddam because he has all those "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
See http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm
And what's truly depressing is that the above quote from the Barack Obama campaign comes to us via the right wing Israel Lobby whore known as the NY Sun.
Welcome to America. Home of the "Free Press"-- provided you are rich enough to own one.
Finally, you are understanding.
Re ibrahim al-jafaari
"So-called Jewish people objecting to the so-called insights of advisers like Brezinski, and reacting like so-called Pavlovian dogs to the criticism of so-called racist bigots like Dershowitz and so-called publicists like Rabinowitz makes the so-called "Israel Lobby" the so-called powerhouse it is today."
So antisemitic fascist whores like Ms. jafaari now claim that the Jewish people don't exist. Regardless of the merits of the writings of Mr. Brezinski, Mr. Walt, or Mr. Mearsheimer, I very much doubt that any of them would make such a statement as quoted above.
Re Yglesias
Is Mr. Yglesias now claiming that any criticism of Brezinski, Walt, or Mearsheimer is now McCarthyism? Isn't that like the claims of the Weekly Standard that any criticism of General Patraeus is McCarthyism?
Re: "So antisemitic fascist whores like Ms. jafaari..."
You're right! She DOES have an Arab-sounding name.
Is Mr. Yglesias now claiming that any criticism of Brezinski, Walt, or Mearsheimer is now McCarthyism?
Where did I claim that?
First of all, SLC, I think it's clear that she was putting so-called in front of every term in her post, as a joke/point. That is way far from saying that she doesn't think Jews are real, or whatever other bizarre notion has entered your rabid brain.
Worse, it was the habit of supporters of Israel for decades to claim that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian", or to constantly refer to them as "so-called Palestinians". But that wouldn't be an instance of anti-Arab racism, right? Because anything that could vaguely be construed as anti-Semitic simply must be, but the bar for anti-Arab racism is just impossibly high to clear. Right?
Re SLC's comment "Is Mr. Yglesias now claiming that any criticism of Brezinski, Walt, or Mearsheimer is now McCarthyism?"
------------
I don't know about Matthew, but I ,for one, wouldn't never call the criticism of Brezinski, Walt, and Mearsheimer --"McCarthyism".
Because Senator Joe McCarthy didn't have the balls to point out to America that the two spy rings who gave the nuclear bomb to Joseph Stalin consisted almost totally of Jewish Americans with dual loyalties.
Julius Rosenberg. Ethel Rosenberg. David Greenglass. Harry Gold. Klaus Fuchs. Morris Cohen. Morton Sobell. Ruth Greenglass. Theodore Hall. Saville Sax.
Only Lena Cohen-- Morris Cohen's wife-- was reared as Roman Catholic and was an atheist.
Because of those traitors, America's cities have lived for 50 years under the daily threat of being turned into a pile of radioactive ashes.
And will live under that threat for the foreseeable future.
First of all, SLC, I think it's clear that she was putting so-called in front of every term in her post, as a joke/point. That is way far from saying that she doesn't think Jews are real, or whatever other bizarre notion has entered your rabid brain.
Worse, it was the habit of supporters of Israel for decades to claim that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian", or to constantly refer to them as "so-called Palestinians". But that wouldn't be an instance of anti-Arab racism, right? Because anything that could vaguely be construed as anti-Semitic simply must be, but the bar for anti-Arab racism is just impossibly high to clear. Right?
Re Yglesias
In the article which Mr. Yglesias linked to, Prof. Brezinski asserted that the criticism of Walt and Mearsheimer was McCarthyism.
"But the article inserted him into one of the most heated debates in America-Israel politics, a bitter dispute about whether the authors’ claims smacked of bigotry, whether their critics are – as Brzezinski put it — “McCarthyite."
Matt,
Any comment on this WSJ op/ed by Jeff Robins ("Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby")? A brief excerpt:
"A crop of Israel's critics--most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"--have managed something of a feat: They express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that "the Jewish lobby" will accuse them of it.
Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by Israel's critics for their "courage" in attacking American Jews, who have allegedly "strangled" criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising."
I agree with Brzezinski that there has been some McCarthy-esque criticism of Walt & Mearsheimer, yes. For example, Eli Lake's New York Sun article linking them to David Duke. Obviously, though, not all criticism of W&M or of Zbig or of Obama is McCarthyism.
Robert and Michael Meeropol , the sons of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg have published letters written by the Rosenbergs while in prison under the title "We are Your Sons" .
Page 159 of that book has a letter from Julius Rosenberg to Manny Bloch -- an excerpt:
----------
"During the course of my testimony, I stated in court that I believed the Russians carried the brunt of the war and that the allies should open a second front. This didn't go well with the court but if a second front had been opened sooner the Nazis would not have had time to exterminate 6,000,000 Jewish people and millions of other victims of fascism. At Page 1079 of the trial record I gave the following testimony, 'and in discussing the merits of other forms of governments, I discussed that with my friends on the basis of the performance of what they accomplished, and I felt that the Soviet Government has improved the lot of the underdog there, has made a lot of progress in eliminating illiteracy, has done a lot of reconstruction work and built up a lot of resources, and at the same time I felt that they contributed a major share in destroying the Hitler beast who killed 6,000,000 of my co-religionists, and I feel emotional about that thing."
----------------------
Julius sounds like a good recruit for the Israel Lobby.
Because of Julius' disloyalty to the America which had provided Jews a safe refuge for over 200 years, over 300 million American could now be turned into a crisp at any moment.
Including 4 million Jewish-Americans.
Which may be why a Jewish prosecutator -- Roy Cohn -- and a Jewish Judge -- Irving Kaufman -- shoved Julius's and fat Ethel's asses into the electric chairs so damm fast the angels blinked.
Re Don Williams
1. Mr. Williams, in his usually inflammatory manner makes the mistake of asserting that the former Soviet Union would never have developed nuclear weapons without the contribution of its spies. Although it is quite likely that such development would have been delayed to later then 1949, they eventually would have developed such weapons. It's not that difficult, once it is known that such weapons exist, provided that the industrial capacity to manufacture them exists. After all, India and Pakistan, both considerably less industrialized then the former Soviet Union have developed nuclear weapons.
2. Just a minor correction, I believe that Klaus Fuchs was a British citizen.
3. Without the contribution of such Jewish scientists as Edward Teller, Eugene Wigner, Hans Bethe, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and Otto Frisch, the US would not have developed nuclear weapons either. In particular, it was the calculations of the latter two that a critical mass of U235 was ~1 kilogram, rather then the 100 kilograms estimated by Werner Heisenberg that allowed the Manhattan project to go forward.
4. Actually, I would argue that the existence of nuclear weapons, particularly the hydrogen bomb, probably prevented WW 3 between the US and the Soviet Union as both would have been totally destroyed. As former premier Khrushchev once stated, in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange between the former Soviet Union and the US, the living would envy the dead. Had nuclear weapons never existed, I strongly suspect that either the Korean War or the Vietnam War would escalated into WW 3 (even though the Soviets didn't have a bomb at the time of the Berlin Airlift, if the US had not had nuclear weapons, it is possible that that episode could have escalated into WW 3).
NOTHING justifies disloyalty to this country.
NO Religious interpretation.
No political philosophy.
No pile of money.
No economic interest.
NOTHING.
1. The writings in reference represent thoughts long held by many in the U.S., Israel and the world.
2. What goes unrealized in the "red herring responses" is that possibly the relationship as it is now has been damaging to Israel.
I do worry that this debate isn't leaving much room for people who think that Walt and Mearsheimer are incorrect (although, to be fair, I only read their shorter piece from last year), without accusing them of penning a reimagining of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
(It also really doesn't help that one of the earlier commenters on this post actually, has veered into some unfortunately anti-Semitic reasoning.)
I wouldn't want a presidential candidate to draw heavily from an advisor who believes in the substantive wisdom of Walt and Mearsheimer's book because I believe their fundamental thesis (as I've encountered it) is bad and unwise, not because I fear creeping anti-Semitism.
Is my objection, then, filed as part of the Israel lobby? If there are many others like me (and I have given money---pittance, but money---to Obama) and Obama takes note, is that him caving to the power of the Israel lobby?
I worry that, as we've defined our terms in this discussion, you're either the Israel Lobby or you're An Anti-Semite.
(And from there we can just sit back and count the seconds until someone validates Godwin's Law.)
No point even saying this since it's so obvious, but Don Williams is embarassing himself.
And what justifies your rabid anti-Semitism?
Re Don Williams
Mr. Williams in his usual attempt to blame the Iraq adventure on Israel, continues to ignore the opposition of officials of the Israeli Government, as noted by Mr. Wilkerson, the former State Department official. When asked if he thinks Mr. Wilkerson is a liar, Mr. Williams responds that he doesn't know. Until such time as Mr. Williams comes up with some evidence that Mr. Wilkerson is a liar, he should perhaps tread more lightly in his claims. And perhaps he should rely less on the mouthings of Bibi who the Palestinians apparently consider to be such a pushover that they are rooting for him to win the next election. As has been amply demonstrated in the past, Bibi is the original mouth that roared.
This is much like the current situation relative to Syria where the US administration wants regime change and the Israeli Government is less then keen on the idea.
Just as the treatment of Brzezinski demonstrates there is no such thing as an Israel lobby, this comment threat demonstrates without a doubt that there is no feverish, unhinged obsession with American Jews' support of Israel and its supposedly all powerful effects on the entire course of American foreign policy. I think we should all be reassured.
"Which may be why a Jewish prosecutator -- Roy Cohn -- and a Jewish Judge -- Irving Kaufman -- shoved Julius's and fat Ethel's asses into the electric chairs so damm fast the angels blinked."
Would those be the Angels in America blinking?
Re Walt/Mearsheimer
Attached is a link to a column by Richard Cohen, a sometime Israel basher in the past, with a review of the Walt/Mearsheimer book.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002074.html
Re SLC's comment "Mr. Williams, in his usually inflammatory manner makes the mistake of asserting that the former Soviet Union would never have developed nuclear weapons without the contribution of its spies. Although it is quite likely that such development would have been delayed to later then 1949, they eventually would have developed such weapons. It's not that difficult, once it is known that such weapons exist, provided that the industrial capacity to manufacture them exists. After all, India and Pakistan, both considerably less industrialized then the former Soviet Union have developed nuclear weapons."
------------
I disagree.
1) There were two approachs to developing the atomic bomb: use of U235 and use of plutonium.
2)Separation of U235 from U238 required an IMMENSE industrial plant with huge amounts of electricity. Even the Oak Ridge complex with the pre-war TVA hydroelectric generation was able to separate only a small amount of U235.
3) Generation and extraction of plutonium , by contrast, could be done with conventional chemical engineering processes and was FAR easier. Which is why almost all subsequent nuclear weapons have been plutonium based.
4) However, the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of a plutonium bomb was FAR MORE DIFFICULT. A simple cannon design (fire one subcritical mass into another subcritical mass ) won't work because the plutonium begins a chain reaction BEFORE mass 1 reaches mass 2 and the heat blows the two masses apart before the chain reaction can progress very far.
5) The plutonium bomb required a IMPLOSION of a hollow sphere --which required detonation of a sphere of high explosive that would form a perfectly symmetrical CONCAVE shock wave that would compress the sphere into a small point from all directions. THIS was the secret of Los Alamos -- and this detailed design was what was given to the Soviets by the spy rings.
6) The head of the Soviet atomic development effort stated that the implosion idea was non-obvious and probably would not have occurred to him for some time.
7) It took France decades to develop the bomb. The UK only developed the bomb earlier because of partial collaboration with the US on the Manhattan Project and because they had the help of Klaus Fuchs. (The Brits gave Fuchs a choice --either he gave them the same detailed technical info he had given the Russians or they would turn him over to the Americans or they would execute him for spying.)
8) The Soviets might eventually had been able to develop the atomic bomb -- if America had allowed them to do so. But Russia was devastated after the war and America in 1946 had the unilateral military power to impose a nonproliferation scheme that would have kept America's monopoly indefinitely.
One Stalin had several atomic bombs, of course, then America had no ability to impose nonproliferation. And the Cold War competition allowed other nations to play the two powers off against one another.
Re Don Williams
1. The Soviet Union didn't develop the bomb until 1949. Thus the US had 4 years to prevent the development and failed to do so. What makes Mr. Williams think that the US would prevent the development if it had taken 15 years instead of 4 years. Mr. Williams also hasn't answered that question of how poorly industrialized countries like Pakistan and India were able to develop nuclear weapons if it's so difficult?
2. I am somewhat curious as to how plutonium can be extracted by a purely chemical process as it doesn't occur naturally, unlike U235 which is present in uranium deposits in small quantities (only the first 92 elements are found in nature). There must be a nuclear based process (i.e. bombard U238 with protons) at some point to produce plutonium.
3. Despite the strenuous efforts of Edward Teller, the Soviet Union nearly beat the US in the development of thermonuclear weapons, indicating that they weren't as backward as Mr. Williams supposes.
4. With regard to the Rosenbergs, it appears that Ms. Rosenberg was more or less innocent but was railroaded into the electric chair by J. Edgar Hoover in an attempt to force Mr. Rosenberg to cough up the names of other spies which he had knowledge of. Apparently, good Communist that he was, he allowed his wife to accompany him to the execution chamber.
Don Williams:
The Rosenbergs were traitors, but you seem to be overstating the effects of their espionage. They may have caused the Soviets to get nukes five or ten years sooner than they would have got them otherwise, but the Soviets would nevertheless have gotten nukes anyway. I think it was Leó Szilárd (another Jew, if that matters) who made the point that demonstrating the possibility of nukes by dropping the bombs on Japan would make a nuclear arms race inevitable.
The Soviet Union had a lot of talented scientists and engineers before World War II, and they augmented this with captured German talent after the war. That's one reason they beat us into space.
Just as the treatment of Brzezinski demonstrates there is no such thing as an Israel lobby, this comment threat demonstrates without a doubt that there is no feverish, unhinged obsession with American Jews' support of Israel and its supposedly all powerful effects on the entire course of American foreign policy. I think we should all be reassured.
Here's a wild idea, friend: rather than basing your opinion on Israel's critics on the most extreme and rabid, why don't you attempt to listen to a moderate voice and actually confront its arguments, rather than attacking people through broad generalization and the application of pejorative labels?
Judging from Matt's post, he seems to feel a mixture of anger and betrayal at the notion that Obama would actually bow to AIPAC's will. He just doesn't get it: Obama is nothing more than another Republicratic Party whore-a-tician who must pass the AIPAC smell test.
The real irony of this debate is the role moronic born-again christians play in it. The type of whacked policies advocated by the aipac crowd are not supported by a majority of Israelis or amercian jews.
Survey after survey show american jews not in favor of invasions of iraq, iran, syria etc. The fundie christian crowd is guilable enough to support any policy that causes chaos in the middle east...thinking more chaos means jesus comes sooner and converts the jews/ends the world!
The Aipac crowd is powerful but its true supporters are small group of uberhawk jews and many christy morons....and defense contractors.
PS yes..many nation attempt to lobby some are better at it...cuba india ireland saudi arabia and israel
kafka,
I think you're reading too much into it. Obama's trying to get elected. At this point in time, that's impossible if he pisses off the pro-Israel lobby. End of story.
It is more appropriate to direct anger toward the liars out there who keep insisting that there is no significant pro-Israel lobby. Lobbying is fine. Just be up-front about it. And don't call people anti-semites just because they disagree with you.
PS yes..many nation attempt to lobby some are better at it...cuba india ireland saudi arabia and israel
Right. What you don't see, though, is people calling critics of American foreign policy towards China (a staple of the last years of the Clinton administration) anti-Chinese racists. Which is a good thing, because foreign policy is incredibly complicated, and those kinds of attacks against motive, assumptions of bad faith, and accusations of the most stigmatized attitudes imaginable tend to have a chilling effect on an adult, rational foreign policy.
Re SLC's comment "1. The Soviet Union didn't develop the bomb until 1949. Thus the US had 4 years to prevent the development and failed to do so. What makes Mr. Williams think that the US would prevent the development if it had taken 15 years instead of 4 years"
---------
1) The US didn't realize that the spy rings had passed the design of the implosion bomb to the Soviets until the Soviet test in 1949. The frenzied US search for atomic spies --and McCarthyism --occurred in the 1950s.
2) The first Soviet bomb was a copy of the Los Alamos FatMan design. I suggest SLC look at the the book "Bombshell" by Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel (1997). The book was based upon information in the Soviet Archives released in the mid 1990s. The material in the Soviet Archives greatly revised much of the American historical studies into the atomic spies and their effects on America politics (McCarthyism,etc)
3) In Chapter 14, page 127, the authors note that Ted Hall passed on the principle of the "implosion" design --on which the Soviet Bomb was built-- in late 1944 . The authors note:
"This was the germ of one of the seminal inventions of the twentieth century , and the idea was so counterintuitive that Soviet Physicists might have taken a decade to come up with it on their own. Without the implosion principle, it seems likely that the Soviets would have failed in their first desperate attempts to catch up to the Americans on the bomb."
4) The power of the US relative to the rest of the world was at it's peak at the end of World War II. It's economy was roaring full blast --while the economies of Europe and the Soviet Union were in ruins. The Soviets had lost several million men on the Eastern Front -- I believe US losses were around 200,000.
If the USA had had a little more time --say a decade --in which to create 20 bombs to replace the two used on Japan, it might very well have been able to ban possession of atomic weapons by any other nations --and to make that ban stick. The atomic spies ensured that the US government never got the time it needed to gain the upper hand and establish global hegemony.
5) You do raise an interesting question of whether the atomic spies ended up doing the American people a big favor.
I personally have a very hard time trying to address that point objectively. I spent decades of the Cold War working on projects to defend this country from the very real threat of nuclear destruction.
I KNOW what nuclear weapons can do -- a 1 megaton airburst turns everything for 8 miles out into radioactive, burning rubble. MIRVed warheads are even more efficient -- several 500 kt warheads dropped at 3 miles separations on a city like New York or Los Angeles set up overlapping/reinforcing shock waves and thermal pulses. Anything that survives in the rubble is incinerated by the resulting firestorm as multiple fires are whipped up by hurricane strength winds.
Ground bursts on our Minuteman silos in Montana and Wyoming would creat a huge cloud of intense fallout that kill all human life from Montana to the Mississippi. In the years before we removed the missile silos in the Dakotas and Arkansas, those clouds would have covered the Eastern Seaboard.
6) On the other hand, when the Roman Republic gained global domination, it collapsed into a military dictatorship based on widespread slavery -- with the profits enjoyed by a few and the many sunk into hopeless poverty.
Even corrupt Democracy proved too unwieldy to manage a far flung empire so it was replaced by Augustus's corporate management. Unfortunately, The benign Augustus was followed by the horrors of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. And endless
civil wars as the elite struggled over who would be the all powerful Emperor and the all powerful Emperor lived in continual fear of assassination.
Citizens of The "sole remaining nuclear superpower" may have a similar future.
7) Ah, gloom, gloom ,gloom. I think I'll go read something cheerful. By Dostoevesky, perhaps.
It is a mystery to me why Brzezinski endorsed Obama.
Obama hasn't espoused anything like an evenhanded policy toward Isr-Pal. So he's a far cry from Brzezinski's own views.
Maybe Brzezinski just thinks Hillary is worse.
And regarding "The Israel Lobby"..I highly recommend it..read it. But take a blood pressure pill first because you are about to find out how well and truely hard working Americans have been screwed and looted of both blood and money for decades and decades by the Lobby and by our corrupt congressional representives who put their own political careers above any duty and loyalty to the country. 999 people out of a thousand would call this treason so I am sticking with that accusation and rejecting the excuse that "it's legal and Johnny does it too Mommie".
Is this the same Brzezinski who was trying to goad us into provoking a war with Russia over Kosovo?
"anti-Semitic reasoning"
Isn't that a contradiction in terms.
Just sitting back and trying to figure out what's creepier, Don Williams's anti-Semitism or SLC's anti-Arab racism, is rather disturbing.
Re Don Williams
"If the USA had had a little more time --say a decade --in which to create 20 bombs to replace the two used on Japan, it might very well have been able to ban possession of atomic weapons by any other nations --and to make that ban stick."
What is the source of this information? It is my information that the US had several bombs by the end of 1945 and in fact first tested a hydrogen bomb in 1954.
Not having read the Albright/Kunstel book I can't comment on it. However, there have been a number of books in a similar vein written since 1945 which make similar claims relative to the scientific capabilities of the former Soviet Union. All of which doesn't explain how come they nearly beat us to the hydrogen bomb. By the way, the only nuclear powers currently possessing hydrogen bombs are the US, Russia, and China (I am very dubious about reports of an Israeli hydrogen bomb). This seems to indicate that the technology required to build a hydrogen bomb is considerably greater then that required to build a fission bomb.
Re Freddie
"Here's a wild idea, friend: rather than basing your opinion on Israel's critics on the most extreme and rabid, why don't you attempt to listen to a moderate voice and actually confront its arguments, rather than attacking people through broad generalization and the application of pejorative labels?"
That's because most of the Israel critics on this blog consist of Don Williams, Main Street America, Richard Steven Hack, and centrist. If these are Mr. Freddies' idea of moderate critics, then I guess the only the David Dukes, the Stormfronts, and the renses of the world qualify as extreme critics.
So antisemitic fascist whores like Ms. jafaari now claim that the Jewish people don't exist.
calling SLC obtuse would be an insult to bowling balls everywhere, so I just won't do it.
I have too much respect for bowling balls.
Re: "most of the Israel critics on this blog..."
I didn't see any criticism of Israel in the above comments. Just criticism of US policy toward Israel, and criticism of AIPAC. You're not suggesting that Israel and AIPAC are the same thing, are you?
Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari
Calling Ms. jafaari a whore is an insult to whores.
Re Jim W
1. Since AIPAC and the Israeli Government apparently disagreed on the Iraq adventure, at least according to former State Department official Mr. Wilkerson, they are obviously not the same thing.
2. My reference was to this blog which includes a number of threads. The people I named (by the way, I forgot to mention Ms. jafaari) have, however, claimed or implied that AIPAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Government. Mr. Hack, for example, has called for what would be in effect an Eichmann solution for the Jewish population of Israel.
Re Reality Man "Just sitting back and trying to figure out what's creepier, Don Williams's anti-Semitism or SLC's anti-Arab racism, is rather disturbing."
-------
I'm curious. I had not realized I was anti-Semitic -- I thought I was stating historical facts to convey historical lessons.
Lesson one being that we should not tolerate dual loyalities which hurt America -- because a few citizens with such loyalty conflicts can greatly harm the US.
Lesson two being that we might want to keep an eye on Muslims who work on national defense projects.
There -- I saved my buddy SLC the trouble of also hitting the "anti-Arab racism" button.
I did not say all American Jews --or even a significant number --sympathized with the Cohens and Rosenbergs. In fact, I noted that it was a Jewish prosecutor and judge who railroaded Ethel into the electric chair.
And no, SLC, I don't think it was J Edgar flipping the switch. Check out Roy Cohn's autobiography. An excerpt from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
"Cohn took great pride in the Rosenberg case, and claimed to have played an even greater part than his public role: he said in his autobiography that his own influence had led to both Saypol and Judge Irving Kaufman (a family friend) being appointed to the case, and that Kaufman had imposed the death penalty on Cohn's personal advice."
(Possibly Roy pointed out to Irving that if Julius showed up at his appeal wearing a
"coreligionist" yarmulke, then the pogrom in Washington might make the Warsaw Uprising look like a wienie roast.)
I did forget to mention that Roy Cohn -- the Rosenberg's Jewish prosecutor -- was gay,
was later Joe McCarthy's chief counsel, and lived a VERY FULL LIFE in Manhattan for decades before dying of AIDS. He probably didn't like the frumpy way Ethel dressed. And those SHOES!
There. Have I missed anyone?
PS If anyone doubts the importance of the detailed design info passed to the Soviets by the Atomic spy rings, I suggest they look at some memos from the Soviet Archives that show what was being passed on. See ,e.g, , http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Voprosy2.html
Sigh.
Just another example of how childish our foreign policy debate is.
Walt and Mearsheimer are not alleging some sort of conspiracy, they are merely pointing out the obvious: that the Israeli lobby has a strong influence in Washington DC and that this influence has a distorting effect on policy.
Everybody knows this, particularly people in Washington, we just are not allowed to talk about it.
And this is, after all, how things work. Walt and Mearsheimer are just pointing it out. Nobody denies the distorting influence of the NRA, or the Teachers Unions, the religious right or environmental groups. Our broken democracy works by lobbying. They lobby for support, and they criticize politicians for not towing the line. And they work against those who don't.
The difference between the Israeli lobby and others, however, seems threefold:
1. They can wield the cudgel of anti-Semitism to silence critics, many of whom are obviously not anti-semites, and have with increasing frequency since the mid 1990's.
2. They coordinate with domestic Israeli politicians in often shameful ways, with sections of the leadership of the lobby colluding to help Likud. This doesn't even represent the political desires of most American Jews, myself included.
3. The policies supported by the lobby have had a much more damaging effect on American interests than those of the other lobbies mentioned. Not to mention a damaging effect on Israel.
Walt and Mearsheimer are only pointing out the obvious, and attempting to explain what the effects of the obvious are.
Those who accuse them of perpetuating conspiracy theories are merely indulging their own paranoid fantasies.
In reality the Israeli lobby is much like the Oil lobby. Neither really represent anybody but themselves, and both have severely damaged American foreign policy through stubbornness and short-sighted policies.
And could someone please tell Alan Dershowitz to shut the fuck up? Are he and Foxman the only Jews in America?
But then again I'm just a self-hating Jew.
Re SLC's comment "The people I named (by the way, I forgot to mention Ms. jafaari) have, however, claimed or implied that AIPAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Government."
----------
Acquit me. I thought I had "claimed or implied" that the US Congress was a "wholly owned subsidiary" of billionaires like Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham,etc who are strong supporters of Israel.
Should I bring out the FEC reports?
I also thought that i had "claimed or implied" that the Government of Israel is also a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham's -- although I think 19 other families also have a piece of the action. From Haaretz article at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=670197
-------
"State Comptroller Micah Lindenstrauss launched an investigation Saturday into a $320,000 campaign contribution to MK Shimon Peres from billionaire businessman Haim Saban as well as donors outside the country.
Saban, who recently took controlling interest in telecommunications giant Bezeq, made the donation in 2004, when Peres was in the midst of campaigning for chairmanship of the Labor Party.
Peres received the sum from three donors: Israeli billionaire Bruce Rapaport, who currently resides in Switzerland, contributed $100,000; American tycoon Daniel Abrahams, who gave $120,000; and Saban, who donated $100,000."
-----------
I seemm to recall that Bezeq is (was) the communications company owned by the State of Israel. Evidently, Russian oligarchs and Dick Cheney are not the only ones who believe in "privatisation".
SLC, your disgusting vileness only shows who you are and not anyone else. You have the vocabulary of a gutter-snipe. Have you any idea how disgusting you are?
Don Williams, of course you are simply a degenerate anti-Semite. I see your name and spit and move on.
I loved peace until AIPAC paid me to think differently.
Re Jennifer's "Don Williams, of course you are simply a degenerate anti-Semite. I see your name and spit and move on."
---------
Ah, life's so much easier when one doesn't have to think. No need to exercise an unused muscle, so to speak.
When Israel decided to bomb South Lebanon after Hez began chucking rocket artillery on Israel, the US Congress came out and had a 414-0 Resolution supporting Israel's military attack.
All the usual anti-war Jews who would have "major concerns" about the US retaliating for an attack and insist on weeks of debate insisted on none where Israel was involved. Put out the resolution of unqualified support for Israel's attack - no debate.
All the anti-war groups dominated by Jewish leadership or Jewish financiers/owners - Moveon.org, NYTimes, Code Pink, ACLU, etc. --were silent.
The power of the Israel Lobby and the silence of anti-war Jews was manifest.
Don Williams - If the USA had had a little more time --say a decade --in which to create 20 bombs to replace the two used on Japan, it might very well have been able to ban possession of atomic weapons by any other nations --and to make that ban stick. The atomic spies ensured that the US government never got the time it needed to gain the upper hand and establish global hegemony.
Truth is we had about 28 plutonium implosion bombs by 1948. We had tested several more far more powerful (25-40KT) by 1947 once we had incorporated neutron "guns" and tritium boosting. Including the famous Bikini Atoll test and inagurating the Nevada test range.
We had no shot, even with the 30 weapon arsenal we had, telling the Soviets to back off. They had a huge, well disbursed conventional army. 30 weapons, and the Red Army would still have had far more strength than our coventional forces and gone after us harder than they did the Nazis, all the way to the tip of Spain and the borders of Syria. The alternative of bombing cities in Russia and causing more casualties than the Nazis did was politically unpalatable to Americans. The only gain we would have had, and it is substantial and worth frying the Rosengergs over, was Korea likely wouldn't have happened.
Large nuclear stockpiles do not allow us to dictate to other nations. Look at N Korea. Look at Iran going ahead. Look at how China defied the Soviets and their 10,000 warheads and became a nuclear power in 1964.
Having the bomb helped America in two big ways. (1)It allowed us to keep a far lower investment in conventional forces and out-compete Russia economically. Now, unfortunately, our decline, following the Soviet's diminishment - is well underway as Asia has out-competed us.
(2)It allowed President Nixon to stop the arms race in chemical and biological warfare. Simply by saying that nukes are bad enough, and we would use nukes against any power that hits us with chem or bio WMD.
That's because most of the Israel critics on this blog consist of Don Williams, Main Street America, Richard Steven Hack, and centrist. If these are Mr. Freddies' idea of moderate critics,
But, of course, they're not. And this is precisely the problem, treating the world as though it is filled in every corner with anti-Semites. The idea of a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy is just as stupid and nonsensical as the idea of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Neither has any relevance to the real world, but neither can be disproven to those who are convinced of their existence.
Is there an Israel lobby? Certainly there's an AIPAC, so who actually denies there's a lobby? What has people up in arms against the Walt & Mearsheimer is their vague suggestion of a widespread, all powerful conspiracy. This is silly, at best, if it were not so harmful.
In any case, why should Brezynski be immune from criticism? Apprently criticism of Brezynski is de facto proof of an all powerful Israel lobby.
Re Chris Ford
"Truth is we had about 28 plutonium implosion bombs by 1948."
What is the source of this number? At least Mr. Don Williams attempts to cite sources for his comments, as dubious as they may be. The State of Israel, with far less then the industrial capacity of the US has at least 200 nuclear weapons and possibly as many as 600.
Re Don Williams
Some caution should be exercised about believing information coming from the Soviet archives. I believe that Alger Hiss claimed that the fact that his name doesn't appear in the archives proved he was innocent (of course, maybe Mr. Williams believes that Hiss, who after all was not Jewish, was not a Soviet spy). Equal caution should be exercised in believing anything published by former KGB agents. There was a case some 15 or 20 years ago of a book written by a former Soviet agent named Sudoplatov. Among other claims this gentleman made was that he received information from the Danish physicist Neils Bohr on US nuclear projects. Unfortunately, Ange Bohr, Neils son, was present at the conversation and said that Sudoplatovs' claim was a complete fabrication.
Re Freddie
Is Mr. Freddie admitting that Don Williams, et al, are extreme critics of the State of Israel?
Is Mr. Freddie admitting that Don Williams, et al, are extreme critics of the State of Israel?
While your use of "et al." worries me-- I hate to tar many people with one brush, to not give everyone's views an individual hearing, etc.-- sure, there are critics of Israel here that make me at least uncomfortable and often pretty pissed off. And Don Williams is someone who's rhetoric veers into deeply unsettling territory. Being a critic of Israel and a critic of American foreign policy towards Israel doesn't mean that there isn't criticism of Israel I find wrong-headed, unfair or offensive.
What has people up in arms against the Walt & Mearsheimer is their vague suggestion of a widespread, all powerful conspiracy. This is silly, at best, if it were not so harmful.
While I don't agree with some things in that article, and I do find their language disturbingly broad at times, I think the point is that it's clear that they weren't talking about the kind of nefarious "Protocols of Zion" conspiracy people seem to want to accuse them of. Whatever their failings, they aren't saying "the Jews run everything!"
Re Obama
It should be pointed out that former Senator Edwards campaign chairman is David Bonior, who was a notable Israel basher during his tenure in the House of Representatives.
It should be pointed out that former Senator Edwards campaign chairman is David Bonior, who was a notable Israel basher during his tenure in the House of Representatives.
Posted by SLC
Meaning he was one of the rare Congressmen like Ron Paul who were not bootlickers to wealthy Jews.
When you have 414-0 votes by elected officials expressing their total love and support of a foreign nation, even if it badly hurts America's own interests in the process, you can be sure lots of manila envelopes stuffed with cash and checks were disbursed.
Heh, heh, Matt wants some more comments posted on his blog to raise his ratings.
So he tossed this one off. Nice going, Matt! Should work a treat!
"express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process;"
What that bozo ignores is that, aside from a number of US Congress member who take bribes from people like the American Turkish Committee and such, at least the Arab money going into criticism of Israel doesn't lead to direct control of US Congress.
Whereas everybody knows that AIPAC has boasted that it can get the vote of 50 or 60 Senators with a phone call.
I think the Arabs have a long way to go on that score.
Also I don't know any Arabs controlling major mainstream media newspapers and other media in this country, such that all we see in those media are "pro-Palestinian" positions.
The relative dominance of the Israel Lobby over the Arab lobby should be obvious to anyone with eyes and ears.
"NOTHING justifies disloyalty to this country."
Sorry, have to disagree with that.
Loyalty to ANY country is just stupid, whether you're a citizen - native or otherwise - of that country or not.
There are those who might argue that the Rosenbergs handing of nuclear secrets to the Russian enabled the Cold War - and MAD. And that MAD meant that neither side would use nuclear weapons. That could be construed as a positive argument for espionage against the US in that case.
In any event, it's irrelevant now - and probably was irrelevant then, since the Russians would have developed the technology sooner or later.
What motivations the Rosenbergs had are not interesting to me. What is interesting to me are the motivations of people like Dershowitz and the pro-Israel politicians and State Department and Pentagon employees currently in control of US foreign and military policy.
And their motivations are deplorable.
Jeff Morrow:
"I believe their fundamental thesis (as I've encountered it) is bad and unwise,"
But you didn't tell us WHY. Why should we pay you any attention if you can't cite chapter and verse about where they are wrong - especially since you haven't read the book?
SLC: "So antisemitic fascist whores like Ms. jafaari now claim that the Jewish people don't exist."
Having watched your interminable "Israel can do no wrong" posts for several months, it seems obvious that you are either an AIPAC or GIYUS stooge. As a result, it surpasses irony that you would have the temerity to call Ms. Jafaari a whore when you yourself have so relentlessly defended the indefensible monstrosity that the State of Israel has become.
"Judging from Matt's post, he seems to feel a mixture of anger and betrayal at the notion that Obama would actually bow to AIPAC's will. He just doesn't get it: Obama is nothing more than another Republicratic Party whore-a-tician who must pass the AIPAC smell test."
Good point. I think that's why Matt continues to overlook Obama's hostile attitude towards Iran as well. While Obama on the one hand denies any intent to start a war on Iran, he supports an aggressive foreign policy towards Iran which is considered counterproductive by virtually everybody else worldwide who isn't a neocon or a Zionist.
Kinda makes it obvious who is pulling his strings in that department.
I don't think I've heard Matt explicitly express what HE would do about the Iran situation in any detail.
How about it, Matt? What's YOUR policy position on Iran? Do YOU think they're developing "nuclear weapons"? Do YOU think they're a "serious threat"? Do YOU think aggressive sanctions are the way to go? Do YOU think the military option should be "kept on the table?" If so, WHEN do you think the military option should be exercised? Do YOU think the US should give security guarantees to Iran? Do YOU think the US should be, as is required by the NPT Charter, ASSISTING Iran in its nuclear energy program?
Hmmmm?
"calling SLC obtuse would be an insult to bowling balls everywhere, so I just won't do it.
I have too much respect for bowling balls."
Strike!
(was that right, I don't bowl...ah, Wikipedia says yes)
Chris Ford said "Truth is we had about 28 plutonium implosion bombs by 1948."
and SLC responded "What is the source of this number?"
--------
You can probably find the production numbers in Richard Rhodes book "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" --which I don't have handy. In his earlier book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", Rhodes indicates that the US had about 13 bombs in 1947 but was having trouble with plutonium production (the irridation of uranium to produce weapons-grade plutonium in a pile also produces other trace elements that poison the reactor over time.)
But Chris's larger point is interesting. Even if the USA had acquired a monopoly on a large arsenal of atomic bombs by 1950, it would still have had difficulty imposing nonproliferation on the Russians without killing a lot of people.
Not only were the American people sick of war, we were suffering a political slowness similar to what afflicts IRaq today. Franklin Roosevelt had been a powerful, imperious President for almost 14 years and when he died the government was at somewhat of a loss. I seem to vaguely recall that Truman was not even briefed on the Manhattan Project while Vice-President.
So it would have been difficult to rally political support for acts that would have made Adolf look like Mother Teresa.
I had thought of controlling the Soviets by nuking the Caspian Sea oil deposits around Baku --which would have grinded their armored divisions to a halt -- at least until they could grab Romanian oil. Which we could have also nuked.
But on further thought it occurs to me that shutting down Soviet oil would also have caused widespread famine in Russia -- because the farm tractors would have had no fuel.
Same thing goes for shutting down electrical generation, metal refining,etc. It would have been difficult to recon the huge spaces of Siberia without total control of the air, for example.
"1. Since AIPAC and the Israeli Government apparently disagreed on the Iraq adventure, at least according to former State Department official Mr. Wilkerson, they are obviously not the same thing."
SLC keeps pushing this lie, despite it having been refuted any number of times by media sources quoted extensively here.
This demonstrates his level of intellectual honesty.
His attempt to dodge by saying, "at least according to", isn't sufficient. Wilkerson was one testimonial, there were numerous others opposed - and even the Wilkerson testimonial is easily explained by suggesting that the Israelis simply lied to him, knowing he and Powell were not convinced of the need to attack Iraq.
SLC also continually ignores the fact that the only reason Israel did not want to attack Iraq was the established fact that they wanted to attack IRAN FIRST.
Which of course would have been - and will be, when it occurs in the near future - ten times worse than attacking Iraq.
Which makes both Israel and SLC shills for a continued bloodbath in the Middle East paid for by US lives and US taxpayer dollars - all for the benefit of the oil companies and Israel and some neocon political fantasies about "American Empire".
And the only part SLC cares about apparently is Israel.
"claimed or implied that AIPAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Government."
This of course is a claim that makes no sense, so nobody that I am aware of has ever said it. What has been claimed is that various members of the Israel Lobby - specifically certain members of AIPAC - have acted as essentially "unregistered foreign agents" of Israel - and in some cases quite likely "espionage agents" of Israel.
This will become apparent when the trial of the two AIPAC employees accused of espionage takes place.
"Mr. Hack, for example, has called for what would be in effect an Eichmann solution for the Jewish population of Israel."
Needless to say, SLC can't point to any statement of mine here or on any other blog that even remotely resembles that.
I have predicted that Israel will doom itself as a viable state and conceivably could end up with a significant part of its population nuked. This is not a "solution" I have ever "called for".
Apparently SLC is not only totally intellectually dishonest - big surprise, he's a Zionist and that is a defining Zionist trait - but he can't read English either.
"In reality the Israeli lobby is much like the Oil lobby. Neither really represent anybody but themselves, and both have severely damaged American foreign policy through stubbornness and short-sighted policies."
Dadanarchist hits on the head.
Except I wouldn't call their motivations "stubbornness and short-sighted policies". I think a significant number of the people involved, if not all of them, know exactly what the cost of their policies are for the US and Israel - but they don't care, since it is their own benefit they are concerned with.
After all, aside from political difficulties in Israel and the occasional prosecution for illegal activities, those who rule Israel and those who rule the United States government are basically invulnerable to the negative effects of their policies on the rest of us. Meanwhile, the positive effects on their position in society vis-a-vis power and their bank accounts clearly give them a motivation to continue such policies.
As long as nobody is threatening your live or your bank account (and maybe your sex life, which most of these old farts don't even have any more, if they ever did), what motivation do you have to listen to anybody else about the long-term consequences of your actions? You're home free NOW! And you'll probably be dead before any consequences could conceivably affect you!
Nice position to be in.
Face it, Bush and Olmert and Dershowitz and the like aren't going to suffer ANY problems for their policies! So some people hate them - big deal.
As a William Burroughs character once said, "I assume they hate me. The question is, what are they in a position to do about it?"
So many, maybe most, of these people aren't just "stubborn" and "short-sighted". They KNOW what they're doing and they get an emotional and physical benefit out of doing it.
"What has people up in arms against the Walt & Mearsheimer is their vague suggestion of a widespread, all powerful conspiracy. This is silly, at best, if it were not so harmful."
And if it weren't completely false that they suggest any such thing. They explicitly deny that there is any "conspiracy". They merely demonstrate that there are a group of individuals and organizations who operate separately and together depending on circumstances to skew the discussion of Israel in the US, and that the promoted policies of these individuals and groups are damaging to actual US (and Israeli long term) foreign policy interests.
No such as thing as the "Israel Conspiracy" - just the "Israel Lobby."
Just as there is no "NRA Conspiracy" - just an "NRA Lobby."
People talking about "conspiracies" in connection with MW are simply claiming that MW are "anti-Semitic" without having the nerve to say so outright.
Dershowitz is on that tack. He slinks around the term by accusing MW of having various characteristics of "anti-Semites" without actually using the term. This is characteristic of Zionists - intellectual cowardice as well as intellectual dishonesty.
Josh Marshall at TPM is another "crypto-Zionist" who engages in that behavior.
Re Richard Steven Hack
Well, well, Mr. Hack, the troll is back with a number of comments, disagreeing with just about everybody. However, I will only reply to his response to Mr. Williams in which he states as follows,
"NOTHING justifies disloyalty to this country (said Williams)."
"Sorry, have to disagree with that.
Loyalty to ANY country is just stupid, whether you're a citizen - native or otherwise - of that country or not (said Hack)."
Mr. Hack, if you don't have any loyalty to this country, I suggest that you take your fucking ass somewhere else. We don't want human filth like you here. You Mr. Hack are nothing but the slime on the bottom of the cesspool. I suggest trying Iran for starters. Or maybe North Korea or Cuba. Or maybe you could volunteer for the next moon mission.
Don Williams, you're a blistering anti-Semite.
Ferreting out that some Neo-Cons happen to be Jewish does not mean what you think it means. Bush's entire cabinet is non-Jewish, for one.
Secondly, go look up the religious backgrounds of Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Rahm Emmanuel, Carl Levin, Barney Frank, the late Paul Wellstone, etc. etc. etc.
Or how about leading "pro-war Jews" in your grand Cabal like Frank Rich, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, etc. etc. etc.
Your bullshite about "dual loyalty" is a classic anti-Semitic trope, as old as the hills, and just as destructive.
The Iraq War has nothing do with Jews and everything to do with a born again fundie movement that believes in the "heart" and good intentions over facts, logic and critical thought.
Blaming any of this fiasco on Jews or the Jewish lobby because you found a few guys like Perle and Wolfowitz writing papers in think-tanks is about as a big a distortion of reality as you're going to find.
Jews vote 70%+ for democrats every year in this country.
Nonsense about a hidden cabal of Jewish lobby funding to invade Iraq IS anti-Semitic. It's about as believable as Mel Gibson's rantings.
We invaded Iraq because we elected a highly charged fundie Christian as president, and his "True believer" idiocy led him to try to work through issues with his father by invading Iraq.
Get off your hate-spewing anti-Jewish crap before you lose what's left of your soul.
And L'Shanah Tovah. Bitch.
The Iraq War has nothing do with Jews and everything to do with a born again fundie movement that believes in the "heart" and good intentions over facts, logic and critical thought.
We invaded Iraq because we elected a highly charged fundie Christian as president, and his "True believer" idiocy led him to try to work through issues with his father by invading Iraq.
Cute, Jim. It wasn't the neocons, it was those stupid ignorant Christian fundies that lack the facts, and the ability, as stupid Christians, to process logic and critical thought.
Those fucking Christian "true believer" idiots....
And, and, anyone who disagrees is a anti-Semite!
"Yeah, an anti-Semite! Thats the ticket. That will shut those dumb goy bastards up!"
Jim, let me congratulate you for once again showing the legendary Jewish ability to make most peoples who encounter Jews eventually detest a good portion of them for their famous arrogance and condescension. Or, in the case of the Prophet, his deep antipathy for a people he once admired, but who betrayed him with their constant lies and treachery in Medina...
Well done!
And may you walk the Earth scorned and homeless. A cursed people. Rejected in place after place ye seek refuge, for your treachery to the Savior.
MJ Rosenberg weighs in on the Dershowitz demand of Obama to dump Zbigniew Brzezinski over at TPM:
Dershowitz Demands Obama Fire Brzezinski!
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/13/dershowitz_demands_obama_fire_brzezinski
Money quote:
"Cool. Second degree Mc Carthyism! Obama didn't do anything. Brzezinski didnt do anything. But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it."
And MJ is really disgusted that Dershowitz is "embarrassing millions of Jews who cringe in disgust every time he publicly mouths his paranoid musings about Jews and anti-Semitism."
Must really piss off SLC when straight-arrow Jews denounce his heroes!
Bwahahahahahah!!!
Well, I was trying to post a quote from Brzezinski about how war with Iran would start.
He nailed it perfectly.
Unfortunately I illustrated it with several links to external stories.
So The Atlantic's "spam catcher" caught it - and now it's of course dumped in the bit bucket.
So try this one instead:
The Israel Lobby Tour of Walt and Mearsheimer
http://www.israellobbybook.com/appearances.html
Got a complaint? I'm sure the Israeli Lobby will voice it at every one of their appearances.
Got support? Go voice it!
So here's Brzezinski without the links:
"But former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said the resolution would make clear that the president is out of step with Congress and the American people, whom public opinion polls show also oppose the troop surge.
He warned of dire consequences for the United States if it continues on its course in Iraq.
"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted, bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran, and with much of the world of Islam at large," he said. "A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive military action' against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading a deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Benchmark failure? Check.
Accusations? Check.
Provocations? Check.
"Defensive military action". Check. US and UK troops being sent to the border of Iran.
He couldn't have nailed it better if he'd designed the plan himself.
Interesting quote from a poster over at TPM:
from the web:
The center of the problem that Mearsheimer and Walt describe in their book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ", is how politics is financed in the USA. Perhaps you remember this quote from M&W (taken from the Sunday Times):
They quote the experience of a Senate candidate who was invited to visit AIPAC early in his campaign for “discussions”. Harry Lonsdale described what followed as “an experience I will never forget. It wasn’t enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be . . . Shortly after that . . . I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel . . . that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave from Florida to Alaska”.
Re: the 11:05 post by Jim
Jim
It wasn't just "a few guys like Perle and Wolfowitz writing papers in think tanks".
There were more than a few guys and they were the founders and funders of think tanks, not just occasional contributors.
Go read the letters written by "The Project for a New American Century" at their website, look at what they were promoting,and read the names on the letters. Then go to the American Enterprise Institute website and read the names of its members and promoters. Kagan,Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol (x2) , Podhoretz (X2), Feith, Frum,Rumsfeld, Bolton etc. Hey, Lee Raymond (Exxon) is even in there.( The war doesn't seem to have hurt Exxons profits). It should also be noted that the two organizations share office space.
Many of these people have either been inside the Bush administration promoting the war or have been in the media providing propaganda for the war. The Fred Kagan "Choosing Victory.." plan from AEI is of course the "Surge" plan we're hearing so much about.
This is the coalition of the willing who led us into the war in Iraq and now want a war with Iran.
The core membership and founding fathers of these organizations are overwhelmingly (please note I am not saying All) Jewish and Zionist. This is just a fact.
The "fundie Christians" (this could be seen as being anti- Christian) have played a role but only as supporting characters in the coalition of the willing.
We invaded Iraq because Bush bought in to the Neocon plan.
Give credit where credit is due.
Buzz
HS,
I like how you tote out the tired and totally false line against W&M that they claim there is some "widespread all powerful conspiracy". They claim nothing of the sort. I'm resigned to the fact that most people who denounce Walt and Mearsheimer have clearly not read either the original London Review of Books article or the new book, and just mindlessly recycle the talking-points put out there by their die-hard opponents, Dershowitz, Foxman, and so on.
It's amusing how Israel-haters can never keep to the point itself,and always launch into these infantile tirades about "things we can never mention" and "Mccarthyism".
Yeah, right, like MJ Rosenberg is an "Israel hater".
That was one seriously stupid remark.
Here are the facts about "Israel haters" from an article by Tony Karon:
Despite Backlash, Many Jews Are Questioning Israel
by Tony Karon and Tom Engelhardt
http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11612
Money quote:
"In a recent study funded by the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies (an important donor to Jewish communal organizations), Professors Steven M. Cohen and Ari Y. Kelman revealed that their survey data had yielded some extraordinary findings: In order to measure the depth of attachment of American Jews to Israel, the researchers asked whether respondents would consider the destruction of the State of Israel a "personal tragedy." Less than half of those aged under 35 answered "yes" and only 54% percent of those aged 35-50 agreed (compared with 78% of those over 65). The study found that only 54% of those under 35 felt comfortable with the very idea of a Jewish state.
As groups such as the Jewish Agency in Israel (which aims to promote Jewish immigration) and the American Jewish committee expressed dismay over the findings, Cohen and Kelman had more bad news: They believed they were seeing a long-term trend that was unlikely to be reversed, as each generation of American Jews becomes even more integrated into the American mainstream than its parents and grandparents had been. The study, said Cohen, reflected "very significant shifts that have been occurring in what it means to be a Jew."
Cohen's and Kelman's startling figures alone underscore the absurdity of Shepherd's suggestion that to challenge Israel is to "defame an entire people." They also help frame the context for what I would call an emerging Jewish glasnost in which Jewish critics of Israel are increasingly willing to make themselves known. When I arrived in the United States 13 years ago, I was often surprised to find that people with whom I seemed to share a progressive, cosmopolitan worldview would suddenly morph into raging ultranationalists when the conversation turned to Israel. Back then, it would have seemed unthinkable for historian Tony Judt to advocate a binational state for Israelis and Palestinians or for Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to write that "Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now." Unthinkable, too, was the angry renunciation of Zionism by Avrum Burg, former speaker of Israel's Knesset..."
"It's worth remembering in this context that anti-Zionism was originally a Jewish movement – the majority of European Jews before World War II rejected the Zionist movement and its calls for a mass migration from Europe to build a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. The most popular Jewish political organization in Europe had been the Yiddishe Arbeiter Bund, a Jewish socialist party that was militantly anti-Zionist. Even among the rabbis of Europe, there was considerable opposition to the idea of Jews taking control of Zion before the arrival of the Messiah (and there still is, of course, from a sizable minority of the ultra-Orthodox).
Of course, the Holocaust changed all that. For hundreds of thousands of survivors, a safe haven in Palestine became a historic necessity.
But the world has changed since then, and as the research cited above suggests, the trends clearly don't favor the Zionists...Indeed, according to Israeli government figures, some 750,000 Israeli Jews (15% of Israel's Jewish population) are now living abroad, further undermining the Zionist premise that the Diaspora is an innately hostile and anti-Semitic place."
Mr. Hack just provided more proof that support for Israel in America is broad-based and deeply rooted, and has little to do to with sectarian attitudes.
Barack Hussein Obama is the last who can be seen to be steering towards a more sympathetic policiy towards Hamas , Hizbullah at all.
That would be like Shrub moving to decriminalize snort.
Re Jim
Actually, the real motive behind the Iraq adventure is not Israel, Christian neoZionists, democracy in Iraq, WMDs, etc. It's oil. The sooner we understand the danger of the US (and the rest of the world to boot) dependence on Middle East oil, which is why we are involved all over the area, the sooner we will start to take steps to lessen and eliminate this dependence. We received a shot across the bow in 1973 with the short lived oil embargo by Saudi Arabia but have done little in the interim to address the problem. In the absence of demand for Middle East oil, the rest of the world would react to the situation there with massive indifference, which would probably cause the actors therein to clean up their act. It doesn't make any difference who is president or who is elected president in 2009 or whether the neocons are in power or out of power. We will be involved in the maelstrom of the Middle East until the energy issues are successfully addressed.
Although it hasn't attracted much attention so far on this blog, the brouhaha over the Israeli overflights in Syria last week is heating up the Middle East rumor mills, particularly since neither Syria or Israel is talking. What is most worrisome are reports, which have now reached American newspapers, concerning allegation of nuclear sites in Syria, supposedly set up by North Korea. Since these reports are apparently due to unnamed officials in the US government, rather then the Israeli Government, I have the suspicion that the Bush administration may be trying to strongarm the Israeli government to mute its' reservations about regime change in Syria, which is second only to regime change in Iran as a Bush administration priority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202430.html?sub=AR
I resent fact that I was lumped in with don william!! I was called an "anti-semite" for pointing out that Aipac has little to do with what jews in america think or israelis think!
I was called an "anti-semite" for pointing out that Israel...like other nations, lobbies the US government...just more effectively!
Wow..that proves Mer/Walt point that the charge of "anti-semitism" can be used cynically to STOP DEBATE!
PS My wife and daughter are jewish and her grandfather(a holocaust survivor) called me his favorite grandson-in-law!!! Believe me...I want what is best for jews, Israel and the US! IT IS NOT ENDLESS WARS AND TERRORISM CYCLES... ON THE US DIME!!!!
Re: "Actually, the real motive behind the Iraq adventure is not Israel, Christian neoZionists, democracy in Iraq, WMDs, etc. It's oil."
Although I think oil is a big factor, this is overly simplistic. One of the big lessons of the Iraq misadventure is the power of ideas. I believe that the neocon idea (or set of ideas) were largely born out of their identification with, and emotional attachment to, Israel, in its struggles against terrorism over the years.
The neocons exhibit a strong contempt for non-Western cultures, and clearly enjoy the self-righteous pleasure that comes from embarking on a crusade of "good" versus "evil". The hatred toward Arabs that you see expressed in such an embarrassing fashion on Marty Peretz' blog is shared by other neocons, who, however, have the sense to be a bit more discrete about it.
In 2002 and early 2003, the antiwar forces were hamstrung because their reality-based arguments were so boring compared to the exciting, grandiose, moralistic ideas and rhetoric that had been perfected by the neocons over the years.
Re Jim W
If it were not for the US need for Middle East oil, the neocons wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The US embarked on the Iraq adventure to secure Iraqs' oil supplies. The Bush administration considered that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US access to those oil supplies. The fact of the matter is that Iraq has the second largest known deposits of oil in the world, next to Saudi Arabia. Does anybody believe for 1 second that the Iraq invasion would have occurred if Iraq didn't have any oil?
If you read arguments used to advocate attacking Iraq, you find everything -- threat of WMD, benefits to Israel, increase oil production and collateral investment opportunities, beacon of democracy, reorganizing Middle East on rational basis (combination of the previous, but involving beneficial control over all countries between Pakistan and Egypt) etc.
My take is that it boils down to a conviction, held by many, that, in words of Mussolini, "every man has to have his little war". Once we have the conclusion, the justifications are reverse engineered. Martial spirit and xenophobia is the ticket to power -- or it was meant to be. Little wars of Mussolini, Albania and Ethiopia were less than complete success, and then it went downhill.
The connection between "the war party" of USA and that of Israel are many. For years, our wannabe warriors had to enjoy kicking ass etc. vicariously. This explains the enthusiasm of certain fundamentalist Christians for the maximalist position in respect to Israel. Blacks cannot be lynched nowadays, and bashing abortion providers, gays etc. cannot exhaust all this pent up energy.
Re: "Does anybody believe for 1 second that the Iraq invasion would have occurred if Iraq didn't have any oil?"
I don't. Oil was a significant factor both for economic reasons, and because it made Saddam a potential threat in terms of his ability to finance development of WMDs. Oil is a necessary but (in my opinion) not a sufficient factor to explain the bizarre decision to invade Iraq.
On the other hand, does anybody believe for 1 second that the Iraq invasion would have occured if the ideological passions of the neocons had not been inflamed by Israel's ongoing fight against Islamic terrorism over many years?
Re Jim's comment "Blaming any of this fiasco on Jews or the Jewish lobby because
you found a few guys like Perle and Wolfowitz writing papers in think-tanks is
about as a big a distortion of reality as you're going to find."
-----------
1) I'm really starting to grow tired of people slandering me with false accusations
of anti-Semitism while doing the functionally equivalent of lying to the other
readers here.
Perle and Wolfowitz did not just "write papers in think tanks". They were high
officials in the Bush administration who exerted strong pressure for the Iraq
war, who are strong advocates for Israel, and who have caused severe damage to
the US national interest.
2) I agree, and have repeatedly noted, that it is not fair to smear the entire
American Jewish community for their acts -- but that argument would be easier
to make if the American Jewish community would make it. Something that ,aside
from a few members, it has failed to do.
Paul Wolfowitz was DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE in Bush's administration. He
advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Toward the end of
a May 9,2003 interview with Vanity Fair he gave several reasons why:
a) Wolfowitz:
"The other thing is trying to get some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian
issue. I do think we have a better atmosphere for working on it now than we
did before in all kinds of ways. Whether that's enough to make a difference
is not certain, but I will be happy to go back and dig up the things I said
a long time ago which is, while it undoubtedly was true that if we could
make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue we would provide a better set
of circumstances to deal with Saddam Hussein, but that it was equally true
the other way around that if we could deal with Saddam Hussein it would
provide a better set of circumstances for dealing with the Arab-Israeli issue.
That you had to move on both of them as best you could when you could, but --"
b) "Wolfowitz:
"I was. It's one of the reasons why I took a very different view
of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the
Middle East. I said on the record, I don't understand how people can really
believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause
of instability in the Middle East.
I understand what they're thinking about. I'm not blind to the uncertainties
of this situation, but they just seem to be blind to the instability that
that son of a bitch was causing. It's as though the fact that he was paying
$25,000 per terrorist family and issuing regular threats to most friendly
governments in the region and the long list of things was of no account
and the only thing to think about was that there might be some inter-communal
violence if he were removed..."
NOTE: The $25,000 Wolfowitz was referring to was the payments Saddam made to
families of PALESTINIAN Suicide Bombers who attacked Israel. The "most friendly
governments" included ISRAEL.
What Wolfowitz DOES NOT tell Vanity Fair is that Saddam was acting in response
to Israel cutting a deal with Turkey to divert water from the headwaters of
the Euphrates via a series of dams and pipelines -- a direct threat to Iraq.
Ref: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594
c) In his Vanity Fair interview, Wolfowitz also cited Iraqi WMDS -- with NO evidence of such -- and Saddam's support for terrorism. He acknowledges that the terrorism support claim was
the subject of "most disagreement within the bureaucracy".
I guess that's Wolfowitz's way of acknowledging that the claims of the intelligence cell --that Wolfowitz set up in the Pentagon on this subject -- was considered bullshit by the real professionals at CIA.
d) Wolfowitz does make an interesting comment that the overthrow of Saddam would allow the US to remove troops from Saudi Arabia and that presence of those troops in Arabia had been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Which is true in a deceitful sense.
Bin Laden had listed US military support of the Saudi kleptocracy as one of the three reasons for jihad. But he railed against the US using such support of a puppet regime as a way of stealing the oil wealth of Muslim Arabians as much as for the religious offense of having infidels in the holy land.
e) But Wolfowitz's deception is what one would expect from a man who railed against foreign "corruption" as head of the World Bank while at the same time ordering the Bank to give a huge raise to his mistress -- see
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42f29804-e8ae-11db-b2c3-000b5df10621.html
f) It was Wolfowitz who set up the Feith intelligence cell at the Pentagon that injected
so much false garbage --er, "intelligence" -- into the political debate over the threat posed by Saddam. See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact
g) But anyone famililar with Wolfowitz knew this was coming. Anyone ever hear of "Team B" from the Reagan days? Wolfowitz's rationale for why we should spend ourselves into bankruptcy to confront imaginary superweapons from the "Evil Empire". We only had to run up about $3 TRILLION of debt to pay for that scam.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
PS Anybody thinking Wolfowitz's TEAM B was merely a mistake is welcomed to look at the Defense spending of West Germany and Japan in that time period when we were spending 7.5
percent of our GDP to confront Wolfowitz's mirages. W Germany and Japan were mere miles
from the Evil Empire, had competent intelligence services,and yet were spending less than 3% and 1% of GDP ,respectively, on defense.
In April 2002, George Bush sent Colin Powell to Israel to try to kickstart the peace talks with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon sent representative Netanyahu to the US to help the Israel Lobby exert political pressure to kneecap any pressure on Israel.
Jewish American Joe Lieberman arranged for Netanyahu to address the US Senate to undercut the US government's peace initiative at the very time the President's envoy was abroad trying to carry it out. Next day, the Israel Lobby had a rally on the Mall to protest the initiative.
Who was there?
Our Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1931885.stm
Re Jim W;s comment "On the other hand, does anybody believe for 1 second that the Iraq invasion would have occured if the ideological passions of the neocons had not been inflamed by Israel's ongoing fight against Islamic terrorism over many years?"
----------
1)I don't. NY Times Tom Friedman, who's pretty tight with the Israel Lobby, doesn't either.
2) Nor does the Israeli newspaper Haatetz. In it's article "White Man's Burden" it noted:
" The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history "
Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
3) In that same article, Tom Friedman is quoted as saying:
"Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.
Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. "
Too bad you had to get the word from a goyim, SLC.
Don, you're an embarrassment, a clown and yes, an anti-Semite. I call you an anti-Semite not to "halt debate" whatever that nonsense means, but because you ascribe hidden Jewish conspiracy to the United States invasion of a foreign country led by a born-again Christian President and supported by a vastly Christian republican party.
It is inane.
It has the logical distortions of the great "blame Jews" conspiracy theories as old as the Blood Libel, as misguided as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the preamble to the Holocaust.
All of those disasters had frauds like you, "outting" Jews here and there and implying some vast conspiracy based on their religion.
Never mind KARL ROVE, DICK CHENEY, GEORGE W. BUSH, COLIN POWELL, DONALD RUMSFELD and the entire republican leadership weren't Jewish.
No issues here with TOM FREAKIN' DELAY, or DENNY HASTERT.
It's gotta be the the Jews over at PNAC.
How many republican Jews in Congress right now, genius? Tally up the parties, you rocket scientist:
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.)
Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)
House of Representatives
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Susan Davis (D-Calif.)
Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Howard Waxman (D-Calif.)
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
Martin Frost (D-Texas)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Bernard Sanders (Ind-Vt.)
In short, Don, you're a FREAKING MORON.
This war is about as Jewish as porok.
By "porok" I mean "pork."
Still, anyone with a brain can see which side of the war issue Jewish people vastly line up on.
And how many of those Democrats failed to stop the invasion of IRaq, Jim?
It would only have taken one or two Senators to have filibustered the Iraq War approval.
No, wait, how many of those Democrats actually voted IN FAVOR of allowing Bush to invade Iraq?
Nancy Pelosi and Senator Bob Graham were on the Intelligence Committees and TOLD US that they had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat.
In 2002, Saddam was 66 years old. Was time on his side?
So did the above Jewish Democrats put up a fight against Bush's push for an unnecessary war? Or did they lie down and spread their legs?
Let take statements by one of those Democrats you listed above, Jim. Let's look at what Eliot Engel said back in October 2002 re giving Bush the power to invade IRaq:
"“In 1991, I supported giving then-President Bush the authorization and I will support the current President Bush in what he's trying to do today and will vote for the resolution. I must say in all honesty, though, I feel less comfortable today than I did in 1991.”
“Saddam Hussein is a terrible guy, it's been said by a lot of our colleagues. He has weapons of mass destruction. And regime change, disarmament, whatever it is, he deserves it; the world will be much better off without him. And that's why we really need to support this resolution in ensuring that he complies with the U.N. resolutions and everything that he needs to do.”
...“Having said that though, and I think it's important to put all the reservations up front, I think it would be a monumental mistake if this Congress were not to support the president in this. I think it's very important that we show a united front and we say to these dictators, to the people that have weapons of mass destruction, people that flaunt U.N. resolutions and are a danger to us and our allies, that we will not tolerate it, and that we're not going to sit back and let it continue. It was a mistake in 1991, frankly, not to finish the job. I said so then, I'll say it now. But we can't let mistakes drive our policy. What we need to drive our policy is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction and terror are diminished.”
-----------
ha ha ha ha ha
Yep, that sounds like an "anti-war" position.
Oh, by the way, there's a pro-Likud organization called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Its Board of Advisors include the Major Neocons who urged us into Iraq with ghost stories that later proved to be ..er.. not quite true. Richard Perle. Charles Krauthammer. William Kristol.
See http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
But WAIT. There's another name there with the Neocons. It's ..It's .. why, it's "Anti-war Democrat" Eliot Engels.
Say it ain't so!
And gee, isn't that Chuckie Schumer listed there as a FDD Advisor as well?? But isn't he one of the anti-war Democrats you listed above, Jim?
One of the most vocal critcs of the war in the Senate is Russ Feingold!!! Guess his backgroud! Paul Wellstone would have been an even better anti-war critic but alas he died tragically before the war.
Both of the above people made better critics than the christians save an odd Bernie Sanders/Robert Byrd!
SLC lies again.
"Since these reports are apparently due to unnamed officials in the US government, rather then the Israeli Government..."
1) The official is not unnamed - it's Stephen Hadley, the same bozo who got unverified claims into the President's State of the Union address.
2) The articles explicitly state that the ONLY intelligence on this matter is coming from...Israel.
In other words, Israel - and SLC - is lying again. All during the run up to the Iraq war, Israel was claiming there was no doubt that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program based on their intelligence. Turned out to be the usual Israeli lies.
SLC is a flat out liar.
PS Jim. If you would like to see the nature of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), see http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/article1.html
An excerpt:
"What makes all of this possible is the support the foundation receives from its billionaire backers. Its nearly $3 million annual budget comes from 27 major donors, most of whom are members of “the Study Group”—also sometimes called the “Mega Group” because of their sizeable contributions—a semi-formal organization of major Jewish philanthropists who meet twice a year to discuss joint projects.
The group’s membership includes, among others, U.S. Healthcare founder Leonard Abramson, New York financier Michael Steinhardt, Seagrams patriarch and Jewish World Congress president Edgar S. Bronfman Sr. and his brother Charles, and Lynn Schusterman, widow of Oklahoma oilman Charles Schusterman. Some of the group’s projects have been establishing and funding Birthright Israel, which provides Jewish youths with free travel to the Holy Land; a synagogue restoration program called STAR (Synagogue Transformation and Renewal); and the renovation and re-invigoration of Hillel, the Jewish campus chaplaincy. More than a few of these projects have generated controversy among some American Jews, who see this small group of mega-donors exercising considerable influence over Jewish-American affairs. But for all the debate that has attended some of these projects, none before has been as overtly political as Emet or FDD.
Leonard Abramson was the point man for establishing Emet. He, Michael Steinhardt, and Edgar Bronfman were the foundation’s board of directors at the time of its incorporation in the spring of 2001. Their original plan called for Emet to have centers in both the U.S. and Israel, with the Israeli branch to be located at Tel Aviv University under its president, the former Israeli ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich. Emet was to have close ties to the Israeli government as well—so close, in fact, that there was some dispute between the mega-donors and the Israeli Foreign Ministry over just whose project this was. On March 9, 2001, three days before Emet’s articles of incorporation were filed in New York, the Forward reported that “A[n Israeli] Foreign Ministry source leaked news of the initiative—called ‘Emet,’ or ‘truth,’ in Hebrew —to Israel Radio, portraying the effort as a Foreign Ministry project that the Americans were trying to co-opt.” According to the Forward, the mega-donors were quick to assert their control in a letter to the Foreign Ministry, saying in part, “Either the Ministry will be part of the project or the Ministry will be left out.”
----------
ha ha ha
Pretty sad when the Government of Israel itself is told that it is only a junior partner in a pro-Israel propaganda front.
Meanwhile, a few people are picking out some names here and there that are either Jewish and against the war, or not Jewish and for the war.
As if this cherry picking means anything.
The bottom line is that the neocons were for the war and they are disproportionately represented in many of their leaders by persons of Jewish ethnicity - and they were schooled by a Jewish philosopher named Leo Strauss that lying is the way to run a government.
This actually has nothing to do with "Jews" per se - it has to do with ZIONISTS - which is a completely different issue altogether - which is why claims of "anti-Semitism" are so much bullshit.
It is also the bottom line that the government of Israel was in favor of and pushed for the invasion of Iraq, only as a substitute for the invasion of Iran.
Therefore the neocons AND the Israeli government had common ground on this topic.
The fact that the oil companies and the war profiteering outfits like Cheney's Halliburton were also in on it doesn't change the fact that this war was at least partly a neocon and Zionist war.
All this babble about whether "the Jews in America" supported it or not is irrelevant. It is neocons and Zionists and the oil industry and the military-industrial-security complex that we have to look to for the instigators of this mess.
I haven't read this complete thread, and I certainly don't plan to, but I've read enough to see that Don Williams is an anti-Semite. I wouldn't call anyone else who comments here an anti-Semite, and I certainly think SLC's positions on Israeli affairs are loony, but Don Williams, you're an anti-Semite. There's no other word for someone who keeps stressing the Jewish-ness if his political opponents ("Jewish Democrat Joe Lieberman" "Jewish billionare Haim Saban") and calls the Rosenbergs part of a Jewish Stalinist conspiracy.
Oh, and do you really want Democrat TOM LANTOS on your list, Jim??
You might want to read this story from Mother Jones --which I have seen from other sources as well -- about how Tom helped kickstart the First Iraq War:
------------
"Lantos' most memorable effort, though, may be his role in pushing a tale that is now regarded as a museum-worthy specimen of war-time propaganda — the discredited Gulf War 1 yarn of Iraqi soldiers yanking Kuwaiti babies from their incubators as they looted hospitals.
It was then that the California congressman held a hearing that starred a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known only as Nayirah, who tearfully testified about the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers who pillaged her country. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," she said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where… babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."
Lantos, who co-chaired the hearing with John Edward Porter, kept the girl's identity secret, supposedly to protect her family back in Kuwait from reprisals.
In the run-up to Desert Storm, the story was cited time and again by members of Congress in speeches; it helped to turn American opinion against Iraq, playing much the same role as the second Bush administration's WMD claims did 12 years later.
Though compelling, Nayirah's story was completely false. As it turned out, she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. and had been recruited by the PR firm Hill and Knowlton to sell an Iraq intervention to the American public.
That firm, in turn, had been hired by Citizens for a Free Kuwait (itself largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and put together by Hill & Knowlton), which was essentially a front for the exiled Kuwaiti government.
Citizens for a Free Kuwait lobbied Congress for a military response and helped Lantos set up the congressional Human Rights Caucus. A Hill & Knowlton VP helped organize hearings on Iraq's misdeeds and produced the girl, who was billed as a "nurse."
"Lantos basically turned over the Human Rights Caucus into a front for Hill and Knowlton," John MacArthur, who authored the book Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, told the Institute for Public Accuracy recently. "When you called up the Human Rights Caucus Foundation, you got the offices of Hill and Knowlton. The Kuwaitis even ended up donating $50,000 as thanks to the foundation."
Ref: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/11/tom_lantos_gulf_war.html
----------
ha ha ha.
You really know how to pick them, Jim.
Re too many steve's comment " Don Williams, you're an anti-Semite. There's no other word for someone who keeps stressing the Jewish-ness if his political opponents ("Jewish Democrat Joe Lieberman" "Jewish billionare Haim Saban") and calls the Rosenbergs part of a Jewish Stalinist conspiracy."
------------
Actually, it is not I who stressed the Jewishness of Haim Saban as explanation for the malign acts of Haim Saban -- it is Haim Saban himself. Read his Haaretz interview that I have linked to here several times.
It was Julius Rosenberg himself -- as I quoted above -- who justified his transfer of the atomic bomb design to Joe Stalin as being due to the refuge Joe gave to Julius's "co-religionists".
I cited the history of the atomic spy rings because (a) SLC bought up "McCarthyism" -- a subject he might want to avoid and (b) as a cautionary tale of why the American Jewish community should not be tolerant of any advocacy group which is disloyal to the US national interest . Because you can't always stuff the toothpaste back into the tube.
If the American Jewish community doesn't support where Haim Saban is leading us, they had better say so. Because Haim says he's acting on their behalf.
In the off chance that Mr. Williams is actually susceptible to reason, I will point out that Julius Rosenberg was a COMMUNIST and thus had NO RELIGION. By definition, he had no co-religionists. He was a pro-Soviet Communist through the Stalin era, and Stalin was the second worst anti-Semitic despot of the 20th century, after Hitler. If he hadn't died (or been murdered) in '53, he was about to deport the Jews of the USSR to Siberia, after engaging in a large-scale anti-Semitic campaign, including the Doctors' Plot. Not to mention that Rosenberg remained a Communist through the Hitler-Stalin pact, which had Stalin essentially allied with Hitler, and resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Jews. If Rosenberg was out to help his fellow Jews, the last thing he would have done was helped Stalin. So either Rosenberg was the dumbest Jew in history, or your conspiracy theory is full of shit.
In reply to Davidsb, I will repost the letter that Julius Rosenberg wrote to his friend explaining why he helped give the atomic bomb design to Joe Stalin.
Robert and Michael Meeropol , the sons of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg have published letters written by the Rosenbergs while in prison under the title "We are Your Sons" .
Page 159 of that book has a letter from Julius Rosenberg to Manny Bloch -- an excerpt:
----------
"During the course of my testimony, I stated in court that I believed the Russians carried the brunt of the war and that the allies should open a second front. This didn't go well with the court but if a second front had been opened sooner the Nazis would not have had time to exterminate 6,000,000 Jewish people and millions of other victims of fascism. At Page 1079 of the trial record I gave the following testimony, 'and in discussing the merits of other forms of governments, I discussed that with my friends on the basis of the performance of what they accomplished, and I felt that the Soviet Government has improved the lot of the underdog there, has made a lot of progress in eliminating illiteracy, has done a lot of reconstruction work and built up a lot of resources, and at the same time I felt that they contributed a major share in destroying the Hitler beast who killed 6,000,000 of my co-religionists, and I feel emotional about that thing."
----------------------
"Co-Religionists" .
So at trial he tried to make his Stalinism look better by claiming he was motivated by humanitarian concern for his fellow Jews. Yet he didn't quit the Party when Stalin allied with Hitler, nor during the anti-Semitic purges of the late 40s.
So, you take everything Rosenberg says at face value, even in the face of contrary evidence, but everything the neocons says is actually just a coverup for their nefarious Jewish plotting. Rather convenient, no?
Anyway, if you can explain to me why someone concerned with the fate of the Jews is supporting Stalin over the United States in the late 40s, unless, as I said, he's the dumbest Jew in history, I'll be impressed.
Re Davidsb's comment "Anyway, if you can explain to me why someone concerned with the fate of the Jews is supporting Stalin over the United States in the late 40s, unless, as I said, he's the dumbest Jew in history, I'll be impressed."
------------
Two points:
1) I don't see how you can say Julius Rosenberg was the "dumbest Jew in history" given that he had ..what?? .. 9 other Jewish Americans supporting him. Plus one lapsed Catholic/athenist.
2) Plus Julius and other members of the spy rings didn't "support Stalin" by handing out pamphlets -- they gave Stalin the detailed design of a bomb which could turn Los Angeles , New York and Chicago into the same smoking ruin as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And the newspapers were quite clear re what happened to the latter two cities.
3) My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Stalin's pogroms against the Jews were not reported in the USA until later. His temporary alliance with Hitler hurt some heads, obviously, but was probably considered later redeemed by the large number of Nazis (Millions) killed on the Eastern Front. And Stalin did provide a refuge to a large number of East Europeans Jews fleeing from the Nazis -- whereas the US government refused to except more than a few refugees.
Correction: last line should have read "the US Government refused to ACCEPT more than a few refugees."
Rosenberg and the other 9 Jewish Communists you identify, were not the dumbest Jews in history because they were not acting as Jews, they were acting as Communists. The fact that they happened to have Jewish parents did not motivate their actions. Everyone who didn't intentionally shut their eyes and ears knew about the anti-Semitic purges in the USSR and its satellites in the late 1940s. But if you were a good Stalinist Communist, like Rosenberg, your mental outlook was that this, like Stalin's other crimes, were for the greater good, and it would reactionary bourgeois thinking to weren't about your fellow ethnics at the expense of "the workers." Of all dumb anti-Semitic tropes, the idea that Stalinists of Jewish origin were somehow consciously working for the greater good of the Jews has to be one of the dumbest.
Re Davidsb's comment "Of all dumb anti-Semitic tropes, the idea that Stalinists of Jewish origin were somehow consciously working for the greater good of the Jews has to be one of the dumbest."
-----------
So what about the idea that Neocons "of Jewish origin" were somehow consciously working for the greater good of Americans by pushing us into an unnecessary war that has killed 3500+ Americans, crippled thousands more, and cost us over $1 Trillion?
Would that be second place in the "dumbest" contest?
Or is it a "dumb anti-Semitic trope" to ask the question?
The same neocons have supported many other American military ventures over the years. Just for example, they supported U.S. intervention on behalf of Bosnian Muslims (some of whom are allied with jihadist groups) and Croats (who largely supported Hitler), against Serbia, though the Serbians were anti-Nazi and had good relations with Jews and Israel. But that just shows how cunning the neocons are, right? Really, explain how neocon opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty, support for the Nicaraguan contras, support for the U.S. invasion of Grenada, support for U.S. intervention in Haiti, opposition to nuclear arms negotiation with the Soviets in the Carter and Reagan years, and so forth and so on, were all part of the Jewish plot toward world domination? Isn't a simpler explanation that they are militaristic superhawks, and they supported military action against Iraq just like they supported every other hawkish policy floating around DC for the last 30 years? Or are you sufficiently ignorant of neoconservatism that you are unaware of all of that?
Re "Rosenberg and the other 9 Jewish Communists you identify, were not the dumbest Jews in history because they were not acting as Jews, they were acting as Communists. The fact that they happened to have Jewish parents did not motivate their actions. "
-------------
Well, you say that but Julius Rosenberg said differently. He was there and you were not.
When we speak of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we note that they are Islamic extremists. Not because we think all Muslims -- or even a high percentage of Muslims -- are Al Qaeda. (Well, some of us do. The people who support the Neocons, for example. Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to remember David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes do.)
But we note that Bin Laden /Al Qaeda are Islamic extremists because Bin Laden/Al Qaeda say that is the essence of what MOTIVATES them.
So what motivated the atomic spy rings? Why is it that Jews made up only a small fraction of the American population in 1945 but made up almost 92% of the atomic spy rings that gave Joe Stalin the power to incinderate America?
Today, Jews make up only a small fraction of the American population -- 6? million out of 300 million.
So why did a Jewish American reporter -- Tom Friedman -- tell an Israeli newspaper --Haaretz -- that the disasterous Iraq war would not have occurred if not for the efforts of 25 men -- most of whom Haaretz itself notes are Jewish?? (See my citation above.)
I don't think that many Muslims are supporters of Al Qaeda -- and I don't think that many Jewish Americans support the machinations of the Neocons or the false stories of Judith Miller , Scooter Libby, Kenneth Pollack, Martin Indyk, etc. that led us into an unnecessary war.
But in trying to understand why people harm this country, we are entitled to look at statistical anomalies that help explain their motivations.
Iraq was an unnecessary war that has been a disaster for the US but , by the most remarkable coincidence, has removed a major enemy of Israel's.
So if you found some Jew who had no ties whatsoever to the Jewish community, who supported Hamas, who personally subscribed to jihadist ideology, was arrested for aiding terrorism by spying for Hamas, and then at trial said, "I did it to help my fellow Jews," you'd believe him? You've been sucked by a Jewish Commie! That's pretty funny.
Jews are only 2% of the population, but represent about 50% of the leading public intellectuals in the U.S. (See Richard Posner's book on public intellectuals) Therefore, ANY important public policy will have a substantial percentage of influential Jews supporting it. Jews are way overrepresented among neocons, but also among neolibs, the far left, libertarians, mainstream liberals, and even (though to a lesser extent), among traditional conservatives. Many Jews are liberal on immigration but the head of the largest anti-immigrant group, Dan Stein, is also a Jew. Jews are very successful in the United States, and bully for them, that's what a free society is all about. But your complete idiocy is in thinking that if a Jew does something, it's part of a Jewish plot, when Jews are motivated by the same thing as everyone else--ideology, personal experience, and so forth and so on. So here's the two challenges for you Don. First, explain why you would attribute any given policy position taken by a Jew to their ethnic/religious background, but not policy positions taken by anyone else. Second, if Jews are always conspiratorially trying to advance their groups' interest, explain why you can find very influential Jews on both sides of every major political controversy.
More important than the "intellectuals" are the billionaires who fund them. Kenneth Pollack, who told us so many stories about Saddam's nukes in "The Threatening Storm", works at a think tank founded with funding from Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.
Even though he has American citizenship, Haim Saban is pretty open about what motivates his political funding and actions : Israel.
See his interview in Haaretz at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
"
Haaretz:
You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?
Saban:You can't explain love.
Haaretz: It's really love?
Saban: More than love. Passion. A love that is passion."
Haaretz: Please explain.
Saban: When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don't play 'Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,' but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.
.
.
.
Haaretz:
Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?
Saban: At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."
Haaretz: Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?
"Saban: You said it."
I meant "suckered."
Oh, and while your at it, I'm awaiting your explanation of how neocon support for intervention in Yugoslavia was part of a plot to help Israel.
Re Davidsb's comment "explain why you can find very influential Jews on both sides of every major political controversy."
-----------
But that did NOT happen in the runup to the IRaq War, did it?
We had Jewish Neocons and Scooter Libby on the Republican side telling us Saddam had WMDs and needed to be taken out.
And we had Jewish intellectuals and pundits on the Left telling us the same thing. Kenneth Pollack. Martin Indyk. Judith Miller and the New York Times.
We had Jewish Republicans telling us Saddam had WMDS and needed to be taken out -- and we had Jewish Democrats like Eliot Engels, Chuck Schumer,etc telling us the same.
Everyone averting their eyes and responding with sullen silence when Senator Bob Graham on the Senate Intelligence Committee pointed out he had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat and asking for a NIE to take a real look at things.
Just as -- 6 years later - NO ONE seems to want tell the families who lose loved ones on Sept 11 WHY that attack occurred. Even though Bin Laden explicitly told TV networks why in 1997 and 1998. The New York Times joins with the National Review and Weekly Standard in keeping the lid on that one.
"They hate our freedom". Yeah, that's the ticket.
OK, Don, now your just repeating your talking points, because you can't answer my questions. Saban is a dual Israeli-American citizen who spent most of his life in Israel. His family lives in Israel. He's concerned with the well-being of Israel. What exactly is that supposed to prove?
I'm not going to debate with you any more until you answer my two questions: First, explain why you would attribute any given policy position taken by a Jew to their ethnic/religious background, but not policy positions taken by anyone else. Second, if Jews are always conspiratorially trying to advance their groups' interest, explain why you can find very influential Jews on both sides of every major political controversy.
Nonsense. Who could be more influential than Jewish Senators? The roll call shows that among the 23 Senators who vote against the war were Boxer, Feingold, Levin, Wellstone, and Wyden. So, more than 20% of the Senators who voted against the war are Jews.
Re Davidsb's comment "OK, Don, now your just repeating your talking points, because you can't answer my questions"
---------
NO -- I answered your question "explain why you can find very influential Jews on both sides of every major political controversy." by noting that most, if not all , of the very influential Jewish opinionmakers lined on the side of making war on Iraq. There may have been a few who remained silent. Same goes for the Jewish Democrats in Congress and especially for Jane Harman on the House Intelligence committee.
The ONE exception I know of is billionaire George Soros --who funded Moveon and , as I have noted before, was one of the strongest opponents of the Neocons. But he didn't attack the arguments for war -- in fairness, because he did not have the access to do so.
My post crossed with yours, but I'm very curious to see your argument as to how five Jewish senators don't constitute influential Jews against the Iraq War (and they aren't the only ones, but they are the most obvious ones).
Re Davidb "I'm very curious to see your argument as to how five Jewish senators don't constitute influential Jews against the Iraq War "
---------
Because 5 senators could have halted the Iraq War Resolution with a filibuster. And just one of them could have investigated the faulty intelligence and exposed it on the floor of the Senate.
Real opposition consists of more than just shooting off your mouth with content free bitching and ineffectual gestures. The Democrats in Congress rolled over for Bush in 2002 and you know it. In fairness, non-Jews as well as Jews.
To see why, look at how much Haim Saban gave to the Democratic Party in 2000. As S Daniel Abraham showed when he sunk Howard Dean's Presidential campaign , the power to fund is also the power to destroy.
Okay, that's just ignorant. A fillbuster can be shut down by a vote of 61 Senators. Only 23 voted against the war, so no fillisbuter was remotely plausible.
This is my last post.
You said that the only influential Jew who opposed the war was Soros. I gave you five Jewish Senators, clearly five of the most influential men and women in the country. Either you're open to evidence or you're not. If you refuse to accept 22 or so% of all the Senate's opponents of the war as evidence of prominent Jewish opposition to the war, you're not open to the evidence. And of course, you still can't explain the Jewish conspiratorial interest in the Bosnian Muslims and Croats.
Please give it up Don. Imagine how much happier you'll be when you recognize that your life, and your country's life, isn't in the hands of a Jewish conspiracy. And best of all, other commenters on this blog will take your viewpoints a lot more seriously.
Comments closed September 27, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm surprised they're saying that the problems certain supporters of Israel have with Brzezinski only dates back to the article he wrote about the Walt Mearshimer stuff. I remember seeing him interviewed on TV at least a couple years ago, and was surprised at how critical he was of Israel's policies, and how sympathetic he was to the positions of the Palestinians.
Its totally predictable that having a close association with Brzezinski would be problematic for those people who put Israel's interests first.
Posted by Jim W | September 13, 2007 11:45 AM