1. jim said:

. ..for whatever reason... you say.. that reason is money. Thus, why bother telling them anything since their actions will result in grim justice for them - those few who are really behind it will, in the end, answer to "Jehovah" as he is called by them, or HaShem as he is called by us. Anyway, G-d be with you.

2. Bill Narvey said:

Dexter Van Zile's letter sent to the The Rev. John H. Thomas General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ posted here by Jerry Gordon today, is excellent on a number of levels.

Dexter deserves our applause and our highest regard and respect.

We can only hope along with Dexter that Dexter's letter will move The Rev. John H. Thomas and other leaders of the United Church of Christ to re-examine their own hearts and minds to experience an epiphany that they have been on the wrong side of the issues this whole time and to immediately set about to correct the wrongs and the damage they have already done thereby.

3. Barrie said:

I understand that the UCC is in general part of the most liberal wing of Christian churches in the USA, so I question how many 'mainstream' leaders or believers it represents. Judging by numbers only, the more evangelical denominations in the USA have the right to be termed the 'mainstream Protestants', not the declining liberals. They also appear to be very pro-Israel and so have a more realistic attitude to the Middle East's problems.
I conclude that evangelicals, and not liberals, have a stronger grasp on issues like peace, justice and democracy too, so it is no wonder the Israeli people are friendlier towards them..

4. Alex Eisenberg said:

I wish Bill Narvey were correct about the possibility of a pro-Israel 'epiphany' at the UCC. This could well be the case IF (AND ONLY IF) the main contents of Mr. Van Zile's letter were accurate.

However, it is not possible to get ordinary Christians and ordinary Jews to defend Israel when damaging propaganda is not replaced by truth. Mr. Van Zile's intentions may be the best, but as long as he is not informed of the non-existence of so-called 'moderate' Palestinian Arab leaders, his efforts are totally doomed.

His letter reproduces the most damaging anti-Israel lies - namely, that Israel has a "special relationship" with the US (this is the most antisemitic of all the lies); and that the PA (or 'ex-PLO') is moderate as opposed to radical Hamas. When these basic lies are believed to be true, no argument for the defense of Israel can possibly work, for one simply looks at the conflict upside down. This is exactly why Van Zile's letter is self-contradictory. For example, he says:

"The recent outcome of the recent elections in the Palestinian Authority has prompted me to write. Hamas, an organization dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, has won a large majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council."

The immediately subsequent paragraphs in the letter are based on the implicit assumption in the paragraph I quote above, namely that Hamas' victory is any more worrisome than a PA (Fatah) victory. But later in the letter Van Zile writes:

"Hamas' victory underscores problems in Palestinian society that help to prolong the conflict and encourage violence against Israelis. These problems include anti-Jewish incitement on Palestinian Television, hostile, anti-Semitic passages in Palestinian textbooks, and the PA's financial support to families of suicide bombers, who, in some instances, have official soccer tournaments named in their honor. Sadly, the UCC and its leaders have offered little, if any, acknowledgement of these problems."

Well, if Van Zile concedes that the PA has been financially supporting families of suicide bombers, antisemitic TV programs, etc., why is it suddenly worrisome that Hamas won the election? Because 'our' Western propaganda machine has been brainwashing us into believing that the PLO (now PA) is moderate and secular, as opposed to the religious fanaticism and radicalism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. And what does that propaganda offer us as a proof of their correctness? Just one thing: the fact that the PLO has agreed to ammend its original charter calling for the destruction of Israel (and let's not forget that Arafat got away with never quite getting to change the charter's text itself, just telling the West he had already gone as far as agreeing with it publicly, and the West did nothing about it)! Add to this the fact that the Western left has bitten the bait of Arafat being a leftist, and Abbas a Holocaust denier, and you get the tragic picture of how destructive Western propaganda is to Jews and Israel.

Oh, well, if all it takes to metamorphose the worst terrorists of the 20th century (the PLO) into acceptable negotiating partners is to have them publicly say they don't call for the destruction of Israel anymore, without even demanding that they physically change their charter's text (the one that's binding and distributed), then forcing Israel to swallow them (Oslo) even when they openly continued to engage in horrible attacks against Israel (remembering that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has always been a part of and sponsored by the PLO and now PA), then all the West has to do to is to convince Hamas to do exactly what the PLO did in the past. Have Hamas say that they don't want to destroy Israel anymore and that's it. If Arafat and Abbas got away with lying (and if the Al-Aqsa Brigades don't even need to blame others for their crimes, publicly assuming its authorship, thus making it very clear the idiots we Westerners are), then nothing has changed with Hamas' victory. If the Israelis didn't impeach Sharon upon his aboutface, and don't impeach Olmert for continuing Sharon's suicidal aboutface, then it becomes clearer that the Israelis are also victims of Western anti-Israel propaganda and support their treasonous government.

In sum, we have no chance unless we begin bombarding our neighbors with the truth. Less than that is useless, sometimes even harmful.

Shalom,
Alex

5. Ted Belman said:

Alex

Idisagree. Dexter simply acknowledges that some individuals may be mosderate but he also says indicts Palestinian society.

6. Ilana Rosen said:

Dexter Van Zile is a true friend of the Jewish people, and of truth and justice.

What never fails to puzzle me, however - is that there is no movement among honest peace-loving Christians to put pressure on the Churches to disinvest from countries with regimes who persecute Christians, and whose human rights records regarding other faiths are reprehensible. If people like Dexter would lead the way - I am sure they would find willing allies in Jews all over the world, myself included. I would be interested to know what other people think.

7. redbear said:

ONE MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THE MAIN GOAL OF ALL PROTESTANTS AND CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL IS TO CONVERT THE JEWS.

Regardless of what Dexter is talking about, once he realizes that Jew will not willingly convert he too will turn on the Jewish People.

CENTER FOR JEWISH LEADERSHIP- What the hell is that organization? Another arm for conversion?

Get real folks...Once Israel shows that it can protect their own people, then and only then will the world rally behind her. Right now that is not happening...and you see the results.

8. Bill Narvey said:

Alex,

I am not sure what set you off about Dexter's letter to the President of the UCC. Dexter as a member of the UCC is familiar with the views of the UCC leadership and addressed those views that needed addressing.

Though I might quibble over certain things Dexter said or the way he expressed himself, that would be undeserved nitpicking.

I can only repeat that Dexter deserves our admiration for the letter he wrote to the UCC.

As for your critique, a few points to address. You state:

"His letter reproduces the most damaging anti-Israel lies - namely, that Israel has a "special relationship" with the US (this is the most antisemitic of all the lies."

First of all, it is not a lie. Secondly it is not anti-semitic to state such relationship exists.

In spite of the fact that the U.S. policies regarding Israel in the context of the Israel-Palestinian issues, have been rightly the subject of criticism, when you consider overall that Israel probably would not be here today but for American support, economically, politically and militarily, one can fairly state that America does have a special relationship with Israel and thank God for that. While anti-Semites howl over that relationship, it does not make that description of the relationship anti-Semitic.

There are indeed concerns over the Hamas victory. The Hamas victory tears away the pretense that the world maintained to convince itself and many Israelis that the vast majority of Palestinians were moderate and seeking peace and that the PA was not like Hamas.

Though the Hamas victory clarfies hindsight about what the majority of the Palestinians believe and want and points to the folly of the wishful thinking of the past, it leaves the future even more uncertain. Uncertainty, whether in an individual or society as a whole, is very significant stressor.

Though some are grasping at straws of hope to suggest that Hamas will for a number of reasons moderate its views, it appears that those who articulate such views are not convinced themselves that can really happen and so the future remains shrouded in veils of obscurity which induces a sense of unsettling uncertainty.

You also make the statement that Sharon's policies, which Olmert appears to be pursing as suicidal and treasonous for which Israel ought to have impeached. You imply that the failure to impeach Sharon/Olmert is evidence that Israel too has fallen under the spell of western propaganda about Palestinians and the PA being moderate.

You state this as a self evident truth, however it is far from that. While you are in the anti-Sharon camp there are many who supported and still support Sharon's policies and they are not all drawn from the left.

I make these several comments Alex to simply point out that things are not as clear and simple as you have made them out.

9. Alex Eisenberg said:

Responding to Ted and Bill,

Ted,

You wrote:

I disagree. Dexter simply acknowledges that some individuals may be moderate but he also says indicts Palestinian society.

Ted, if you don’t quote, it is hard to prove your point. I was very specific in my post and quoted Dexter’s text, not to disqualify it or to attack him. Rather to point out that it is useless to protest without undoing lies. That’s all. If you carefully read Dexter’s letter again, as I just did to re-examine my post and find possible mistakes, you’ll see that you don’t disagree with me (certainly not by what you wrote above).

In sum, I don’t doubt for a moment Dexter’s good will towards us and, more important than that, justice as a value. I just pointed out that his text makes inexistent distinctions that are a result of anti-Israel propaganda, which he unwittingly reproduces. And this is important because he is precisely trying to get his fellow UCC colleagues to look at reality as it is. One has to be very careful about what one writes down. Otherwise you run the risk of being misunderstood. I didn’t find any mistake in my post. If you did, please be specific.

Now, answering Bill Narvey,

Bill wrote: I am not sure what set you off about Dexter's letter to the President of the UCC. Dexter as a member of the UCC is familiar with the views of the UCC leadership and addressed those views that needed addressing.

Did I say Dexter’s letter was addressing the wrong issues? No, I didn’t. So why are you saying this?

Though I might quibble over certain things Dexter said or the way he expressed himself, that would be undeserved nitpicking.

I’m sorry, Bill, but the reproduction of anti-Israel propaganda (even unwittingly) is not nitpicking. What are we here for? Just to applaud when people defend Jews? No, we do applaud and thank those who help us, but this doesn’t mean we have to let untruths pass for truths. Please read my post again and tell me where I nitpicked.

"His letter reproduces the most damaging anti-Israel lies - namely, that Israel has a "special relationship" with the US (this is the most antisemitic of all the lies."

First of all, it is not a lie. Secondly it is not anti-semitic to state such relationship exists. In spite of the fact that the U.S. policies regarding Israel in the context of the Israel-Palestinian issues, have been rightly the subject of criticism, when you consider overall that Israel probably would not be here today but for American support, economically, politically and militarily, one can fairly state that America does have a special relationship with Israel and thank God for that. While anti-Semites howl over that relationship, it does not make that description of the relationship anti-Semitic.

Ok, so let’s see: you argue that the US has a special relationship with Israel, without which “Israel would probably not be here today” because “the US supports Israel economically, politically and militarily.” But this is not yet an argument. This is just a statement. And it has been thoroughly refuted with documents of all kinds by Prof. Francisco Gil-White, from UPenn. So I’ll just refer you to his huge article instead of writing here a couple of words. If you can refute his entire article and prove your point, I’ll change my view. Here is the link: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally.htm

There are indeed concerns over the Hamas victory. The Hamas victory tears away the pretense that the world maintained to convince itself and many Israelis that the vast majority of Palestinians were moderate and seeking peace and that the PA was not like Hamas.

If you allow me, your sentence above contains only one truth, namely that the majority of Palestinians want Israel destroyed and the Jews out. Now, “the world,” as you put it, is an amorphous non-entity, and it doesn’t convince itself of anything. People simply respond to propaganda, as they always did in history. If you are able to make your propaganda prevail, then it is you and your stories that people will believe in. Plus, it is not true that Hamas’ victory proves to people that the PA was not like Hamas. In fact, president Bush’s speech points to the opposite, when he says that it was a pity that the PA had not won, ‘for’ one cannot negotiate with a party that seeks the partner’s destruction. Doesn’t this imply that the PA was ok?

What matters in the end is that Western propaganda has been systematically portraying Israel as the oppressor in the region, therefore deserving all the terrorism it gets. This tells people everywhere that terrorism is bad except when committed against Jews. Got it? Once you prepare people to accept the attacks against Jews as a moral response to Israel’s ‘oppression’ of Arabs, negotiating with Hamas becomes also acceptable. This is hardly new and the US is already prepared to just make Hamas ‘say’ that it accepts Israel’s existence, as the US did in the past with the PLO. The Israeli leadership has gone so crazy that they are willing to continue the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of its Jews even before the US begins the theater all over again. And the war will continue, and Israel is losing it, because it is handing over strategic territory to the enemy.

You also make the statement that Sharon's policies, which Olmert appears to be pursing as suicidal and treasonous for which Israel ought to have impeached. You imply that the failure to impeach Sharon/Olmert is evidence that Israel too has fallen under the spell of western propaganda about Palestinians and the PA being moderate.

You state this as a self evident truth, however it is far from that. While you are in the anti-Sharon camp there are many who supported and still support Sharon's policies and they are not all drawn from the left.

I didn’t state anything as a self-evident truth. Actually, I write quite a bit to prove my points. This obviously doesn’t mean that I am necessarily right, but the fact that I do all I can to prove my points demonstrate that I am definitely not stating ‘self-evident’ truths.

Back to your sentence above, I honestly don’t care if those supporting Sharon are rightists or leftists. Especially since being a rightist in Israel is equivalent to being a leftist in the West in many ways (this is another issue). I was for Sharon until he totally gave in to US pressure.

I make these several comments Alex to simply point out that things are not as clear and simple as you have made them out.

Curiously, this is precisely why I wrote what I wrote, that is, to analyze things a little bit. What stands out to me, Bill, is that you are making lots of statements without backing them up, as opposed to what I’m trying to do. It is precisely because things are not clear and simple that all of us are spending our precious time discussing all of these issues here, isn’t it? It is totally legitimate for you to complain that my arguments are not sufficient to make the points I try to make, but I can hardly agree with you that “I’m simplifying complex issues.”

Best,
Alex

10. Bill Narvey said:

Alex,

It was the tone and tenor of your commentary that I responded to in saying you had been set off.

My comment regarding underserved nitpicking referred to things that I found I might not quite disagree with or express differently. It had nothing to do with your comments.

My comment regarding the word “special” to describe Israel’s relationship with America was not an argument but a recognition that such descriptive word was a fair way to describe that relationship.

My comment that America has supported Israel politically, economically and militarily is true. That is not to say that America stands by Israel in all respects and has always demonstrated by its policies and actions the indicia of friendship that we in our personal lives understand the definition of friend to mean such as being one who stands by a declared friend through thick and thin.

I read briefly read portions of Prof. Gil-White’s article that you referred me to. Gil-White’s conclusion that there is and has always been an anti-Semitic American ruling elite that conspires behind the scenes to manipulate American policy against Israel’s interests, has been shaped by his analytical approach and frames of reference that he sets for himself as he weighs through the evidence he finds material to supporting his conclusion.

Gil-White's approach is to measure American policies and actions against traditional definitions of friend and ally in personal situation, which does not hold completely on the world stage.

In so doing, he references periods in American history when public sentiments and American policy have been unquestionably influenced by anti-Semitism. He further limits his analysis to defining America’s relationship and interaction with Israel as friend or foe, more in the context of that relationship alone.

Gil-White appears to exclude from his analysis within the context of his definitions of ally and friend, America’s core world policies intended to advance America’s own self interest. Those core policies are about America’s self interest and not Israel’s, though America does have a core supportive policy regarding Israel as reflected in the support that America has given to Israel.

Those policies that advance America’s self interest will always take priority and more often than many would like to see, come in conflict with Israel’s best interests.

There are course have been persons in the American administration whose words lead one to suspect they possibly were closet anti-Semites, such as Baker and Weinberger. Others seem to insensitive to Israel’s needs and are more concerned with the American endgame of bringing peace to the Middle East and Israel and Palestinians in particular, without recognizing or admitting that the peace they are seeking to force upon Israel does not auger well for Israel in the short or long term.

Eliminating from his analysis other American considerations and self interest policies in furtherance of that self interest, results in Gil-White’s failing to address factors that are very relevant to his analysis and which if taken into account, may well have led him to a different conclusion.

It appears Gil-White started with a conclusion and then was careful to exclude from his consideration factors that mitigated against his conclusions. In other words, Gil-White has engaged in a bit of deck stacking to produce the conclusion he wanted to reach.

America’s relationship with Israel has had many ups and downs and the pursuit of America’s interests at times, seemingly too often these days, operate against Israel’s best interests.

That still does not change the fact that as part of America’s self interest policies, is a policy that while sometimes honored in the breach only, is still supportive of Israel, politically, economically and militarily.

You have misunderstood my comment regarding Hamas and the PA. I am saying that the PA, Fatah, and all the Palestinian splinter terrorist organizations are all facets of the same Islamic radicalism that Hamas represents. Hamas, unlike the others is honest and makes no pretence about what it is about and what it stands for. Palestinians voted for them with eyes wide open and knew what they were voting for.

Bush and others who have declared Hamas as a terrorist organization are still reeling from Hamas’ electoral victory. They are still mouthing the same nonsense that the majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel and that the rejection of the PA was a rejection of their corruption and not an endorsement of Hama’s terrorist and destroy Israel policies. Reality bumps up against such wishful thinking. Wishful thinking however in past has far too often carried the day. Hopefully the Hamas victory will inject reality into the debate and the understanding of what was and what is when it comes to Palestinian aspirations being an anathema to peace.

I am not unaware of or untroubled by the success of pro-Palestinian propaganda as you suggest.

That appears to be due to the double standard the world applies when it comes to Israel and it is not unique to America. In fact it is far more of a concern in European nations where anti-semitism has risen to the fore and appears responsible for shaping governmental policy and for the media to shape or incite anti-semitic views.

It is going too far however to conclude as Gil-White does that anti-Semitism is at the root of America’s policies vis a vis Israel and leads to a fundamental anti-Israel policy that for appearance sake, America deflects attention from by window dressing policies that appear to be supportive of Israel, but which have no substance.

Sharon’s unilateral disengagement policy which Olmert appears to be wanting to pursue has had predictable results in Hamas and Palestinians being reinforced in their belief that terrorism pays and that has led to an increase in terrorist attacks on Israel.

I have no doubt that Sharon foresaw this as a consequence of implementing unilateral disengagement, but weighed that downside against the upside of freeing up troops, resources and money as well as seeking to contain Palestinians within Gaza and improve Israeli security by that action along with the benefits of the security fence.

Doubtless Sharon also had in mind what he anticipated of the Bush administration's attitude and how it might win Israel greater support from America by unilateral disengagement than hanging tough with the status quo.

Sharon’s policy was doubtless a sophisticated cost benefit analysis. Though it is not yet entirely certain, it does appear that the dire predictions of Sharon’s critics are coming to pass regarding Sharon’s unilateral disengagement policy.

In spite of that, your descriptive language describing Sharon as deliberately seeking to have Israel commit suicide, that his policies are treasonous, that he and Olmert should be impeached and now accusing Sharon of engaging in a policy of ethnic cleansing is far too extreme to be remotely fair minded. Your words however do reveal your own very extreme views.

Alex, in conclusion, I generally agree with your views to the extent they reflect a concern for Israel’s best interests that I obviously share.

I strongly disagree however with the specifics and extremism of your comments and do not see where you have come anywhere close to persuasively backing up your comments in response to mine or justifying your views where they might be expressed as differing from mine.

11. Joe Keysor said:

What never fails to puzzle me, however - is that there is no movement among honest peace-loving Christians to put pressure on the Churches to disinvest from countries with regimes who persecute Christians, and whose human rights records regarding other faiths are reprehensible.

Christians who are genuinely serious about living by the bible and following the teachings of Christ generally are not affiliated with the apostate anti-Christ mainline corporate denominations with their big investments and bloated bueaucracies. They have no leverage over those churches.

Most Christians who are active in the big denominations are often lazy and apathetic, going to church mostly for social reasons. If they do feel some obligation to try and make the world a better place, it is usually according to what they see on TV - poor helpless Palestinian kids throwing rocks - and/or according to left-wing standards of justice.

Plus, Israel is more vulnerable to pressure - there's no point in trying to change, say, China, too difficult, impossible in fact.

12. Alex Eisenberg said:

Hi Bill,

My last answer on this subject…

My comment that America has supported Israel politically, economically and militarily is true. That is not to say that America stands by Israel in all respects and has always demonstrated by its policies and actions the indicia of friendship that we in our personal lives understand the definition of friend to mean such as being one who stands by a declared friend through thick and thin.

Two problems here. First I insist in my view that I find no evidence of any ‘special’ US’s support to Israel. The US does to Israel basically the same it does to some other countries which the US ruling elite considers they should invest in for strategic reasons (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and South Korea, for example). My argument was precisely based on this. Now, the fact that you took what I said to mean ‘friendship’ as in personal relations, only confirms the propaganda problem I refer to. The propaganda is meant, among other purposes, precisely to portray the US as Israel’s ‘only friend.’ And this is not something I am inventing. Pres. Bush himself is always using the word ‘friends’ when referring to allies (actually what the US ruling elite understands by the word ‘ally,’ which is very different from the Webster’s definition). So, unless you believe that the president of the US uses words at random in his public discourses (rather than carefully picking the words that best fit his purposes), it should be very clear to anyone minimally used to political maneuvers that Pres. Bush uses the word ‘friend’ to have his audience believe precisely what you, Bill, already know to be inexistent, as you wrote above. The word ‘friend’ is used precisely to arouse a comfortable emotion, as in a true personal friendship. Since this is a lie, as you correctly pointed out (as if I were falling for the propaganda instead of denouncing it!), it should be clear then that the US ruling elite DOES use deception as a legitimate political tool (this is by the way a political tool everywhere, not only in the US).

Now, I could only agree with your (in fact, the US propaganda’s) ‘US-special-relation-with-Israel theory’ IF its premises were Israel-specific. But they are not. The US has the same kind of relationship with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, South Korea, Bosnia, Poland, etc. All of these countries receive or have received US political, military and economic assistance, which vary according to local needs. Israel is by no means special. In fact, the US has only begun assisting Israel when it realized the then USSR would do it (the US stepped in to avoid it). Israel’s nuclear capabilities, for example, resulted from an agreement with France back in the 1960s. So, would you call that old France-Israel relationship ‘special’? Who has provided Pakistan and India with their nuclear capabilities? In our time, only a few countries have become ‘unbeatable’ by acquiring nuclear weapons. By your logic, all these countries have ‘special’ relationships with their nuclear providers.

Second problem: well, assuming my argument above is enough to disprove the ‘special relationship’ theory, I’ll try to be clear as to why this theory is 100% antisemitic. The US - just like the ex-USSR and, earlier, France, Britain and Germany - has a huge intelligence apparatus working full time everywhere on the planet. One of the zillion tasks assigned to that apparatus is to produce propaganda that will serve the US’s interests (that is, its elite’s interests) at home and abroad. Now, why don’t we hear of the US’s ‘special relationship’ with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, whereas we do hear of a US-Israel ‘special relationship’? Because powerful people have invested in forging such non-existent relationship. And it must be powerful people, because only powerful people are capable of buying intellectuals, journalists and business people into producing ‘knowledge’ to serve THEIR interests. This is how you get stupid ‘intellectuals’ of the likes of Benny Morris to sudden international prominence (how could an otherwise totally unknown Israeli historian become a NYT star overnight?). Now, since there is no ‘special relationship’ whatsoever between the US and Israel, why on earth would the US forge that idea? Why Israel, and not Saudi Arabia (which has received more US military assistance than Israel)? The answer is in history: because the West has been scapegoating Jews for all its filth for 2000 years. And the scapegoating of Jews has been proven very effective, since you can hardly point to a single century within the last 2000 years in which Jews have not been massacred by the West (including Eastern Europe, which shares so-called Western values with the West) for having supposedly committed the crimes that the Western elites committed. This is a VERY stable pattern, so why would Western elites give it up? They obviously don’t. This is why the West has been helping Islam to destroy the State of Israel since its inception. The countries that control the UN came up with and approved the partition of the Holy Land for purely political interests (the more you divide, the better you dominate). If you happen to wonder whether I am a paranoid conspiracist, just take advantage of the US’s democratic side and check this unclassified US document, available at the National Security Archive at: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/propaganda%20120.pdf . The following is an article based on it: http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/usis.htm
Unfortunately, a lot of diaspora Jews and Israelis have fallen for the propaganda. They have been set up for slaughter, as reality has been showing us everyday.

I read briefly read portions of Prof. Gil-White’s article that you referred me to. Gil-White’s conclusion that there is and has always been an anti-Semitic American ruling elite that conspires behind the scenes to manipulate American policy against Israel’s interests, has been shaped by his analytical approach and frames of reference that he sets for himself as he weighs through the evidence he finds material to supporting his conclusion.

What’s wrong with this procedure? This is the way of science, isn’t it?

Gil-White's approach is to measure American policies and actions against traditional definitions of friend and ally in personal situation, which does not hold completely on the world stage.

I have already commented on this issue above.

In so doing, he references periods in American history when public sentiments and American policy have been unquestionably influenced by anti-Semitism. He further limits his analysis to defining America’s relationship and interaction with Israel as friend or foe, more in the context of that relationship alone.

This is not true. First off Gil-White never mentions antisemitic ‘public sentiments.’ He always refers to the antisemitism of the American ruling elite only. Differently from the Europeans, the overwhelming majority of ordinary Americans are not antisemitic. Neither is it true that Gil-White takes the US-Israel relationship out of context. On the contrary, he shows how consistent American foreign policy has been over the years by giving examples of events that took place in other countries which also involved Israel. His description of the Achille Lauro incident and the details of how the Italian authorities dealt with it plainly disprove your comment. Same thing when he describes Britain’s behavior under Churchill and the US’s hiring of thousands of European Nazis after WW2. These are facts which are not specific about US-Israel relations.

Now, what you said (or implied) is that Gil-White has an ‘idée fixe’ and set about collecting disjunct materials to prove his idea. This can only be true when you deliberately distort the original meaning of the texts from which you quote; or when your sources are not self-evident (unlike the unclassified document I linked to above, which speaks for itself). But most of Gil-White’s sources are self-evident. They are mostly quotes from newspapers, TV-program transcriptions and official governmental documents. These sources are less prone to distortion than books because they are simpler, meant to be direct (it’s easier to find lies in simpler than in complex materials, and it’s also simpler to distinguish what makes sense from what doesn’t). Moreover, Gil-White did not start by researching US-Israel relations, but rather the Yugoslavia war in the 1990s. It was only when he found striking similarities between the way the media covered the two conflicts that he began to research the Israel case. So he departed from a foreign policy pattern he found in other cases and checked the Israel case against those. And the facts confirmed the pattern. So if you read the whole article carefully AND consult all the sources he provides, you’ll perhaps change your mind. The problem, as I see it as a non-American, is an emotional one. It seems to be very hurtful for Americans to accept the possibility that they have been lied to by their own government in a most immoral fashion. Am I wrong?

Those policies that advance America’s self interest will always take priority and more often than many would like to see, come in conflict with Israel’s best interests.

Well, this is clearly an understatement. So, if the US’s interests require (or might have it as a consequence) that country X be destroyed, then be it! Is it what you’re saying? Bill, leaving aside the issue of how undemocratic it is to justify anything the US ruling elite does for its interests all over, we are not dealing with “Israel’s best interests.” We are discussing Israel’s (and its people’s) very survival; whether there will be Israel tomorrow or not!! As a Jew, I don’t care about the US’s interests. If the US’s interests (its ruling elite’s, that is) pose an existential threat to Israel, they must be fought. And the only way to fight it is to make the American people aware of its government’s crazy policies abroad, with which they would openly disagree and protest against. The US spends about 50 billion dollars a year with intelligence operations of which its government tells nothing to its taxpayers! How democratic is that?

Eliminating from his analysis other American considerations and self interest policies in furtherance of that self interest, results in Gil-White’s failing to address factors that are very relevant to his analysis and which if taken into account, may well have led him to a different conclusion.

No, sir. It is precisely out of his awareness of this state of affairs that Gil-White concludes what he concludes. And I can’t see how justifiable it could possibly be to ‘understand’ catastrophic anti-Israel policies by the US just by pointing to the US’s self interests!! This makes me wonder if we have the same moral expectations for human societies…

You have misunderstood my comment regarding Hamas and the PA. I am saying that the PA, Fatah, and all the Palestinian splinter terrorist organizations are all facets of the same Islamic radicalism that Hamas represents. Hamas, unlike the others is honest and makes no pretence about what it is about and what it stands for.

Again we disagree. Hamas is NOT unlike the others. This is a Western media myth. Hamas is not honest (since when open antisemitic discourse is synonymous with honesty?). The PLO (or PA) openly preached the destruction of Israel until the US and its European allies told them they could not rule a new country keeping that external attitude in the 20th century. So they changed the clothes. Hamas will most probably do the same. What’s the difference?

Bush and others who have declared Hamas as a terrorist organization are still reeling from Hamas’ electoral victory. They are still mouthing the same nonsense that the majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel and that the rejection of the PA was a rejection of their corruption and not an endorsement of Hama’s terrorist and destroy Israel policies. Reality bumps up against such wishful thinking. Wishful thinking however in past has far too often carried the day. Hopefully the Hamas victory will inject reality into the debate and the understanding of what was and what is when it comes to Palestinian aspirations being an anathema to peace.

Perhaps. I am less optimistic. What Bush and his aides are voicing is not wishful thinking, in my view. The leaders of the most powerful country in the world would not just go about saying naïve things in public. It is a temporary strategy until US intelligence devises how to adjust their propaganda to the current situation. If the US was capable of resurrecting the PLO (the worst terrorist group in the 20th century) from its ashes in Lebanon in 1982, escorting it to Tunis and then forcing it down Israel’s throat through Oslo, while the big Western media accused Israel of its own misfortune, why should it be different now with Hamas?

I am not unaware of or untroubled by the success of pro-Palestinian propaganda as you suggest. That appears to be due to the double standard the world applies when it comes to Israel and it is not unique to America. In fact it is far more of a concern in European nations where anti-semitism has risen to the fore and appears responsible for shaping governmental policy and for the media to shape or incite anti-semitic views.

Why do you say “it is far more of a concern in European nations where anti-semitism has risen to the fore…”? Because in a country like the US, whose population is NOT fundamentally antisemitic as ordinary Europeans are, the ruling elite cannot just publicly assume its anti-Israel stance. But actions speak louder than words. The major US media have been feeding Americans and the world with anti-Israel ideology, so they can accept the US’s anti-Israel actions more ‘naturally’ (as a supposed result of Israel’s own supposed oppression of Palestinian Arabs). Obviously though, this requires much secretive policies. For example, do most Americans know that the most extreme Islamist school books used in Afghanistan for about 20 years have been made in the US with USAID money? Of course not (look at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm#1 ). This type of thing has to be hidden just as the US’s anti-Israel policies have. THIS is why you and many people still believe that Europe is more of a problem for Israel than the US.

I have no doubt that Sharon foresaw this as a consequence of implementing unilateral disengagement, but weighed that downside against the upside of freeing up troops, resources and money as well as seeking to contain Palestinians within Gaza and improve Israeli security by that action along with the benefits of the security fence.

Really? So let’s put the following imaginary situation: imagine that Mexico is ruled by fascistic terrorists and the US is pressured by the international community to hand Texas over to Mexico. Suppose the US is not a superpower and other powers have effective means to pressure the US into giving up Texas. Suppose Mexican rulers preach the utter destruction of the US and have been constantly attacking the US not only from the Mexican border but also from Canada and by means of terrorist attacks inside the US. Then the US president came up with the fantastic idea that handing over Texas to the terrorists would make the defense of the US easier if just the government built a fence isolating Texas from the rest of the US, even considering that the Mexican terrorists have rockets that can be launched over the fence. What would the American people tell their president?? Would Americans really think that giving Texas away to the terrorists would improve American security? Of course not. Either the president would be impeached, or killed (as Kennedy was for much less than that). It takes a Jew to be so compassionate towards his most awful enemy (out of a mix of hope and self-destruction). This is precisely why Christianity has always (since at least Paul!) gone out of its way to present Jesus’ attitudes as opposed to those of his fellow Jews. You must repeat every single minute that only Jesus and his followers were able to ‘turn the other cheek’ whereas Judaism remained in the ‘eye for an eye,’ because the one minute in which Christians did not hear that, they would realize that it was exactly ‘the Jews’ they were constantly slaughtering who were dying like Jesus and turning the other cheek. If this is a difference between a Christian and a Jew, then Israeli Jews are the most Christian of all populations on this planet!

Doubtless Sharon also had in mind what he anticipated of the Bush administration's attitude and how it might win Israel greater support from America by unilateral disengagement than hanging tough with the status quo.

Sure. The problem though is that you don’t bother questioning why it is on earth that Sharon must have American approval to every single decision about the future of his own people… Can you imagine the opposite? Would an American president allow his decisions about the future of the American people be determined by another country? Hardly, isn’t it? You don’t question this because you were probably raised to believe this is normal. It’s a moral disaster from the Jewish point of view, I must say.

In spite of that, your descriptive language describing Sharon as deliberately seeking to have Israel commit suicide, that his policies are treasonous, that he and Olmert should be impeached and now accusing Sharon of engaging in a policy of ethnic cleansing is far too extreme to be remotely fair minded. Your words however do reveal your own very extreme views.

I’m sorry, Bill. I didn’t say Sharon was deliberately committing national suicide. What I said was that a leader who gives in to international pressure against the security of its own people is a traitor. And I said this amounts to committing national suicide. I am not at all concerned about being politically correct, Bill. I’m just telling the obvious, which most Israpundit readers already know. My views are by no means extreme. I simply don’t buy anti-Israel propaganda. That’s all. What you’ve shown with your comments is that ‘fairmindedness’ to you means considering the US interests sacrosanct. This is just as fair-minded as the Romans were when they called every people who reacted to their atrocities ‘barbarians.’ The US has not come yet to equal the Romans in their craze, but the more ordinary Americans are indoctrinated to believe that ‘the US interests’ are untouchable whereas their government keeps its most important policies out of public reach, the closer will the US get to a fascistic system. Think about it…

All my best wishes,

Alex

13. Bill Narvey said:

Alex,

You are spinning my words by twisting, restricting, or expanding their meaning beyond the ordinary meaning of my words and attributing opinions to me that apart from being not at all what I think, are not even implied by my comments.

A few brief examples.

1. I am not enamoured with Prof. Gil-White's analysis leading to his conclusion. Gil-White notes historical instances of anti-Israel policies in Europe and in America and jumps to the conclusion that the same factors existed that gave rise to those policies. While anti-semitism has played a role, other factors also came into play. Secondly, he jumps to the conclusion that there is a secret anti-semitic cabal at work that develops and American policies vis a vis Israel and causes them to be implemented. He ignores however that America in the last 20 or so years especially sought allies in its peace policies for Israel and Palestinians and indirectly in respect of its war in Afghanistan and Iraq and to that extent has sought to accomodate and appease the EU and Russia to get them on board.

I simply find that Prof. Gil-White has steered his analysis away from trying to explain American policies vis a vis Israel in practical realities and towards finding his explanations in conspiracy theories and his belief that there is a powerful ruling anti-Semitic American elite operating in secret to bring about the end of Israel.

2. You still take issue with my saying the adjective "special" is fair to describe America's relationship with Israel. I do not understand why that would so work you up. In the context of what I have said, the adjective "special" does not connote such relationship is solid, great, only favorable to Israel, etc. etc. America is still assuaging its conscience in its support of Israel which is also based on its moral sense and for the stratgic value Israel holds for it. Nonetheless, America's interests can and do clash with Israel's interests. In a world where most are very anti-Israel or fence sitters with their legs dangling more on the Palestinian side, like Canada was under the Liberals, America is one of the few that unequivocally stands up for Israel in many ways, notwithstanding policies and views that work at cross purposes to Israel's interests and to that extent, the word special is a fair descriptive word that should not work anyone up.

I remind you that at the UN, one of the significant pro-Palestinian propaganda forums, America has been the most steadfast in vetoing the annual parade of countless politicized anti-Israel resolutions put forth by the Palestinian committees of the OIC. America also provides other political support as well as economic support to Israel. That it may give others including those nations that stand against Israel support as well, dones not change the fact that Israel gets the greatest support from America.

Though, like you I find much to be critical in American foreign policies which impact Israel directly or indirectly, I do not lose sight of those American policies that do operate to blunt or stand against the tide of anti-Israel sentiment and political machinations coming from the Arab and pro-Palestinian world.

It seems to me that we are disagreeing on the meaning of "special" only.

3. You say: "What you’ve shown with your comments is that ‘fairmindedness’ to you means considering the US interests sacrosanct."

There is nothing in my posts here, nor any other of my posts that even hint at that. The pursuit of American self interest and how that at times clashes with Israeli best interests as many perceive it, is simply a reality that must be factored into trying to understand why Israel may take positions it does. I have said no more, no less.

4. You say: "Again we disagree. Hamas is NOT unlike the others. This is a Western media myth. Hamas is not honest (since when open antisemitic discourse is synonymous with honesty?)."

I thought when you first raised this, you simply misread what I said at first instance. That you again mis-read what I said, mystifies me. I do not disagree with you, except the way you are now fixating on the word "honest". Hamas has been very clear on its objectives and means to gain those objectives as regards Israel, unlike the PLO and PA that have sought to hide or obfuscate that same agenda. To that extent it has been honest.

5. That Europeans are more anti-Semitic than Americans, even to the point that at times seems to be what has driven certain European policies impacts Israel directly. It however also impacts Israel indirectly to the extent that America is lonely at the top and seeks allies for its world positions including its push for Israel-Palestinian peace. America to win EU and Russian support have taken to pressuring Israel and giving Palestinians a pass on their failings in order to accomodate and appease EU and Russian sentiments. That is not a secret American policy operating from some sub-terranean policy making office. It is out there in the open to be seen and to be applauded or condemned, depending on where one stands vis a vis Israel and Palestinians.

As I concluded previously, we are in general agreement on the whats, but much less so on the whys.