See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: de Borchgrave on the Zio-Yentas. Quite ballsy (my title).
Source:
Wash Times
URL Source: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060428-083819-7632r_page2.htm
Published: May 1, 2006
Author: Arnaud de Borchgrave
Post Date: 2006-05-01 20:35:36 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 238
Comments: 50
Touching the third rail By Arnaud de Borchgrave April 29, 2006 A quarter of a million people marched in Manhattan. 100,000 squeezed into Madison Square Garden, many of them in uniform. More than 100,000 telegrams deluged the White House. All demanded immediate recognition of the about-to-be-born new state of Israel. Most of President Truman's Cabinet was against it. The most formidable naysayer was then-Secretary of State Gen. George Marshall. Following World War II, foreign policy professionals wrote scores of position papers that warned an independent Jewish state would trigger a "reject phenomenon" throughout the Middle East. David K. Niles, in charge of Jewish affairs at the White House, was a persuasive advocate of, and organizer for, Israel. The Holocaust of 6 million Jews, the telegrams and the marchers in New York clinched it for Truman, Israel was born at midnight (local time) May 14, 1948. U.S. recognition followed 11 minutes later. A geopolitical honeymoon lasted until 1956 when Israel, France and Britain secretly joined forces, without informing President Eisenhower, to invade Egypt to wrest back control of the Suez Canal nationalized by president Abdel Gamal Nasser, then a budding Soviet protege. The Soviet Union's Nikita Khrushchev seized the moment to invade Hungary to suppress an anti-communist revolution, and then rattled his rockets at Eisenhower over Suez. Eisenhower, angry and indignant at allied perfidy, and anxious to avoid a wider conflict, told the three conspiring powers to clear out of Egypt pronto. The special U.S.-Israel relationship encountered another major hiccup during the 1967 Six-Day War when friend and foe alike whistled with admiration when Israel decimated three Arab armies in less than a week. Israeli warplanes repeatedly attacked the USS Liberty, a ship intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides, flying the U.S. flag on a clear day, 15 miles off the Sinai coast, killing 34 sailors, wounding 171. . Since then Israeli and U.S. interests have gradually merged, a perception carefully nurtured by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably Washington's most powerful lobby, or at least co-equal in influence with the NRA (National Rifle Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons).With some 200 employees and 100,000 wealthy benefactors, AIPAC claims it doesn't have to register as a foreign agent because all its funding comes from U.S. sources. There are also more than 500,000 Israelis with dual citizenship, a number of them AIPAC contributors. Over the years, AIPAC has maneuvered to make Israel the third rail of American foreign policy. The handful of members of Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap, or, worse, lost their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents. Israel is an integral part of America's body politic. Yet the recent publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," an 83-page paper published on Harvard's Web site by two prominent academics, ran into a firestorm of vilification from government, academia and the media for documenting what is already well established. The co-authors are neither neo-Nazi skinheads nor anti-Semites. John J. Mearsheimer is a political science professor and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. Stephen M. Walt is academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Both are members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Some of their conclusions about the Israel lobby's goals: "No lobby has managed to divert foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical." American supporters of Israel promoted the war against Iraq. The senior administration officials who spearheaded the campaign were also in the vanguard of the pro-Israel lobby, e.g. then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; Elliott Abrams, Mideast affairs at the White House; David Wurmser, Mideast affairs for Vice President Richard Cheney; Richard Perle, first among neocon equals, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory body of strategic experts. • A similar effort is now under way to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. • AIPAC is fighting registering as foreign agents because this would place severe limitations on its congressional activities, particularly in the legislative electoral arena.... American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does. The co-authors recall it was Messrs. Perle, Feith and Wurmser who put their names to a 1996 policy blueprint for Benjamin Netanyahu's then incoming government in Israel. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [Israel]," the three neocons said the rebuilding of Zionism must abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians (i.e., repeal the Oslo accords). Next Saddam Hussein must be overthrown and democracy established in Iraq, which would then prove contagious in Israel's other Arab neighbors. When NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" asked Mr. Perle about his geopolitical laundry list for Israel's benefit, he replied, "What's wrong with that?" For all this to succeed, the neocon strategic thinkers wrote, "Israel would have to win broad American support." And to ensure this support, they advised the Israeli prime minister to use "language familiar to Americans by tapping into themes of past U.S. administrations during the Cold War, which apply as well to Israel." An Israeli columnist in Ha'aretz said Mr. Perle and Mr. Feith had been "walking a fine line" between "their loyalty to American governments" and "Israeli interests." Clearly, the FBI did not understand the role and power of AIPAC when it launched an investigation into espionage on behalf of Israel. The accused was Larry Franklin, an Iranian expert in Mr. Feith's 1,600-strong Pentagon shop. Classified Pentagon documents on Iran had been shared with senior AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. An Israeli diplomat was the ultimate recipient. When Franklin was arrested, the Israeli was promptly recalled. AIPAC fired its two senior officials who then were also indicted on charges of receiving and transmitting classified defense information in violation, not of the Espionage Act, but an obscure World War I-era statute. Franklin was sentenced to a prison term of almost 13 years -- but allowed to remain free with a promise of a much-reduced sentence if he helped the prosecution of Rosen-Weissman. But Mr. Rosen, as AIPAC's brilliant director of foreign policy issues, has a global Rolodex of 6,000 influential friends. For the last 23 years, he has been the architect of numberless congressional initiatives to meet Israel's strategic and funding needs. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III and prosecutors were running in to an invisible buzzsaw of pressure for a dismissal motion. Judge Ellis authorized defense subpoenas for calling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, two ranking officials Mr. Rosen claims also shared classified information. Judge Ellis then postponed the trial from May 17 to early August when most chattering class cognoscente will be on vacation and a motion to dismiss will hardly be noticed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
************* The co-authors recall it was Messrs. Perle, Feith and Wurmser who put their names to a 1996 policy blueprint for Benjamin Netanyahu's then incoming government in Israel. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [Israel]," the three neocons said the rebuilding of Zionism must abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians (i.e., repeal the Oslo accords). Next Saddam Hussein must be overthrown and democracy established in Iraq, which would then prove contagious in Israel's other Arab neighbors. And THERE you have it!! The crux of the war in Iraq and the mideast.. NOT OIL!!!!
"The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion." Frederick Douglass
bump
Amazing that de Borchgrave would stick his neck out so. Things must be much worse that we realize.
And consider this is the Washington Times?? Even more so..
"The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion." Frederick Douglass
Is this for real??? Did they really run this?? If this is real, what is the meaning of it all?
See what hideous inbreding does to the brain? People start to believe the most bizarre fantasies.
"I aim to misbehave" -- Mal Reynolds, Firefly
Yes, for real - click on the URL. I'm thinking things are so acute in DC that people of de Borchgrave stature are forced to begin dealing in reality. Why continue the masquerade if all is spinning out of control? This article smacks of desperation. Strap on the seat belt.
Yes, it does in fact reek of desperation. Do you think that's why all this immigration cr@p is going on now??
O peration I raqi L iberation __ OIL Hehehehehehe !!!
------------------------------------------------------------ Kennedy Assassination ... Bush (I) did it ! 9-11 ... Bush (II) did it ! "Sarah if the American people ever find out what we have done to them, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us". [George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon] Might be. This immigration stuff could very well be a diversion. The timing works so well for Bush, and it is highly organized. Consider what the national debate was immediately before this mess. At least 6 former generals had called the Iraqi war a disaster. Rummy’s head was being fitted with a noose, and Bush’s cabinet was in turmoil. All this has been swept away and our focus is now on the boob tube. Classic bread and circus.
Or a Buckwheat hairdo.
I'm not entirely sure where (or if) to begin. There's little "biblical" about the article or the context aside from the reality of Israel's existance. I'm not clear on the point de Borchgrave is trying to make, aside from the usual 'beware the Israeli lobby' stuff, which is in part factual and in part old news and over-spun. de Borchgrave's selective history is too spotty on which to base an informed opinion. The article doesn't seem all that significant on any level - nothing new, and even old positions are rehashed poorly. He's also a day late to jump in the Mearsheimer-Walt discussion, and a dollar short in that he quotes their paper: but fails to grasp that Mearsheimer-Walt didn't actually specify at all "what the American national interest would otherwise suggest" (they were silent on what American policy would or should have been sans Israel, so they really have no basis to evaluate 'how far diverted' actual policy was - ie they provided no point of comparison, they merely assumed an unsubstantiated result) nor does de Borchgrave add anything on that score. de Borchgrave presumes much to think he knows what the FBI thinks about AIPAC or Judge Ellis's management of Rosen's trial. It seems speculation, it certainly isn't investigatve - nothing like Jason Leopold's writing. That's roughly my perspective on this particular article...
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I see nothing selective with his recant of the Ziocon's rationale for war. It's fact.
Good old Stymie.
This is my biblical perspective based upon Israel Finkelstein's book, The Bible Unearthed. He is a leading Israeli archaeologist. 1) The original Jews were Canaanites who lived in the highlands and fought against the lowlanders so they are not genetically separate from the Palestinians and have less right to the land than their brothers in the camps. 2) The Israelis of ancient days were never slaves in Egypt. 3) There never was a unified kingdom of Israel and Judah. 4) Jerusalem at the time of King David had 1,600 residents. There never was a glorious Davidic kingdom. 5) Solomon never built a Temple at Jerusalem. 6) The Passover was never celebrated at Jerusalem until 600 years after the fictional events were said to have occured. 7) The Book of The Law was not found until 622 B.C. under the rule of King Josiah. I am not an atheist. In fact I am much more "religious" than most. My religion does not permit me to condone the killing of unarmed civilans. My religion does not permit to use starvation as a political weapon. My religion does not support imperialism. My religion is opposed to all but defensive wars. We have not had a defensive war in this country since my great grandparents came here. So I guess I would have been opposed to all of them.
Current rationale (anyone's) is not history. I was speaking to his "history" in the first 3 paragraphs and the absence of any recent history for the last 40 years - very spotty old history and no 'recent' history. When you say "recant", did you mean "recount"?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Fact. The Zio bastards managed to convince The Religious Wacko posing as President that this scheme (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm) was viable. As we know it's a cluster fuck.
I'll grant you it is fact that Bush, "the decider", decided to attack Iraq. But what is argued is that it was only because the "Zio bastards managed to convince [him]". That is entirely a presumption, and I don't even think a plausible one. Yes it's screwed up, yes Bush wanted regime change in Iraq (and eleswhere), but no not because of Israel's benefit. Bush had bigger reasons than Israel, not necessarily smart ones, but bigger non-Israeli reasons. He can be stupid all on his own - he doesn't need (and in fact rejects any and all) advice. He does what he wants for his reasons and if someone else benefits as well, then they owe him favors. But we're arguing rational - not history. And Bush was jamming the Road Map for Peace down Sharon's throat - and may yet though it depends largely on being able to rebuild US influence and credibility - not likely at this juncture. Point being Israel does not get everything it wants, more than it should perhaps, but not everything it wants and some things it doesn't want from the US.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Rice and Burns are not at issue here. Screw these rotten bastards. Too bad they did not get charged with the Espionage Act so we could make them dance on the end of a rope.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from psychosis.
I'm in full agreement with you.
"Of the corporate elites, by the corporate elites, for the corporate elites" - it's what America is all about. Now send your kids off to fight and die in Iraq so that corporate pigs get everything and we get nothing. What else have we ever fought for?~~Elliott J
How could they "specify" what what the American national interest would otherwise suggest unless they could see into an alternate reality where we didn't support Israel? All you have to do is to imagine an America without an albatross around its' neck. It's that easy. No sophistry reqd.
I don't have a problem with archeological claims, but please, let's not be so disingenuous as to label them a "biblical perspective" when it is (as was intended) entirely the opposite implying the Bible is false. Sincerely, feel free to state your claims of falsehood but let's not pretend they're "biblical". Words do have meaning. [Fyi to *Bereans*] Finkelstein's work is not widely accepted, and has been refuted by peers: Three Debates about Bible and Archaeology (excerpted): At a theoretical level, at issue is whether or not Finkelstein has isolated a significant factual discrepancy in ceramic chronology of such moment that it requires the changes for which he calls. The archaeological community as a whole rejects Finkelstein's ceramic chronology on well argued archaeological grounds35. The consensus maintains that published, and reported but still unpublished, archaeological evidence supports both a tenth and ninth century dates for the tell-tale pottery as well as for the construction of monumental projects at the above-mentioned sites36. In the few places where evidence for such projects is unaccountably missing, the absence may be attributed in part to erosion, ancient robbing, and, in the case of Jerusalem, to Roman engineers who preferred building on stable, hard, flat, surfaces. They shaved large areas almost to bedrock, removing the debris of earlier construction, in order to create uncluttered platforms for their own structures37. It has been suggested orally at a few archaeological meetings that since no clear tenth century BCE stratum was found at Jezreel, the absence of the burnished red slip ware in what was found sealed under the ninth century stratum may be due to Ahab who ordered a similar clearing of the site prior to constructing a palace and administrative center38. In any event, the absence of evidence may not be interpreted facilely as evidence of absence39. The Stones of Jerusalem Speak (excerpted): We also found ancient pottery of Jerusalem from the Jebusite period, the King David and King Solomon period, and the First Temple period of the Iron Age (12th-6th centuries B.C.E.). We concluded this after examining both the gigantic stones of the structure and the pottery, which we used to date the findings. These are the main artifacts utilized in building the case that the remains are of King David's palace. YIJ: Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that it is King David's palace if the story of King David is extant only in the Bible, which some would argue is not a historical, but a religious text? EM: Let's set the Bible aside for a moment and examine the technicalities of archaeology. It is important to consider the nature of the structure we found; it could not simply be a monument because the inner walls - two and a half meters thick - are far larger than in regular monumental construction. Furthermore, the pottery under the structure, dated to the 12th or 11th centuries B.C.E., indicates a construction date. Additionally, within the structure we found pottery dated to the 10th or 9th century B.C.E., which indicates that the building was erected some time between the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 10th century B.C.E. In terms of biblical references, this is the time period when King David ruled. The key question now is determining what the structure was. It was built in an elevated part of the City of David, from which one can exercise effective control over surrounding areas. We cannot assume that an ordinary building, no matter how monumental, was erected in such a location; it must therefore have been very important. If it is not a regular house, which is obvious, what else could it have been? The considerable time and skill invested in the construction suggest that it must have been extraordinarily impressive - so it would have been something like a temple, a fortress, or a palace. The most extreme criticism comes from Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, who believes that the Bible does not reflect history. It will be hard for him to accept new facts since he based his claims and theories on the absence of evidence that I discussed before. Now that actual evidence has been found, I think he will find it very difficult to accept, but he will eventually have to. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
And yet, as easy as you claim that is, you haven't addressed that very issue posed to you before, have you. Here's another chance then: What would our interests in Iran be regarding Russia and China, assuming Israel didn't exist? What problems face the US Dollar if Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, begin selling oil for say Eruos instead of dollars, assuming Israel didn't exist? From whom will the US import oil over the next 10 years and at what impact to the US economy, assuming Israel didn't exist? What would the US have done when Iraq invaded Kuwait, assuming Israel didn't exist? Who would the US have supported against the Russians in Afghanistan, assuming Israel didn't exist? Would the US have supported either Iraq or Iran against each other, assuming Israel didn't exist? How should the US deal with N. Korea, assuming Israel didn't exist? (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The Old Testament is nonsense. I do not take it seriously. I am a religious person. I practice my religion. I work at it daily. I pray and meditate daily. But I am still convinced that the Old Testament is nonsense. It says in the OT that the Book of the Law was not discovered until 622 B.C. The modern Jews have no claim to the land of Palestine. I do not care about ceramic pottery. But I do understand that there was no Temple of Solomon. Jerusalem only had 1,600 people at the time of David so there was no glorious kingdom. We can have a first rate religion with great depth and beauty and power without the nonsense that appears in the Old Testament. My perspective on the Old Testament is that it has outlived its usefulness. It purports to record the wanderings of a tribal people thousands of years ago. It cannot be used to guide us today. I don't care if it does advocate and justify genocide. I don't care if it promised Palestine to the Jews. It is nonsense. It is indefensible to use the Old Testament to justify Israel's racist, imperialistic and terroristic policies.
You might as well ask me If the wheel would have been invented if Israel didn't exist. Any answer would be total conjecture. I do believe that an even handed foreign policy instead of the obvious double standard that we have maintained for the last thirty or so years that everyone in the world can see,including Hugo Chavez, would have done much to alleviate the situation in which we now find ourselves. Ideally, I would have preferred a foreign policy more in line with George Washinton's ideas. I believe the United States would be better of if Israel didn't exist.
But what is argued is that it was only because the "Zio bastards managed to convince [him]". That is entirely a presumption, and I don't even think a plausible one. Yes it's screwed up, yes Bush wanted regime change in Iraq (and eleswhere), but no not because of Israel's benefit. Bush had bigger reasons than Israel, not necessarily smart ones, but bigger non-Israeli reasons. He can be stupid all on his own - he doesn't need (and in fact rejects any and all) advice. He does what he wants for his reasons and if someone else benefits as well, then they owe him favors. Bush the decider "IS NOT A FACT" this is a naieve assumption. Bush is surrounded by the PNAC Sanhedrin, these Zio-Nazis were soliciting regime change years before "smirk" was elected. Bush having bigger reasons than Israel to attack the Middle-East is an unbelieveable assumption. Bush is a puppet subject to the string pulling zio-nazi Rothschild Israeli Fraud. Now let's all say a Talmudic prayer with the latest fag zionist, Josh Bolten, the President's new Chief of Staff (Gate Keeper).
------------------------------------------------------------ Kennedy Assassination ... Bush (I) did it ! 9-11 ... Bush (II) did it ! "Sarah if the American people ever find out what we have done to them, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us". [George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon] Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from psychosis. I've wondered that myself. All those super-high IQ people in Mensa tend toward being socially inept nerds who can't do much of anything except brag about their IQs. They act more like children that adults. One of my roomates when I was 18 had an IQ of 155+. One day I saw him put a pizza in the oven still in the wrapper. I told him the plastic wrapper would melt into the pizza and ruin it. He told me this never occurred to him.
"I aim to misbehave" -- Mal Reynolds, Firefly
Marcion the first editor, compiler, of the New Testament ( Rome, AD 135-150) believed Paul the prophet had declared the Old Testament as fulfilled and concluded. Going a step farther, Marcion the real creator of the New Testament pronounced the Old Testament defeated and cancelled. He saw in Paul’s work only the basis on which to found the true religion of salvation, and he strove to cut everything Jewish out of it, down to the last detail. From end to end he was fighting nothing but Judaism. If he had had his way, the New Testament would have stood alone, without the evil corruption of Jehovah, Yahweh, the Demiurge, the Creator-God, whatever, and the burden to lesser humans of a Jewish master race in a book that was written by Jews and for Jews. Well, as we all know, the early Roman Church canonized the Old Testament, and it has corrupted Christianity ever since. One could say that the popularity of the New Testament, carrying the Old along in its wake, has given legitimacy to the so-called Jews of today, imposters for the most part, with no connection to ancient Israel, let alone God. If the Old Testament had not been included with the New, and if the Khazar Kingdom had not converted to Judaism eight centuries after Christ, Judaism likely would have perished as a major religion. The key is the word, “Judeo,” as in Judeo-Christian. I must agree with Marcion, the real creator of the New Testament, that the symbiosis with the Old Testament not only confounds but defeats the good principals of Christianity. In the end the Old Testament may prove to be the poison that destroys the message of Christ, giving final victory to the modern-day Pharisees, i.e Zionism and its Christian Zionist syncopates.. -Z-.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Mass paranoia??
"The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion." Frederick Douglass
I get it. de Borchgrave follows Mearsheimer & Walt's work with a clone and you dismiss it as "a presumption." Since you offer no basis for this conclusion, I'm left thinking that your blind spot is driven by religion. Well God bless you Starwind. Despite your presumptions, I can assure when mankind does lurch into hell on earth, you will be among the suffering. No stairway to heaven is coming for the chosen few. Sorry.
Bingo, BTP!
You inequitably ignored that Mearsheimer & Walt offered no basis either for their presumption that American foreign policy would be different than what it is without Israel. de Borchgrave makes that same presumption, as do you. I believe Bush's reasons and motivations for the war on Iraq were that he believed (rightly or wrongly): 1) he was ridding the world of terrorism and Iraq was a player (though he knew he couldn't tie Iraq to 9/11, Hussein's dabbling in supporting terrorism and WMD were good enough excuses) - that was the public PR story. 2) Having warred with Iran, invaded Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia, Iraq was a danger to stable oil supply. 3) Iraq also threatened the status of the USD as world reserve currency if it triggered sales of oil in Euros. 4) Russia was gaining control and influence in Iraq's oil production and military - Iraq was a Russian client, and the Russians needed to be contained. 5) China was seeking influence in Iraq as well, and the Chinese needed to be pre-empted. 6) The US would get no support from UNSEC on dealing with Iran or Iraq militarily, either China or Russia would always veto any force authorizations. 7) In the middle east; Russia was gaining influence as a supplier of military and petrochemical technology; China was also gaining influence as an energy production partner and military ally. Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were sponsoring terrorism. Pakistan and N. Korea were spreading nuclear weapons technology to Iran and (so it was thought) Iraq. The 'big picture' was regime change throughout the middle east to contain Russian and Chinese influence, stop terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation, ensure stability of oil production, and protect the USD. Iran was most difficult, Afghanistan having been subdued and Pakistan co-opted, Iraq was next to encircle Iran and provide a base of operations. Argue that the above rationale is mistaken, fine. But don't pretend that de Borchgrave or Mearsheimer & Walt (or anyone else on this thread) gave serious throught to what American foreign policy would "suggest" without Israel. Nor has de Borchgrave, Mearsheimer-Walt or anyone on this forum, IIRC, elaborated on what America's foreign policy would "suggest" outside the middle east, regarding Libya, North Korea, Brazil, Venezuela, Indonesia, Russia, China, India, the UN, etc. The blindness to all things Israel bespeaks an irrational obsessive compulsion.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Gee, ya think. And works, too.
Pray you will never know, the hell where youth and laughter go - Siegfried Sassoon. Ypres, Autumn 1914.
There is a difference between a presumption and contention. Mearsheimer and Walt contend that there is an Israeli lobby led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a host of other pro-Jewish groups. They further contend that the lobby also includes powerful gentiles positioned within the administration. They are the fulcrum of the neocon movement. In addition to Jewish influence, there is the very duped evangelical Christian movement which believes that a greater Israel is the fulfilment of God's will. This point is mystic bullshit to me, but I must say it sure helps the Zionists further their effort :)
Yes indeedy :)
Perhaps, but either can be made without substantiation, which is what I said when I pointed out that no one (not de Borchgrave nor Mearsheimer & Walt, nor you) had substantiated their premise that in fact American foreign policy is actually different from what would be otherwise "suggested" in absence of Israel. To contend or presume such requires comparing what American foreign policy actually is (assuming Israeli influence) to what American foreign policy is otherwise "suggested" (assuming absence of Israeli influence). That comparison was not done - it was only contended or presumed. As I illustrated above, Amercian foreign policy, IMO, can be near what has been observed without relying upon upon Israeli influence for motivation. AS previously agreed (at least by me), this is a non-issue. Of course there is an Israeli lobby and yes it has influence. But I have consistently disagreed that such influence is actually the reason American foreign policy is what it is. Iraq can be attacked (wrongly) for the reasons I listed above, much to the satisfaction of Israel, yes, but without Israel or Israeli influence actually being the main reasons. My argument, as I'm sure you know, has not been to dispute the existance of the Israeli lobby, but rather that it's existence doesn't matter all that much in the larger scheme of things - i.e., even without an Israeli lobby, Bush still would have attacked Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran... etc. Even without an Israeli lobby, the CIA would have fomented the Taliban against Russia, Iraq against Iran, and Bush I would have evicted Hussein from Kuwait. Yes there is an Israeli lobby (Mearsheimer and Walt merely documented what I thought everyone knew), yes it is a vocal lobby, but no they did not prove the Israeli lobby actually changed American geopolitical policy at large - they didn't even try - they assumed the results of a comparison they did not make. I really see no point in going over this again. I've not seen this in the few people I know personally. The public "christian" positions by Falwell, Reed, Bush, etc aren't christian or biblical at all. But I can understand why you want to tar all Christians with that brush. Knock yourself out.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
If you agree there is a "lobby" and that it's purpose it to influence, what, pray tell, would they influence except our foreign policy? Unless, of course, you feel we have a balanced foreign policy as it relates to Israel and the Middle East.
Comments (42 - 50) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAmerican supporters of Israel promoted the war against Iraq.
#2. To: Starwind, your biblical perspective on this sandpit please (#0)
#3. To: Jethro Tull, Zipporah (#2)
#4. To: Zipporah (#1)
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
Amazing that de Borchgrave would stick his neck out so. Things must be much worse that we realize.
#6. To: Dakmar (#3)
#7. To: Jethro Tull, bluegrass (#4)
#8. To: Zipporah (#1)
democracy established in Iraq, which would then prove contagious in Israel's other Arab neighbors
#9. To: Lady X (#7)
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
#11. To: Zipporah (#1)
And THERE you have it!! The crux of the war in Iraq and the mideast.. NOT OIL!!!!
#12. To: Lady X (#10)
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
The handful of members of Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap
I've already said too much.
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
your biblical perspective on this sandpit please
"No lobby has managed to divert foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical."
#15. To: Starwind (#14)
de Borchgrave's selective history is too spotty on which to base an informed opinion.
#16. To: MUDDOG (#13)
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
I've already said too much.
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
Starwind, your biblical perspective on this sandpit please
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
I see nothing selective with his recant of the Ziocon's rationale for war. It's fact.
#20. To: Starwind (#19)
The co-authors recall it was Messrs. Perle, Feith and Wurmser who put their names to a 1996 policy blueprint for Benjamin Netanyahu's then incoming government in Israel. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [Israel]," the three neocons said the rebuilding of Zionism must abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians (i.e., repeal the Oslo accords). Next Saddam Hussein must be overthrown and democracy established in Iraq, which would then prove contagious in Israel's other Arab neighbors.
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
Fact. The Zio bastards managed to convince The Religious Wacko posing as President that this scheme (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm) was viable. As we know it's a cluster fuck.
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III and prosecutors were running in to an invisible buzzsaw of pressure for a dismissal motion. Judge Ellis authorized defense subpoenas for calling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, two ranking officials Mr. Rosen claims also shared classified information.
#23. To: YertleTurtle (#8)
See what hideous inbreding does to the brain? People start to believe the most bizarre fantasies.
"Both the loss of the will to define and defend one’s native soil and the loss of the desire to procreate send an alluring signal to the teeming favellas and kazbahs: Come, for no Western nation has the guts to shed blood - alien or its own - in the name of its own survival."
-- Srdja Trifkovic
#24. To: Horse (#18)
My religion does not permit me to condone the killing of unarmed civilans. My religion does not permit to use starvation as a political weapon. My religion does not support imperialism. My religion is opposed to all but defensive wars. We have not had a defensive war in this country since my great grandparents came here. So I guess I would have been opposed to all of them.
#25. To: Starwind (#14)
but fails to grasp that Mearsheimer-Walt didn't actually specify at all "what the American national interest would otherwise suggest" (they were silent on what American policy would or should have been sans Israel, so they really have no basis to evaluate 'how far diverted' actual policy was - ie they provided no point of comparison, they merely assumed an unsubstantiated result)
#26. To: Horse, *Bereans* (#18)
This is my biblical perspective
based upon Israel Finkelstein's book, The Bible Unearthed. He is a leading Israeli archaeologist.
[Finkelstein] propounds a complex argument based on hand burnished red slip ware, i.e., a type dipped in a red clay wash and then buffed by hand with a piece of ceramic to give at least parts of it a shiny patina. At Jezreel, it was found only in the ninth century stratum and not in spotty, earlier tenth century material recovered at the site. Combining Jezreel data with those from his excavations at Megiddo, he concludes that this pottery is to be dated exclusively to the ninth century. Since, according to his dating, the pottery is associated with monumental architecture, he extrapolates that all such construction should be assigned to the ninth century, at the earliest. Consequently, attested construction projects assigned to David, Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeroboam in the tenth century on the basis of the established chronology and on the strength of Biblical accounts of their building activities, projects that infer the presence of significant economic resources, a labor pool supportable by an economy greater than subsistence level, and an organized, central administration, are dated incorrectly. The projects could only have been undertaken by kings living no less than 50 years after the death of Solomon.
EILAT MAZAR: In general, we found what we were looking for in the City of David, where the most ancient part of Jerusalem is located dating as early as the 3rd millennium B.C.E. We were surprised by how well it was preserved. We were excavating in the very core of ancient Jerusalem, which is called "Ir David," or the City of David - the Jebusite (Canaanite) city that David conquered and renamed Jerusalem. We excavated in the spot from which Jerusalem eventually enlarged and spread. We chose to dig there based on biblical sources which describe King David's palace being built by Hiram, the Phoenician king of Tyre.
#27. To: Rube Goldberg (#25)
All you have to do is to imagine an America without an albatross around its' neck. It's that easy. No sophistry reqd.
What would our interests in Iraq be regarding Iran, Russia and China, assuming Israel didn't exist?
So, without sophistry, please lay out those policies of "what the American national interest would otherwise suggest".
#28. To: Starwind (#26)
#29. To: Starwind (#27)
And yet, as easy as you claim that is, you haven't addressed that very issue posed to you before, have you.
#30. To: Starwind (#21)
I'll grant you it is fact that Bush, "the decider", decided to attack Iraq.
#31. To: Tauzero (#23)
See what hideous inbreeding does to the brain? People start to believe the most bizarre fantasies.
#32. To: Horse (#28)
We can have a first rate religion with great depth and beauty and power without the nonsense that appears in the Old Testament. My perspective on the Old Testament is that it has outlived its usefulness. It purports to record the wanderings of a tribal people thousands of years ago. It cannot be used to guide us today. I don't care if it does advocate and justify genocide. I don't care if it promised Palestine to the Jews. It is nonsense. It is indefensible to use the Old Testament to justify Israel's racist, imperialistic and terroristic policies.
#33. To: YertleTurtle (#8)
See what hideous inbreding does to the brain? People start to believe the most bizarre fantasies.
#34. To: Starwind (#21)
Yes it's screwed up, yes Bush wanted regime change in Iraq (and eleswhere), but no not because of Israel's benefit.Bush had bigger reasons than Israel...
#35. To: BTP Holdings (#22)
#36. To: Jethro Tull, Rube Goldberg (#34)
de Borchgrave follows Mearsheimer & Walt's work with a clone and you dismiss it as "a presumption." Since you offer no basis for this conclusion,
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#12)
This immigration stuff could very well be a diversion
#38. To: Starwind (#36)
#39. To: swarthyguy (#37)
#40. To: Jethro Tull (#38)
There is a difference between a presumption and contention.
Mearsheimer and Walt contend that there is an Israeli lobby led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a host of other pro-Jewish groups. They further contend that the lobby also includes powerful gentiles positioned within the administration. They are the fulcrum of the neocon movement.
In addition to Jewish influence, there is the very duped evangelical Christian movement which believes that a greater Israel is the fulfilment of God's will. This point is mystic bullshit to me, but I must say it sure helps the Zionists further their effort :)
#41. To: Starwind (#40)
.
.
.