http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/> Mondoweiss
Iraq comes home: the war of ideas, by Philip Weiss
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html> « Serious. Cold.
Stunning. Walt and Mearsheimer Arrive in Hard Covers | Main
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/> | Leon
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/leon-hadar-on-i.html> Hadar on Israel's
Shifting Strategic Role (and the Neocons' Assimilationism) »
September 01, 2007
Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American Jews to a
Universalist Ethos
Everyone in my community (opponents of the Iraq war who seek a more balanced American
policy toward the Palestinians) has only one question about Walt and Mearsheimer's
forthcoming book: Will it be ignored? For instance, James Morris, who I believe I once
saw explode in the audience at an American Enterprise Institute program on Israel's
secure borders (led by Richard Perle and Dore Gold), has been sending out emails about
his efforts to get the book covered by '60 Minutes'. No dice.
I am a cockeyed optimist; I don't think it will be ignored. I don't think it can be. One
fear we've have is that the LRB paper was such a tremendous sensation that the big
media, having only grudgingly covered that, would now say, Oh well this is just an
expansion of the paper; old news. One mainstream editor said as much to me a few weeks
back in shooting down a proposal I made for an article about Stephen Walt's Jewish
milieu (more about that later...). "Oh I think that moment is over," the editor said.
Class dismissed.
I no longer fear as much. Making my way slowly to the end of the actual book (it's a
dense read, esp. for someone who cares deeply about every issue they raise), I don't
think anyone can argue that the book recapitulates the paper. The book expands the paper
by a factor of 4 in pure numbers of words, and the book's tone is more exalted than the
paper's. The authors are less tentative, and less emotional, qualities I remember in the
original. The manner of the book is amazingly calm. The arguments are more solid, and go
much further. As for solidity, I am simply awed by the field of reference. W&M have read
every comment ever made by an Israeli official about U.S. policy, they have found every
neoconservative crackpot comment about remaking the Middle East. They did this in little
over a year. God bless the internet (or the coolie system in academic research!).
But the main reason the book cannot be ignored is that the arguments go much further,
and are devastating. Simply put, the book proves that the tail has wagged the dog on the
greatest foreign policy mistake of the last 40 years, a mistake that has caused
incredible suffering in Iraq and the U.S., and blasted my country's image. The evidence
the authors marshal is so compelling that it leaves me, as a progressive Jew, weeping
with distress over what the fervid particularist imagination of rightwing Jews has done
to my country. I applaud the authors for being cold. They don't seem to have any of my
feeling. They leave it to the readers, and they trust educated Americans to be able to
discuss these issues without setting loose the cossacks.
Again I say, it is progressive American Jews who as much as anyone ought to be morally
and spiritually engaged by this book. I hope that the JJ Goldbergs and Dan Fleshlers and
Seymour Hershes and Glenn Greenwalds and Jerrold Nadlers of the world (none of whom
supported this war) will at last turn on the neocons openly and say, Your wrongheaded
policies about Israel are a big reason our country is in Iraq, how do you answer?
Progressive Jews must do this, a political/moral cleansing for the sake of the United
States and Jewish tradition. And they will do it. The only question is how many of us
there will be.
I would point to one sentence in the book that I found heartbreaking. The authors
describe in detail the neocon vision of transforming the Middle East as democracies by
starting with Iraq. The dream that peace in Jerusalem would begin with war in Baghdad,
which has ended in such a miserable failure, grew out of the conviction that Israel was
a great democracy and that its treatment of the Palestinians would be overlooked once
the U.S. changed Arab societies. It is a complete delusion; and yet its power over Jews
of even liberal stripe can be glimpsed this week in The New Republic, where, in further
evidence that the prowar coalition is delaminating, Jonathan Chait turns on Bill Kristol
and at one point cries out, Oh where is that dreamy neocon philosophy of yesteryear.
"[T]here was something inspiring in their vision of America as a different kind of
superpower--a liberal hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples,
rather than mere self interest." I.e., we will decide who among you Arabs are
subjugated, and then destroy that society...
But I still haven't gotten to Walt and Mearsheimer's sentence. In describing that neocon
vision of the "wonderful future Israel [could] expect after the war," the authors say,
you might think people would be more sophisticated and experienced than to believe such
stuff. But they add, "The original Zionist dream of reestablishing a Jewish state where
none had existed for nearly two millennia was nothing if not ambitious..."
That sentence is devastating because (while it refers to Israel's leaders) it describes
American neoconservatism, accurately, as an expression of a great Jewish attribute, the
prophetic ability to cast a vision of the future into the world and gain adherents for
that vision. (Communism, Freudianism, globalism all have drawn on dreamy Jewish brains).
As I have argued on this site before, this is why anti-Zionism is the new Zionism.
American Jewish universalists (including assimilationists) must help to chart a
different vision for Israel's future and the U.S.'s too, away from the militarized isms
this book anatomizes so calmly and convincingly. We must accept our new status as
principals in the U.S., and find a spiritual/political raison-d'etre that takes greater
account of other peoples, for instance Arab societies and the American communities that
have produced the foot soldiers of this war.
Posted at 08:33 AM in Books <http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/books/index.html> ,
Journalism <http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/journalism/index.html> , Neocons
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/neocons/index.html> , Religion
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/religion/index.html> , The
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/the_assimilationist/index.html> Assimilationist,
U.S. <http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/us_policy_in_the_mideast/index....> Policy
in the Mideast | Permalink
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html>
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2311324/21261897
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Walt
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html> & Mearsheimer's
Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American Jews to a Universalist Ethos:
Comments
Great post. I didn't start off interested in this subject but you've made me interested
by writing about it so well.
Posted by: Seth Roberts
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81339783> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 09:28 AM
"Your wrongheaded policies about Israel are a big reason our country is in Iraq, how do
you answer?"
I know what you're saying, but remember that the real crime the Lobby is being accused
of is not of having wrongheaded policies. That's pretty common. It's of corrupting the
system so that rightheaded policies can not emerge out of the democratic discussion.
It's of abusing their position of great power. Ultimately, it's of having no respect for
the host society.
Posted by: David | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Dear Mr. Weiss,
Here is a link for the CBS '60 Minutes' email which conveys that the executive producer
(Jeff Fager) is refusing to do a segment on the Mearsheimer/Walt book:
'60 Minutes' refusing to cover Mearsheimer/Walt book:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77703
I don't think 'explode' was the most accurate description. The AEI moderator was trying
to cut me off after I had responded to Dore Gold when I had conveyed that the US was
tragically attacked at the World Trade Center on 9/11 (and earlier in 1993) because of
US support for Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians and that such was also
conveyed in James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book (simply look up 'Israel as a
terrorist motivation' in the index). Ambassador Gold had earlier mentioned in his
presentation that Israel had nothing to do with 9/11 (wording to that effect). In
addition, I was trying to ask JINSA/PNAC associated Neoconservative Richard Perle why he
had basically lied to Congressman Walter Jones when he had asked Mr. Perle about his
association with the 'A Clean Break' document during a Congressional hearing (see the
following URL):
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-...
The 'A Clean Break' document is addressed on pages 261-269/321 of Bamford's 'A Pretext
for War' book (see the following URL):
'A Clean Break' (from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
The paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' includes an additional section about the
ongoing AIPAC espionage case which the pro-Israel biased US press/media is hardly
covering either. Stephen Green is mentioned in that additional chapter (his name in
referenced in the index) as the FBI brought him in as a consultant after writing various
books and articles to include the following one which mentions Mr. Perle as well:
Serving Two Flags:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-green.html
Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' is shown in the right margin of the following URL which
includes the transcript of the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton about
how 9/11 tragically took place because of US support for Israel (see the 'What Motivated
the 9/11 Hijackers?' video which is linked at the upper left there):
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us...
Posted by: James Morris | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Truth in Palestine
Phil sympathizes with the Palestinians.
Me, too.
But differently.
The real rescue will come from a Palestinian leader with integrity.
Before gaining independence, the leadership must steer the society to an internal peace
and moderation.
Like Iraq, which gained independence too early, and slipped into the tyranny Baathi
style, Palestinian leaders have used all outside assistance for war and terror.
A pre-independence policy should create a just society, which gives up the revenge and
terror.
The revolutionary Saddam Husseins of Palestine are not the right prescription for a
peaceful Palestinian future.
Let us not support them.
Let us support the real Palestinian Abraham Lincolns.
Posted by: Steven | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Just a footnote to my comment above.. The following article conveys how Bamford's 'A
Pretext for War' book had such an effect on Congressman Walt Jones in it was
instrumental in turning him against the Iraq quagmire:
The Three Conversions of Walter B. Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/01/the_three_conversions....
html
More on Mearsheimer & Walt:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
Posted by: James Morris | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Phil, sorry to cavil, but this sounds a little like noblesse oblige:
"We must accept our new status as principals in the U.S., and find a spiritual/political
raison-d'etre that takes greater account of other peoples, for instance Arab societies
and the American communities that have produced the foot soldiers of this war."
I view all hortatory statements (even my own) with suspicion. Let's just end the lies
and demonstrate media complicity in disseminating agitprop (so that never again will
lies lead us to war), and call it a day. But I know your heart's in the right place.
Also, describing the text as "exalted" makes it sound a bit like Holy Writ.
My prediction: The book will be largely ignored (other than a few obligatory
denunciations), but will be read by its target audience. Mention of the book will be
considered polarizing, and therefore anathema. Eventually it will be regarded in the
same way Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy & Hope' is regarded: true, sobering, but largely
irrelevant.
Posted by: Oarwell | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 10:51 AM
as ron paul supporter, let me assure you there is a VERY good chance it will be ignored.
Posted by: lester | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 11:14 AM
"Mention of the book will be considered polarizing, and therefore anathema."
My expectation as well. Which is odd, because "polarizing" is often exactly what the
media finds profitable. But the particular situation of our media rules out any
mainstream attention to this.
Posted by: David | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:09 PM
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11534
August 31, 2007
Showdown Over Iran
We can stop the coming war with Iran – but concerned Americans must act quickly
by Justin Raimondo
--------------------------------------------
Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631
Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime
By Dave Lindorff
Created Aug 30 2007 - 9:26am
---------------------------------------
http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern08312007.html
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
By RAY McGOVERN
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81350007> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American Jews to a
Universalist Ethos
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81350883> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Sorry for the post right above this one as the following is what I intended to post:
Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind
As Walt-Mearscheimer book appears, efforts to keep military option open run counter to
national mood:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISR...@yahoo.com
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81350979> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Phil,
One point I'd like to bring up in relation to Mearsheimer and Walt's book.
They both belong to the "realist" school of power politics. In this view of world
affairs, nations have permanent "interests", not permanent allies. If a country is
useful to the USA at any moment it is protected and if not it isn't. We support a
military dictator in Pakistan because it useful to do so and we strangle Cuba because it
opposes our policies. This attitude explains the "coldness" you detect in the book.
America's permanent interests in the Middle East are: access to oil at a reasonable
price, free movement of goods and warships through the Suez canal and more recently that
its regimes not export terrorists to the United States and its "clients".
During the Cold War, specifically after the Six Day war of 1967 where Israel thrashed,
trashed and humiliated the Soviet Union's clients, Israel was seen to be valuable asset
for the USA in the Middle East and much interest was shown in fostering the
relationship. Perhaps the most important dividend of supporting Israel was to woo Egypt,
the most important country in the region away from its alliance with the USSR. Israel
then became America's "watchdog" in the ME.
What is more curious is Finkelstein's theory that these American Jewish elites
themselves *only really became interested in Israel when the Jewish state became a major
strategic asset for the USA*. (Before 1967, Zionists were seen to be too socialist for
American elite taste) These Jewish elites, again according to Finkelstein, have used
their role as "intermediaries" of Israel as a tool to pry open the doors of American
power elites and join the WASP elites at the trough.
If the by any chance Israel were ever to be seen as a gross liability to US interests
(as it seems to be now to many observers here and abroad), and that the for the Jewish
elites being seen to promote Israel a handicap to their access to those corridors of
power, than these Jewish elites might suddenly cool off toward Israel considerably. I
remember an article written by Charles Krauthammer (sorry no link) during last summer's
war in Lebanon where he bluntly and nastily (Krauthammer the antisemite?) warned the
Israelis that military failure would have such an effect on the "special relationship".
This why I think that the book will not be "ignored", just as Mearsheimer and Walt's LRB
article was not ignored. Because although the Jewish elites of America are very powerful
and influential, they are not the only powerful and influential ones in America and I
think that a lot of coldblooded, thin lipped, rich old WASPs of the Brent Scowcroft,
James Baker variety have come to the conclusion that Israel far from being a strategic
asset, is now a geopolitical millstone around America's neck. And these "old, white men"
want these views fully aired and debated and the more effort Foxman and Dershowitz (to
name two)make to *silence" the book, the more it will sell and the more people will talk
about it. That is why the professors were encouraged to write the article and that's why
the book is getting a top publisher.
As this collides with the neocon campaign to start a war with Iran, I think we are going
to see one of the nastiest political seasons in Washington since the late 1850s.
Posted by: David Seaton
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81351463> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Have Mearsheimer and Walt even scratched the surface?
"Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing espionage charges
have subpoenaed Ms. Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National
Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, and several others to testify at their trial next year.
If their testimony is allowed by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, the trial could
offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way American foreign policy is crafted.
Although Mr. Ellis closed yesterday's hearing to the public, the government's opposition
to the subpoenas was outlined on a court calendar entry.
Documents filed by attorneys for lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman argue that
the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign
policy and that Ms. Rice and others can confirm it.
"In other words, they'll tell us that back-channel disclosures are an everyday common
practice?" Mr. Ellis asked in a hearing last year during a rare public discussion of the
issue. That argument is a key to the defense."
http://www.nysun.com/article/61714
Posted by: liberal
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81352509> white boy |
September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Another excellent book on this subject published in 2006 is THE POWER OF ISRAEL IN THE
US by James Petras.
Since Petras is a left winger his book has been almost completely ignored by the
mainstream media.
But Walt and Mersheimer -- being close to the traditional ruling elite-- cannot be so
easily swept under the rug.
Posted by: Crimson Ghost | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Good pull quotes from that Jewishweek article:
"Talking even indirectly about the war option is risky because “there is virtually no
public support for an attack on Iran,” said University of Virginia political scientist
Larry Sabato."
(Refreshing honesty not seen in the NYT or WaPo)
“Flirting with the military option without understanding its meaning is very dangerous,”
said Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA). “I don’t think Jewish leaders are pushing the administration
to war, but by not understanding the consequences, they are not making themselves look
good; they open themselves up to a lot of criticism by being glib about going to war.”
(What else can they be but glib? Somber? Somber won't sell the war.)
"The dilemma for Jewish leaders is this: While almost none advocates preemptive military
action to end the threat of a nuclear Iran, most believe opposition to new military
commitments is growing by leaps and bounds — a new version of the classic “Vietnam
syndrome.”
(Why, then, a dilemma?)
"And if Iran believes military action is unlikely, “you have no diplomatic leverage,”
said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “I don’t think
there is a great deal of understanding [among the American public] of the threat Iran
poses to the United States and the entire region, including Israel.”
(Neither is there a great deal of understanding of the threat posed by Iceland to the
United States. Because there is none.)
Posted by: Oarwell | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 01:51 PM
AIPAC treason trial now continued to January.
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/
Posted by: liberal
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81356199> white boy |
September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 01:55 PM
.
Phil --- I am very skeptical about the notion that the neocons "are the main reason our
country is in Iraq". As Rumsfeld was quoted as saying, this seems to presume that he and
Cheney just fell off a turnip truck. I would appreciate it if you would tell us what it
is that you find so compelling in this thesis of the tail wagging the dog.
I do agree entirely that progressive Jews should speak out more against Jewish
rightwingers and the passivity on this issue of the rest.
Oarwell --- I was sorry that Oarwell rejected so many of my ideas, because s/he
generally seems to be very perceptive. It seems very possible that s/he was trying to
goad me into being clearer, and in any case I am grateful for the help in seeing where I
am failing to get across. I will try to respond as well as I can.
Obviously a lot of my ideas come from Freud. Some time ago I read most of his books, but
by now I don't remember what I read, so I am not at all clear about the boundary between
his ideas and my interpretation of them. Anyone reading this should keep that in mind.
Unfortunately, Freud's teachings are still essentially an esoteric tradition. There may
be plenty of
scholarship on the subject, but to really understand it you have to learn to see the
working of your own mind from that point of view. This cannot be communicated directly.
It is kind of lame to say that, but that is how it is.
It can be described. The basic idea is the process of repression. This can be defined as
denial carried to the point where all traces are totally erased from awareness. Certain
feelings or desires or ideas cause a painful sense of guilt or fear or shame, so one
learns to ban them from consiousness.
Repression is not healthy. A large part of ones mental energy is diverted into fighting
with itself. The repressed material gains strength because of its banishment, so once
established, the bind has a natural tendancy to grow.
Repression erects barriers against the mobility of conciousness.
Repression is the ground of neurosis, but it is not limited to neurotics. It is part of
the process of socialization, and so almost universal, at least at this stage of our
cultural evolution.
By definition, repression is obscure. It is not visable on the surface of things. It is
not part of our common sense. Certainly people never think
directly about their issues. That is why the concept is a breakthrough idea.
When peoples repressions are threatened they tend to become angry and/or frightened. The
best indication of the nature of the repression seems to be by inference from what
agitates people beyond what seems to be called for. But you are able to see this only if
you don't share in it.
Oarwell says that Americans are not afraid of terrorism. I have certainly seen such fear
expressed, after the attack on the WTC, by some people in New York, mostly women. In our
culture
women are more allowed to be afraid than men are. And how about the universal
pronouncement that "everything has changed"? I like Oarwells reference to "the marketing
of evil". You can't market anything without tapping into some motive that already
exists.
Yes it was Truman who dropped the bomb. When Oppenheimer met him a couple of months
later he said "Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands". Truman didn't like that,
and afterward was heard to mutter "Dammit, he hasn't got half as much blood on his hands
as I have, but you don't go around bellyaching about it." Later he told the secretary of
state "I don't want to see that sonofabitch in my office ever again". Which sonofabitch?
.
Posted by: Paul E | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 02:14 PM
I didn't know that the electronic media had ever paid any attention to the Lobby issue,
but now (thanks to LibWhiteBoy's site) I see that Scarborough Country did indeed cover
it last year--
http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play
<http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp...
B-AE76-5&action=10> &vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=A842CC7D-F9D1-4B1B-AE76-5&action=10
I didn't think I could still be shocked by the state of our media, but this did it.
We've still got a huge battle ahead of us.
Posted by: David | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 02:26 PM
*
The Jewishweek article is good because it shows the calmer voices in the Jewish
community finally being heard. What it says in code to those zealous Jewish leaders who
have completely lost touch with reality for quite some time now is: Stop pushing for war
with Iran or risk a huge backlash.
Note however the ridiculous talk about keeping "all options on the table". This is
another one of those soundbites that mean absolutely nothing yet all "serious" beltway
pundits and politicians keep parroting it. In a very good article on (Jewish) "liberal
hawks" and Iran, a wise reader gets to the bottom of the matter in the comments section:
"No one need worry the slightest, tiniest bit about leaving the military option on Iran
"off the table", particularly because no one can find this table and tell scientifically
whether something is "on" or "off" this table.
Scientifically, 'taking the military option off the table' with respect to Iran does not
actually cause any military equipment or personnel to vanish, nor does it teleport them
from their current locations. At any time, at any point, Congress could declare war or
the President could do his usual unilateral Commander In Chief thing and order an
attack, and it would matter zero whether or not anyone thought something had been "on"
or "off" of "the table".
On table and off table are completely political terms. No table exists. No policies are
on or off of one, particularly not with regard to military matters."
Indeed! Article - and some very good comments - here:
" Let's Get Serious - What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?" by Ezra
Klein:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=lets_get_serious
Posted by: Alan | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Joamhim ---
I think you have something to say, but I don't think you serve yourself well by dark
mutterings about the Occult transnational askenazi conspiricy. Presumably you are being
funny, but there are too many nuts on the internet for it to be smart to make that kind
of joke.
Since you keep talking like that I suppose you mean something by it. I guess you have
already explained it, but for those of us who missed it you might do it again.
Posted by: Paul E | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 02:58 PM
Wonderful writing, Phil, please keep it up.
Yes, you raise an excellent point in relation to the neocon dream (which it would seem
W&M also pick up on) that by an interventionist policy in the Arab world, including
occupation and invasion, the case for Israel's righteousness would somehow be accepted
by people across the region and in the world at large (or the case against it would
dissipate). But in fact, the ugly truths about Zionism and also about Israeli conduct
only seem to have been brought in sharper relief, and this isn't just as a result of the
'mismanagement' of the war. In fact, around the world the case for Israel has grown
weaker rather than stronger in the last few years.
Posted by: Kevin | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 03:27 PM
Kevin wrote: "In fact, around the world the case for Israel has grown weaker rather than
stronger in the last few years."
Judging from the quality of today's apologia and apologists and the fact that someone
like Dershowitz had to be brought in to make the "case for Israel", this is certainly an
understatement.
20 years ago it was a whole different story. Back then it was difficult to counter the
official narrative of Zionist mythology because only specialists had enough knowledge,
and even theirs was lacking. But then the New Historians showed up and started
demolishing that mythology from within Israel. That was important, but still, how many
people would actually buy or read their books?
And then the internet revolution started. With the internet, one does not have to be a
specialist to see maps of the West Bank and the gradual progression of the settlement
project. Today one can find and read all the UN resolutions regarding Israel with two
clicks of his mouse. Incredible amounts of material are readily available to anyone.
Just reading Haaretz for a few months is enough to get enough facts to demolish any
Zionist apologist anywhere.
The last blow for a militarist Israel and the Israel-first crowd covering for her has
been the neo-cons. In the information age, their style of networking and operating is
too transparent. They still don't realise that if the US sustains enough damage they
might end up in jail. Well, too bad for them. I can't say I will be too saddened.
What all of them (Israeli and US Zionist elites, "liberal" gatekeepers, misguided and
brainwashed sentimentalists etc) have missed is that in the information age no nation
can be run as an ideological relic of 19th century nationalism and militarism. Just as
Rumsfeld realised that you can't really run Abu Ghraibs in the age of pocket digital
cameras and camcorders and laptops connected to the internet. The days of Ben Gurion's
prescriptions for "perpetual war" and "dynamic borders" are long gone. Israel will have
to grow up and become a normal country or my long held conviction and prediction that
today's Zionism will end up being bad for Jews everywhere will be proven right.
Posted by: Alan | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 04:33 PM
Just saw the following posted at www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\08\31\story_31-8-2007_pg4_2
New book challenges US support for Israel
NEW YORK: An upcoming book challenging whether diplomatic and military support for
Israel is in the best interests of the United States is set to spark fresh debate on
Washington’s role in the Middle East.
“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” written by two of the United States’ most
influential political science professors, is set to hit the bookshelves next Tuesday and
promises to break the taboo on the subject. Written by John Mearsheimer from the
University of Chicago and Stephen Walt from Harvard, the book follows an article they
published last year that stirred impassioned debate by setting out a similar position.
Their thesis is that US endorsement of Israel is not fully explained by strategic or
moral reasons, but by the pressure exerted by Jewish lobbyists, Christian
fundamentalists and neo-conservatives with Zionist sympathies.
The result, according to the book, is an unbalanced US foreign policy in the Middle
East, the US invasion of Iraq, the threat of war with Iran or Syria and a fragile
security situation for the entire Western world. “Israel is not the strategic asset to
the United States that many claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the
Cold War, but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over,” the
authors said.
“Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism around the world,
helped fuel America’s terrorism problem, and strained relations with other key allies in
Europe, the Middle East, and Asia,” they added.
According to the two writers, “backing Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians has
reinforced Anti-Americanism around the world and almost certainly helped terrorists
recruit new followers.”
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, described the book as “an
insidious, biased account of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the role of supporters of
Israel in the US,” in an interview with AFP.
“Everything about American policy toward the conflict is presented in exaggerated form,
as if America is completely one-sided in support of Israel and that those policies are
simply the product of the Israel lobby.” He is countering Mearsheimer and Walt’s book
with his own title: “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish
Control,” due out on the same day.
Mearsheimer and Walt highlight the three billion dollars in US economic and military aid
that Israel receives every year - more than any other country. They also point to
Washington’s diplomatic support: between 1972 and 2006, the United States vetoed 42
United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, while watering
down many others under threat of veto. Foxman counters that the special relationship
works both ways and that the United States has gained much out of its ally.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a public debate on the issue planned for
September and featuring Mearsheimer and Walt when they were unable to schedule a time
that Foxman could also manage.
In the conclusion of their book, Mearsheimer and Walt say that the United States must
change its policy towards Israel. “The United States would be a better ally if its
leaders could make support for Israel more conditional and if they could give their
Israeli counterparts more candid advice without facing a backlash from the Israel
lobby.” With just over a year until the 2008 US presidential election, however, they
said the issue was unlikely to even enter the debate. afp
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81366163> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 05:08 PM
The exposure of the Israeli Lobby is a good and important thing in itself, but it
doesn't go far enough. The Israeli agenda is an extension of the Jewish religion with
all its warts, and there can be no apology for claiming that.
Since the advent of the online Zohar, anyone can search and read the ideas expressed
within it, that mirrors the Israeli/Neo Con agenda perfectly. There is no "Vague Jewish
Conspiracy" here. It is the words of Judaism itself, laying out their plans, and
specifically their plans of genocide, dispossession of everyone except themselves.
From the Destruction of the 70 Idolatrous Nations
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&w...
ate> &pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Ishmael
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&w...
ate> &pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Rome
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&w...
ate> &pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Edom, the White Race and the Christian Church,
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&w...
ate> &pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
it exposes Jewish plans that have been laid out long again, and are in full swing as we
speak, Israel driving and controlling America's foreign and defense policies, and
indeed, the once great nation itself.
However in the endgame of God, it will not end as Judaism has planned, but in a great
disaster for not only the non Jews of the world due to Jewish plans and plots, but also
for Jews and Israel as well.
The real question is whether or not World Jewry will take a fresh look at these matters
and decide if they wish to continue with their age old plans, or if they will decide to
create something better, better for everyone, both Jew and Gentile alike. Judaism is not
considered to a static religion, but a religion that changes overtime when new
information and better ideas arise. So we can only hope for the best.
I will close with this passage from the Jewish Prophet Isaiah which seems to fit this
situation perfectly:
"What need have I of all your sacrifices?" says the Lord. "I am sated with burnt
offerings of rams, and suet of fatlings, and blood of bulls, and I have no delight in
lambs and he-goats. That you come to appear before ME - Who asked that of you? Trample
my courts no more; bringing oblations is futile, incense is offensive to Me. New moon
and sabbath, proclaiming of solemnities, assemblies with iniquity, I cannot abide.
Wash yourselves clean; put your evil doings away from My sight. Cease to do evil; learn
to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the
orphan; defend the cause of the widow.
"Come, let us reach an understanding," says the Lord. "Be your sins like crimson, they
can turn snow-white, be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece. If, then,
you agree and give heed, you will eateth the good things of the earth; but if you refuse
and disobey, you will be devoured [by] the sword." For it was the Lord who spoke.
Source Isaiah 1:11 - 20. in Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1985
Which path will the Jewish people choose; a path of life, unity, healing for all; or the
path of war and destruction? Right now they’re on the path of war and destruction, but
it is still not too late to change.
It is up to them to choose, though at some point it will no longer be their choice. It
is the hope of many they will chose the path of healing and compassion for all; that
they will choose to create a world living in peace and mutual cooperation for everyone.
Posted by: Ravenhawk
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81368145> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Let me post the right links to the Zohar references above...something happened, I'm not
sure what. But here's the right links I believe..
From the Destruction of the 70 Idolatrous Nations
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3...
IElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=verses&sort=rate>
&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIDcwIElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=ver ses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Ishmael
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=SXNobWFlbA...
rt=rate> &pattern=SXNobWFlbA==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Rome
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=Um9tZQ==&w...
ate> &pattern=Um9tZQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Edom, the White Race and the Christian Church,
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&>
&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&
Posted by: Ravenhawk
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81369039> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Good to know you have our best interests at heart ravenhawk. Also, a good thing we have
the 2nd amendment in this country.
Posted by: bill Pearlman | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 06:07 PM
One more point, Iran has the bomb, no problem right, Therefore the sunni's are going to
want their bomb, ok. then we pull out of Iraq, the fault line if you will. Turkey goes
for their bomb. So, basically you have the most vital region in the world on a nuclear
hair trigger alert. So, even though the fervent wish is that America tosses Israel over
the side, ( forget the moral implications of turning your back on an ally of 60 yrs )
But ok, Israel is on its own and backed into a corner. Iran, which is run by a bunch of
demented lunatics hits Israel. Something that I know is a fervent wish of most yof you
here. Israel hits back and hopefully leaves at least one bome for Spain and David
Seaton. The whole ares goes on generaly nuclear conflageration. Oil is somewhere between
$800 and $1000 a barrel. So, I ask you Arie, David, Alan, and all the rest. I know you
want to badly see the second holocaust, if you even believe the first one took place.
But, is exterminating world Jewry worth a world wide depression and a general nuclear
war.
Posted by: bill Pearlman | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Perhaps Iran might want nukes because Israel has so many of them (see the following
article):
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631
Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime
Israel is no ally to US.. Israel has plotted to get US to fight wars on its behalf going
back to the Lavon Affair (Google 'Lavon Affair'). Israel has murdered and maimed
Americans when the rogue state deliberately/treacherously attacked the USS Liberty (see
http://www.ussliberty.org and http://tinyurl.com/yqgmjz ) and then lied about such ever
since. Israel has drained the US treasury of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that would
have better spent in America (like to keep bridges from falling down!). See the 'High
Cost of Subserviance' to Israel article (and the 'Declaration of Independence' article
as well) via the following URL:
High Cost of Subservience to Israel:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=75908
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
Prominent Mideast analyst associated with AIPAC espionage:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=40990
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81372659> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 07:16 PM
I am a gentile. I do not understand why I cannot have an open and free discussion with
my Ivy-educated Jewish friends about Israel or Aipac. Even those ostensibly against the
war in Iraq or Iran will not engage with me. Inevitably there are some vague
generalizations and motions to change topics. Will someone answer this please? I have
wanted to move the discussion forward because I am deathly afraid there will be and
already is destructive polarization between Jew and gentile. If something isn't done,
i.e. liberal Jews speaking out, Jews in general will seem as if they are a solid block.
Posted by: gentilewoman | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 07:23 PM
U.S. signs $30 billion defense aid pact with Israel (while US states go broke with not
enough funding to keep bridges from falling down and similar!):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77252
Posted by: NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81373201> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 07:27 PM
Gentlewoman - Given the history of the persecution of Jews I tell you I'm shocked,
shocked I tell you, that you may find some of your liberal Jewish friends tentative
about your wanting to talk about Jews are ruining the world.
Posted by: Garbo | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:15 PM
In matters concerning Israel there is no such thing as a liberal.
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/bill-maher-libera...
Posted by: liberal
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81375713> white boy |
September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Would Iraq have been attacked anyway, without the support of and encouragement by the
Israel lobby? I believe yes, because this aggression fits into a game plan in which
Israel is merely a side show - a game plan in which the US, as Larry Everest has said,
is trying to convert its military superiority into economic dominance. A game plan that
has got unstuck.
I already quoted Tony Judt's opinion that the likelihood was that Iraq would have been
attacked without the interference by the Israel lobby. I also referred to Chomsky whose
opinion on this matter is well known.
But a third witness who cannot be suspected of any love for the Israel lobby is Norman
Finkelstein. This is what he said the 15th of April last year in the Huffington Post:
" ... I neither believe that the main impetus behind the war was the Israel Lobby nor do
I believe that the first loyalty of Jewish neo-conservatives is to Israel. It
nonetheless remains true that a self-declared Jewish state pushed hard for the war; that
powerful Jewish organizations faithfully doing Israel's bidding pushed hard for the war;
and that prominent Jewish neo-conservatives who parade their love of Israel pushed hard
for the war. Is it really a shock if Americans might now wonder whether Iraq wasn't a
"Jewish war," and don't those who created this disastrous impression bear some
culpability for it?"
To return to the game plan and Larry Everest (author of "Oil, Power and Empire - Iraq
and the Us Global Agenda"): this is what he wrote in Counterpunch when the war was still
fresh (Dec.6/7 2003):
"Behind closed doors, Bush was giving top U.S. corporate heads and financiers a
different message: according to Bob Woodward's recent book Bush At War, in October 2001,
on the eve of war with Afghanistan and as planning was beginning for invading Iraq, he
told a private New York meeting of business leaders, "I truly believe that out of this
will come more order in the world-real progress to peace in the Middle East, stability
with oil-producing regions."
"In his paean to his former boss, Bush speech writer David Frum laid it out more
directly: America's new global "war on terror," he wrote, was designed to "bring new
freedom and new stability to the most vicious and violent quadrant of the earth-and new
prosperity to us all, by securing the world's largest pool of oil."
Indeed, said Everest:
"Controlling Persian Gulf oil and dominating world energy markets has been a prime U.S.
strategic objective for over 60 years,..."
(In a comment to Phil's previous entry I wrote about the US role in the overthrow, in
1953, of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeqh who had had the
audacity to nationalize the oil industry).
James Petras has peremptorily declared, but not on the basis of very good arguments,
that all talk about interest in oil here is 'rubbish'. He had talked to representatives
of oil companies who had shown little interest in military action. They were doing well
through the ordinary market.
W. & M. came with a similar argument. Even if oil companies would be interested in
agression they couldn't make their influence felt because their lobby is singularly
inactive and mainly interested, so they have been told, in tax matters.
Haven't these people heard of a 'national agenda' that is, one might suppose, not
entirely dependent on the input of lobbies?
I am sure Cheney has heard of it.
Posted by: Arie Brand | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:30 PM
What to make of this? God Damn Yids are ruining Switzerland.
GENEVA (AP) - The campaign poster was blatant in its xenophobic symbolism: Three white
sheep kicking out a black sheep over a caption that read "for more security." The
message was not from a fringe force in Switzerland's political scene but from its
largest party.
The nationalist Swiss People's Party is proposing a deportation policy that anti-racism
campaigners say evokes Nazi-era practices. Under the plan, entire families would be
expelled if their children are convicted of a violent crime, drug offenses or benefits
fraud.
The party is trying to collect the 100,000 signatures needed to force a referendum on
the issue. If approved in a referendum, the law would be the only one of its kind in
Europe.
"We believe that parents are responsible for bringing up their children. If they can't
do it properly, they will have to bear the consequences," Ueli Maurer, president of the
People's Party, told The Associated Press.
Ronnie Bernheim of the Swiss Foundation against Racism and Anti-Semitism said the
proposal was similar to the Nazi practice of "Sippenhaft" - or kin liability - whereby
relatives of criminals were held responsible for his or her crimes and punished equally.
Similar practices occurred during Stalin's purges in the early days of the Soviet Union
and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution in China, when millions were persecuted for their
alleged ideological failings.
"As soon as the first 10 families and their children have been expelled from the
country, then things will get better at a stroke," said Maurer, whose party controls the
Justice Ministry and shares power in an unwieldy coalition that includes all major
parties.
He explained that his party has long campaigned to make deportation compulsory for
convicted immigrants rather than an optional and rarely applied punishment.
The party claims foreigners - who make up about 20 percent of the population - are four
times more likely to commit crimes than Swiss nationals.
Bernheim said the vast majority of Switzerland's immigrants are law-abiding and warned
against generalizations.
"If you don't treat a complicated issue with the necessary nuance and care, then you
won't do it justice," he said.
Commentators have expressed horror over the symbolism used by the People's Party to make
its point.
"This way of thinking shows an obvious blood-and-soil mentality," read one editorial in
the Zurich daily Tages-Anzeiger, calling for a broader public reaction against the
campaign.
So far, however, there has been little popular backlash against the posters.
"We haven't had any complaints," said Maurer.
The city of Geneva - home to Switzerland's humanitarian traditions as well as the
European headquarters of the United Nations and the U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR - said
the campaign was likely to stir up intolerance.
The UNHCR said the law would run contrary to the U.N. refugee convention, of which
Switzerland is a signatory.
But observers say the People's Party's hardline stance on immigration could help it in
the Oct. 21 national elections. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter
immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss
passports.
"It's certainly no coincidence that the People's Party launched this initiative before
the elections," said Oliver Geden, a political scientist at the Berlin Institute for
International and Security Affairs.
He said provocative campaigns such as this had worked well for the party in the past.
"The symbol of the black sheep was clearly intended to have a double meaning. On the one
hand there's the familiar idea of the black sheep, but a lot of voters are also going to
associate it with the notion of dark-skinned drug dealers," said Geden.
The party also has put forward a proposal to ban the building of minaret towers
alongside mosques. And one of its leading figures, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher,
said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech.
Posted by: Newkirk | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:35 PM
i don't understand why nonjews like cheney and rumsfeld are so totally in step with
jewish neocons like wolfowitz, perle, kristol et al.
someone mentioned that baker and someone else are starting to see israel as a millstone
rather than a help.
why are cheney and rumsfeld not starting to see this? can someone explain this?
Posted by: confused | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Cheney has been a board member of JINSA, the Jewish Institute of National Security
Affairs, a Neo Con driving force....there are very few politicians who are have gotten
thru the pre-screening of the Israeli Lobby, and if they do, their opposition is heavily
funded in the next election.
Pretty much all of our politicians are Israel loyal. Unfortunately, Israel seeks to rule
the United States, and to use it as their money pit and mercenary army.
So far they've accomplished that completely, to the great disdain of thinking Americans.
Israel is intended to be a place of compassion and kindness to everyone, not a Jewish
Supremacist nation that uses other countries to run genocidal operations against whoever
Israel chooses.
The World was not created solely for the Torah and Jews.
Posted by: Ravenhawk
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81376489> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:44 PM
People here should petition the most influential political shows in the US to give
Mearsheimer and Walt interviewers. I believe the following are the best venues:
NBC Meet the Press with Tim Russert
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos
http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/News/story?id=466
CBS Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/ftn/main13479.shtml
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
thedailyshow AT comedycentral.com
PBS John McLaughlin's ONE ON ONE
http://www.mclaughlin.com/moo/
I personally petitioned the Colbert Report a few weeks ago about this issue and then I
read on the israellobbybook.com website that an interview is now scheduled for October
2, 2007. I'm not sure if that was partly my doing or whether its just a coincidence.
Posted by: Ben | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Despite the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) saying Iran's atomic program is
moving very slowly and is not significant:
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews
<http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyI...
8Z_01_BLA046366_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-NUCLEAR-COL.XML&archived=False>
&storyID=2007-08-30T140728Z_01_BLA046366_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-NUCLEAR-COL.XM L&archived=Fa
lse
We can see who is clamoring for the blood of the goyim (non Jews) of Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Est...
orum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Fp%3D4556317%26posted%3D1>
&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Estormfront%2Eorg%2Fforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Fp%3D 4556317%26pos
ted%3D1
It's part of the Jewish "Destruction of the 70 Idolatrous Nations" agenda. (meaning any
nation following anything other than Judaism or the 7 Noahide laws).
http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search
<http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3...
IElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=verses&sort=rate>
&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIDcwIElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=ver ses&sort=rate
In the first reference on the above site we see the racism, or "speciesism", of Judaism.
"Yisrael are called men, but the other nations are not", thus they can be destroyed with
impunity.
Of course this idea is a huge and serious sin that is committed by Judaism, and those
who allow them to do this. We must all address this issue if the world is to continue,
otherwise we shall destroy ourselves.
Posted by: Ravenhawk
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81378219> | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Nice work, Ben. :)
(Although the book site is down right now.)
Arie, your arguments would be more convincing if when you say "oil" you would be more
careful about distinguishing between oil industry interests (Exxon-Mobil profits), and
national energy security interests (usually called "access"). I'm often not clear to
which you're referring. (BTW, the idea that my government might be thinking about
ensuring long-term energy access doesn't frighten me in the least -- it's what I expect
them to be doing. Good relations with the countries who want to sell the stuff is a good
starting strategy.)
Posted by: David | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Here's what Saddam was offering up until 3 days before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. That
was the last time we had contact with the Iraqi UN Delegation.
We'd been asked by Northern Gulf Affairs in the US State Department to try to design a
"Peace Bridge Project" with Iraq. So we did so. The Iraqi Ambassador insisted we meet
face to face, so this meeting took place at headquarters of the mission of Iraq to the
United Nations in New York.
Here's the summation of what the Iraqi government was offering from 2000 until 2003. You
will see they were inviting American oil companies to come to Iraq and develop the Iraqi
oil.
(I am removing our address and contact info from this post as requested by our host)
This synopsis of the meeting with Ambassador Hasan was presented to Northern Gulf
Affairs, Iran and Iraq (at the time) as well as many other offices and desks within the
US State Department. It was sent to other US Politicians as well as the press at the
time.
Center For World Peace and Understanding
October 30, 2000
Meeting with Ambassador Hasan, October 24, 2000
The meeting with Ambassador Saeed Hasan, Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United
Nations, occurred at their UN Delegation offices in New York at 12 noon October 24,
2000.
Ambassador Hasan was cordial, warm, and friendly. He was very interested in a “Peace
Bridge Building Project with Iraq”. He seemed excited, not only on the telephone during
the preliminary discussion of the project, but during our meeting.
Mr. Hasan opened the discussion by stating that America and Iraq had high prospects for
good relations in the future for several reasons:
1. Historical good relations with America. In the past Iraq/US relations have been good.
2. It is time to end the current situation and explore peaceful avenues.
3. Iraq is a secular power in a region where religious fanaticism is prospering.
4. Iraq’s Baath Party is based on modern political and economic theory.
5. Iraq is more connected to the western civilization than GCC Gulf regimes and holds
openness to Western values.
6. During the 1980’s Iraq paid a heavy price to maintain stability of the region and to
prevent the spread of Islamic radicals.
7. A sincere desire to forget about the past and to have good relations with America and
the West in the future.
8. A belief that there is no other solution than dialogue to the
current situation.
Mr. Hasan stated that he feels progress will be made when:
1. Iraq is free from military attack.
2. Iraq is free from demonization in political speeches and in western press.
3. Iraq is free from interference in the internal affairs of its country.
Mr. Hasan stated he feels it is high time to end the current situation
and explore peaceful solutions. He believes that the continued sanctions against Iraq
hurt America’s image in the world, as they cause America to be seen as “killers of
children” thru the results of the sanctions.
Mr. Hasan stated the Sanctions and No Fly Zones harms the basis of international law and
that the No Fly Zones are not based on any UN Resolution.
Iraq is open to Western and American business.
Mr. Hasan states that America is the end consumer of most Iraqi oil and therefore Iraq
would like to have Iraqi oil developed by American oil companies and that Iraq is open
to further development by western business interests once the current situation is
resolved.
Iraq is committed to all Treaties of Weapons of Mass Destruction-Non Proliferation for
everyone in the region and that they are ready to work on a Non Proliferation Treaty for
the entire Middle East.
Mr. Hasan stated it is unrealistic for one or some countries in the Middle East to be
allowed such weapons and others to be banned from having them. He stated it is in the
interest of the entire region and humanity in general to ban such weapons.
Mr. Hasan suggested that for further “Building of Peace Bridges with Iraq” the following
course of action:
1. Lift economic sanctions. He states there is “no justification” for the continuance.
2. Stop all actions military or other interfering in the affairs of Iraq.
3. Eliminate the “No Fly Zones”.
4. Respect Iraqi sovereignty.
5. Return to the UN Charter.
6. Return to observance of International law in all respects.
Mr. Hasan further stated that Iraq is ready to give full respect to Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia.
It is our hope that these actions will be taken to end the suffering of the people of
Iraq and to improve their living situation. We believe these actions will improve the
security of the entire region, reduce the general level of tension in the Middle East,
and improve the light in which America is viewed in the world.
Warm regards,
Center for World Peace and Understanding
Founders note: This was what was presented to Northern Gulf Affairs and many other
offices and officials….unfortunately, the war went forward…..how many more wars they
have planned is not known
at this time.
Posted by: Ravenhawk | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Ok, Ravenhawk, I going to try to be liberal here for a second and engage in diologue.
You want to see Israel destroyed, I don't. Where is the middle ground, is there middle
ground?
Posted by: Bill Pearlman | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 10:15 PM
David you wrote:
"Arie, your arguments would be more convincing if when you say "oil" you would be more
careful about distinguishing between oil industry interests (Exxon-Mobil profits), and
national energy security interests (usually called "access"). I'm often not clear to
which you're referring. (BTW, the idea that my government might be thinking about
ensuring long-term energy access doesn't frighten me in the least -- it's what I expect
them to be doing. Good relations with the countries who want to sell the stuff is a good
starting strategy.)"
I made the distinction that you indicate by talking of the difference between the
interests represented by lobbies and a 'national agenda'. But, I agree, your wording is
more precise.
As to the desirability of safeguarding 'long-term energy access' by peaceful means: I
couldn't agree more.
But even Carter seems to have had a plan, around 1980, to seize the Iranian oil fields
with military means (see my latest comment on Phil's previous entry). Albright once
formulated one aspect of American thought on this matter: what is the use of having the
most impressive armed forces in the world if you don't use them.
Posted by: Arie Brand | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 11:28 PM
It's ranked #82 on Amazon. It's not going to be ignored. Trust me.
I just spoke by phone today to Mearsheimer about the Chicago event cancellation. The guy
is amazingly reasonable, lucid & coherent. It is the attackers & opponents who are
shrill & desperate.
BTW, Abe Foxman's anti-Israel Lobby diatribe book is ranked 15,000. Just desserts. But
tell me why anyone would want to buy that piece of dreck??
Posted by: Richard
<http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=2311324&id=81384057> Silverstein
| September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
01, 2007 at 11:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
"It's not going to be ignored. Trust me."
Ohhh, I hope you're right. :)
Here is the first true review, in The Sunday Times of London, written by Max Hastings.
It's vey positive. Remembering that the Sunday Times is a Murdoch paper, the last two
paragraphs should give you a feel for the huge discrepancy in world views on either side
of the Atlantic--
"For Europeans, all this adds up to a bleak picture. Only America might be capable of
inducing the government of Israel to moderate its behaviour, and it will not try.
Washington gives Jerusalem a blank cheque, and all of us in some degree pay a price for
Israel’s abuses of it.
"After that remark, I shall be pleasantly surprised to escape an allegation from
somebody that I belong in the same stable of antisemites as Walt and Mearsheimer. Yet
otherwise intelligent Americans diminish themselves by hurling charges of antisemitism
with such recklessness. There will be no peace in the Middle East until the United
States faces its responsibilities there in a much more convincing fashion than it does
today, partly for reasons given in this depressing book."
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/boo...
cle2348741.ece
Posted by: David | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
02, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Why are you a self-hating Jew?
Posted by: Hymie Weiss-Goldberg | September
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html#co...>
02, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
September 2, 2007
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for IranSarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran,
designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a
national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last
week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s
nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative
foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded:
“Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the
Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran
of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the
US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
Related Links
Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush
was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said ? to the Iranians and to
members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third
resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant”
cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had
slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but
Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain
it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards
acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it
would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become
necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its
own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back
down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which
uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was
being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,”
he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have
practised deception.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week
by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already
fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that
explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and
Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major
problem the coalition must tackle”.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied
munitions had increased in recent months ? “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise
the security situation in Iraq”.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat
believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that
they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
--------------------------------------
Showdown Over Iran
We can stop the coming war with Iran – but concerned Americans must act quickly
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11534
----------------------------------------
Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631
http://nomorewarforisrael.com
---------------------------------
New book challenges US support for Israel
NEW YORK: An upcoming book challenging whether diplomatic and military support for
Israel is in the best interests of the United States is set to spark fresh debate on
Washington’s role in the Middle East.
“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” written by two of the United States’ most
influential political science professors, is set to hit the bookshelves next Tuesday and
promises to break the taboo on the subject. Written by John Mearsheimer from the
University of Chicago and Stephen Walt from Harvard, the book follows an article they
published last year that stirred impassioned debate by setting out a similar position.
Their thesis is that US endorsement of Israel is not fully explained by strategic or
moral reasons, but by the pressure exerted by Jewish lobbyists, Christian
fundamentalists and neo-conservatives with Zionist sympathies.
The result, according to the book, is an unbalanced US foreign policy in the Middle
East, the US invasion of Iraq, the threat of war with Iran or Syria and a fragile
security situation for the entire Western world. “Israel is not the strategic asset to
the United States that many claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the
Cold War, but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over,” the
authors said.
“Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism around the world,
helped fuel America’s terrorism problem, and strained relations with other key allies in
Europe, the Middle East, and Asia,” they added.
According to the two writers, “backing Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians has
reinforced Anti-Americanism around the world and almost certainly helped terrorists
recruit new followers.”
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, described the book as “an
insidious, biased account of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the role of supporters of
Israel in the US,” in an interview with AFP.
“Everything about American policy toward the conflict is presented in exaggerated form,
as if America is completely one-sided in support of Israel and that those policies are
simply the product of the Israel lobby.” He is countering Mearsheimer and Walt’s book
with his own title: “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish
Control,” due out on the same day.
Mearsheimer and Walt highlight the three billion dollars in US economic and military aid
that Israel receives every year - more than any other country. They also point to
Washington’s diplomatic support: between 1972 and 2006, the United States vetoed 42
United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, while watering
down many others under threat of veto. Foxman counters that the special relationship
works both ways and that the United States has gained much out of its ally.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a public debate on the issue planned for
September and featuring Mearsheimer and Walt when they were unable to s
