1. Michael in NC said:

Ted,

Up until this nonsense I have thought rather highly of what you have to say. This is a load of conspiracy theory laced with loopy leftist crap.

Does this guy howl when the moon is full?

2. Ted Belman said:

I am far from a conspiracy theorist and generally give them a wide birth. But there is no denying in my opinion the argument made by John Loftus in his book which I quoted. Loftus believes that the US tried to stop the creation of Israel in '47 and has been undermining it ever since. Yoram Ettinger argued that the US has put enormous pressure on Israel to yield. There was some abatement during the cold war in the seventies and eighties. Many articles have been published on how the US constantly does things which weaken Israel,.

But my question to you is why did the US permit the UN to receive the PLO and Arafat and why are they ramming the Roadmap down Israel's throat? Why aren't they acting to support Israel? Why are they arming Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Can't be in Israel's interest.

A distinction must be made between the American people and Congress on the one hand who definitely support Israel and the State Department on the other.

3. BobW said:

Shalom Michael,

It's not looney tunes or leftist - just out of the mainstream.

Still, remove the edges and outlandish and it can't be 100% discounted so easily. Look at Gronzy, Kashi and Ashabad (believe a Brit ambassador resigned over the reaction to the disturbances) before jumping to conclusions.

We probably hold to the same broad political view....just asking you not to so readily discount what does read as bizaar.

Tell Liz Dole I say hello.

Kol tuv,
BobW

4. kuhnkat said:

I am a conspiracy buff to a certain extent and definitely go along with Ted on this one.

I will remind everyone that the US is big and rich enough that we have MAJOR INFLUENTIAL BLOCS of just about every ISM imaginable. We have had influential Communists in the gubmint and State Deaprtment since before WWII. We have people bending over for Reverend Sun Yung Moon. If there is money behind the group there is someone in Congress and probably other areas that will bend over for them.

It may not be a published US purpose, but, one can not deny facts. Of course, it HAS been a published US goal to support Israel. That does not mean that EVERYONE influential agrees with it and works to support it.

5. Francisco Gil-White said:

Shalom Michael,

Concerning me, you wrote the following to Ted Belman:

"Up until this nonsense I have thought rather highly of what you have to say. This is a load of conspiracy theory laced with loopy leftist crap. Does this guy howl when the moon is full?"

I do not howl at the moon when it is full. Neither do I take offense. But I think discussions of this sort are better if they are scientific. Every claim I make is accompanied by copious documentation, as you will see if you read my articles (I believe you replied without reading the piece that Ted Belman recommended, which has a footnote for every single claim, so that you may examine my sources and reach your own opinion concerning the justice of my analysis).

The article of mine I would invite you to read right now is one that explains why most people think that governments don't do bad things in secret, and therefore that any claim that they do (i.e. 'conspiracy theories') are automatically ridiculous, stupid, and wrong. The article is not long, and I would be most interested to hear your reactions:

http://www.hirhome.com/conspiracy.htm

6. felix quigley said:

There are a number of issues here.

First of all there is the historical research done by Joseph Alexander Norland who was the co-founder of Israpundit, 23 Reasons for opposing a Second Palestinian State. Notable research. Heavily sourced... I am actually working on that at the moment to produce it on my site www.isill.blogspot.com.

I mention this because we are not just talking about tenc.net or hirhome.com

Then there is the work done on the one state idea a month ago here, and the outlining of the dangers (huge) in the 2-state proposals, especially the observation therein that there is nothing to stop millions of Palestinians flooding into Palestine, heavily financed by anti-semitic Europe and by the US as well as by Islamofascism.

What though is the reality? It is the US elite who are going flat out to create this Islamofascist state on the historic land of Israel.

Michael and others should also reflect.

When the US leaves Iraq there will be a situation of great strengthening of Islamofascist Iran. Intentional or unintentional. That matters.

Note, please note most carefully, the most responsible entity for this is not a creature of the State Department, but a creature of Bush. That is Zalmay Khalizad, the No 1 man of Bush in Iraq.

Note also Yugoslavia. The Media proved itself there to be a pliant tool of US and EU Empires.

Yugoslavia was a key country, if independent it would have blocked US drive Eastwards.

Note also that Nazism sent Serbs Romany and Jews there to the deadly death camp which was the prototype for all the rest of the death camps.

Do not forget we are talking here about the US promotion of the PLO. Now Rice and Bush are promoting Hamas in the forthcoming elections and at the same time promoting Jew killer Barghouti. Note also that the Israeli govt is obviously providing this Jew killer with Jail facilities...fax? perhaps Yahoo is at his disposal.

It is not simply Francisco. Ted is right. John Loftus is very relevant here.

Time to put conspiracy to bed. It is Michael here who is the conspiracist.

7. Dan Barkye said:

Facts speak for themselves, Michael, and they cannot be denied. What can be disputed are the conclusions at which Francisco is arriving. Even so, it's very disturbing to think that his theory MAY hold water. From the myriad of contradictory US' behaviors toward Israel, and they ARE contradictory, one stands out and pricks the eye in particular: Why is it that Isr's hands are tied when her very existence is in question? Think US' reaction to an onslaught of say, Mexicans, or daily military attacks from Cuba, or Venezuela. I'm sure of it as of the daylight outside that the US won't think twice and will react ferociously to it. Will the US and its John and Jane Does stand a Sderot, or a Qiriat Shmonah? I don't think so! And to witness, I present to you the Afganistan and the Iraq US reactions, which are not just retaliatory campaigns, but full-blown wars, entailing a full confrontation w a very influential part of the world and the West. When an existential necessity arises for any contry, it doesn't hesitate to react as needed, but it is denied in full for Israel for the span of her whole existence, it's allowed only partially, just to keep her head above the water and this is scary.
I read your articles w much interest, Francisco, though they raise more than one eyebrow, and I try to sift through the contradictory short-terms US actions and the long-terms, and it is they that count. Still, Israel doesn't have any other ally in whatever form that can compete w US, so let her make the best of it. I commend you for your civilized reaction to Michael's.

8. Bill Narvey said:

I have read much of Prof Francisco Gil-White's writings, but have much more to read. Already, I am having some trouble accepting some of Prof Francisco Gil-White's linkages and conclusions, though he does appear to have a substantial body of historical factsm many of which I am aware of, for the reader to consider. I have not read enough however that I can make an informed and precise comment regarding Prof Francisco Gil-White's writings, with a comfortable level of confidence.

I do however have some questions.

Ted Belman makes the summary statement, Prof Francisco Gil-White's thesis makes "the point that it was American policy to create a Palestinian state that would be the means to destroy Israel. As you know, this is in line with the Secret War against the Jews by John Loftus." I assume Ted has made a fair statement.

I understand part of Prof Francisco Gil-White's premise to be that the American ruling elite do have a strategic goal and game plan to seek Israel's destruction that has directed American policy vis a vis Israel since Israel's inception in 1948, but that ruling elite, aware that such policy would not sit well with the American public, seeks to disguise its real policy, by maintaining it has a policy supportive of Israel.

While I believe that American policy does often work against Israel's interests in strength and survival, I have trouble accepting Prof Francisco Gil-White's premise and that of John Loftus that successive American administrations, have been engaged in some evil duplicitous scheme to seek Israel's destruction.

Such thinking is akin to the premise of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about some secret Jewish cabal that seeks to control world governments and the world economy to allow Jews to dominate the world and subjugate all others.

What does make more sense is that America has always put advancing its own interests and position of power on the world stage, first and foremost.

America recognizes that in the global politico-economic realities the EU, Russia, China and the Muslim world all vie for their own place on the world stage. To ensure American interests and power can be maintained and advanced in this complicated world, it is my view that American foreign policy has involved accommodations and appeasements of competing interests and those appeasing accommodations are being purchased with the life blood of Israelis and Israel.

The other puzzling thing is that whether the thesis of Prof Francisco Gil-White and John Loftus or my view expressed here are correct, it does not really matter. If correct in either case, the question arises as to why Israel and supporters of Israel do not speak up to unmask and try to turn around this duplicitous policy, whatever its basis?

Instead, along with pro-Israel supporters and organizations, Israel and seems to be following the world lead to its own demise, just like the lines of Jews knowing the fate in store for them, marched into the Nazi gas chambers.

If neither my thinking nor Prof Francisco Gil-White's and John Loftus' is correct, then what does account for American policies that undermine, more than support Israel's right to exist and for Israel and pro-Israel/Jewish advocacy groups supporting American policy without seeking they are supporting an Israel that risks being so weakened that it will just fade from the world map as opposed to being erased from it by the bombs of the Muslim world that Iranian President Ahmadinejad threatened?

WHY AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO WAKEN JEWS TO THE OMINOUS EXISTENTIAL THREAT JEWS AND ISRAEL FACE FROM EVEN THEIR SUPPOSED ONE TRUE FRIEND AMERICA AND TURN THINGS AROUND?

9. Dan Barkye said:

Bill asked: "WHY AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO WAKEN JEWS TO THE OMINOUS EXISTENTIAL THREAT JEWS AND ISRAEL FACE FROM EVEN THEIR SUPPOSED ONE TRUE FRIEND AMERICA AND TURN THINGS AROUND?"

Even if Gill-White's and John Loftus' theses aren't correct - something that I doubt, given the so ample and documented support to it - and so we will assume that US is still w us, the situation is not bright and there is still much work to be done, but not to lose heart, it *CAN* be done.

As for the Israeli Jews, to which I am strongly connected, those are my observations (NOT in any order of importance, very empiric and NOT scientific, and open to debate, of course, though I *think* that I'm not so off the mark):

First, from the prevalent mood in Israel, the Left is unrattled as to the imminent danger posted by a Pal State.
Implication - In the name of a false liberal humanism and false self-determination right, unknowingly (is this really "unknowingly"?), many Isr's give a supporting hand to their bitterest enemy.

Second, the Arab minority makes its way into the political body of Israel slowly but surely, and no need here to detail, I'm sure.
Implication - In a foreseeable future, in case of a possible new Holocaust, the State of Israel may not function as intended, a shield for the Jews whereever they are.
Implication - This should shake the confidence of the Diaspora Jews, including and not least, the US Jews, into some more vigorous pro-Jewish and pro-Zionism action.

Third, the attitude of many to the settlers and settlements, and by implication, to our right for this tiny piece of land, is one of intolerance for the most part, sometimes of utter disgust.
Implication - A possible future abandonment of the West Bank in its entirety, and a slow but ungoing possible weakening of the perceived right of inhabiting even the Green Line inside-part of Israel.

As for the World Jewry:

The prevalent attitude to the various political issues at hand all over, is that it's "en mode" to think leftist, esp among the young, and the Jews are no exception.
Implication - Much support from the younger generation cannot be expected.

Conclusion - The most that can be done in accepted ways, and by this I mean peaceful and democratic means, is an endless and forceful, determined and focused, barrage of pro-Isr propaganda on all levels and in all directions, as well as a similar effort to unmask the liars and the antisemitic perpetrators and their hidden agenda. Now, let's not make light of it, this is not so little and it can and must have much influence and quite a big impact.

Talking among us, here, is preaching to the choir, but armed w so much info such as presented here and in other friendly places, we can do much on many and different levels, local and nat'l, family and acquaintances, local officials and nat'l ones, local media and nat'l in all its forms.

Now, I *know* that much is done re all this, but more is needed, much, much more, otherwise the need wouldn't be there.

A brain-storm is needed as to how to intensify, and to make evermore original, those already existent efforts and any idea is welcomed.

My 2c's.

10. Michael in NC said:

Dear Mr.Gil-White,
Mr. Gil-White

I apologize for the ad hominem attack. My disagreement is with your words not you personally. Email and blog posts are places we often speak with out thinking things through.

I did read you introduction and am working my way through your articles. This will take some time as I am not a scholar, but rather a businessman with limited time. I will try to keep an open mind, but I still find your thesis to be unbelievable.

I will also post this on Israpundit.

11. Dan Barkye said:

Following my post re Bill's question "WHY AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO WAKEN JEWS TO THE OMINOUS EXISTENTIAL THREAT JEWS AND ISRAEL FACE FROM EVEN THEIR SUPPOSED ONE TRUE FRIEND AMERICA AND TURN THINGS AROUND?" I propose as a first means of propagating even more our position, to bombard, yes, quite so, the anti-Isr and anti-Zionist blogs w comments on their policy and positions.

Pls, bear in mind that the Blogosphere is the emerging news media and the means of convergence of the new tech and web generation, including older people who know their way in this universe.

One of their main arguments is the use made of antisemitism to counteract them, meaning to say that in the eyes of some, to be critical of Isr and Zionism equals antisemitism.
See frex "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" - "The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, confronts how the slur of "anti-semite" has been used to intimidate critics of Israel's abuse of Palestinians. It includes essays by Uri Avnery, Edward Said, Michael Neumann and Bill and Kathy Christison" (a publication of Counterpunch editors, DB).

This argument needs to be treated as a polluting by-product of the Isr-Pal conflict and it seems to me to be one of the more urgent to deal with, among others, of course.

12. Bill Narvey said:

Dan, not having thoroughly read Prof Francisco Gil-White's writings, I am not saying he does not make a compelling argument.

Where my difficulty is thus far, is in accepting the frightening notion that there is a ruling American elite that knows no boundary between Republicans and Democrats and which has since 1948 been either part of the elected government or part of a covert cabal holding the power and pulling the strings of successive American administrations to ensure that America engages in the kind of malevolent devious anti-Israel's existence policies, while seeming to be supportive of Israel, that Prof Francisco Gil-White's speaks of.

Such kind of evil could only be borne of anti-semitism.

That said, it is easier for me thus far to wrap my mind around the notion that successive American administrations do believe in Israel's right to exist and want Israel to be strong and capable of surviving far into the future. That said, it seems from the way America has pressured Israel since 1948 to accomodate Arabs, which pressure has intensified ever since Arafat and the PLO were by Oslo allowed back into Israel, that while wanting to believe America supports Israel, the successive American administrations in advancing their own interests in the world, are in denial that the way they are doing so, undermines Israel's interests.

Whether Prof Francisco Gil-White's premise of that successive American elite power brokers deliberately intend to destroy Israel while seeking to hide that true agenda from the American people or whether as in my view, successive American administrations have fallen into the mould of advancing American interests by sacrificing Israelis, all the while maintaining a denial of that fact, neither explanation augers well for the long term future of Israel.

As indicated, I am totally perplexed by the inability of various leading pro-Israel and Jewish organizations to recognize the life threatening danger Israel is being pushed towards by American pressure.

Perhaps the answer to my puzzlement lies with these pro-Israel groups indeed recognizing the danger, but are fearful to speak out too strongly against it having adopted the mentality of the persecuted Jews in East European and Russian shtetls of the 18th and 19th centuries that to speak out too strongly will bring even greater persecutions upon their heads.

I do not know the answers and can only surmise.

As for your suggestions that more need to speak out, I cannot agree more.

It is easy for you and I to contemptuously deride the Jewish left as epitomized by historians such as Benny Morris, political scientists such as Ilan Pappe, and Rabbis such as Rabbi Sapperstein of I think the United Reform Movement or the likes of Rabbi Michael Lerner who has perverted the notion of Tikkun Olam - healing the world, to in effect be achieved by Jews letting their own blood at the expense of realizing Palestinian and other Jew hater's rights and ambitions.

Blogging will not get the job done.

People who believe as you, me, Prof Francisco Gil-White and John Loftus must somehow gain influence in the very pro-Israel organizations we criticize for dereliction of duty and ineffectivenss and get things turned around so that such pro-Israel advocates see things for what they are, adopt a new and more aggressive strategy to bring truth to world Jewry and to Western civilization and in a word, to become far more effective at ensuring Israel's interests are being protected and Israel knows that it has diaspora Jewry to count on to support it.

13. Dan Barkye said:

Bill, speaking in gen, you took my words from my mouth, as we say in Hebrew, meaning you and I think alike.

And what this "alike" means? I read only two of Gill-White's articles and some personal data from googling him.

Like you, I find it hard to believe that US lets Isr down purposefully. In this lieu, I think that Gill-White pushes his conclusions too far, and, actually, I have the feeling that a certain layer in his writings is missing, and this is exactly the layer that glues facts and conclusions together. He simply brings things ad extremis, which isn't to say that he may not be right, after all.
When I think of the Grand Theater notion of his and Loftus', it makes so much sense that it's frightening, for think, everyone thinks in short terms: First, let's deal w the immediate, and then w the expendable. For this, any means is appropriate, Machiavelli style, shame aside, icluding Israel.

The "immediate" for US is to counteract a possible rival, and, as of now, they are exactly who Loftus mentions: Russia, China and India, b/c of demographic and industrial potential. The best way to fry them is to awaken sleeping dogs in their midst and for this the Islam Fundism is just the tool.
Just look around: Russia has its Sunni neighbors and Islam fanatics in Chechnia and elsewhere in Central Asia, esp in Uzbekistan; China has its own in the Uighurs, in Sinkiang, nicknamed the Pivot of Asia, to put in perspective the region's importance in global terms; India has its own, too, the Islam fundies bent on Kashmir as an immediate excuse, supported, I guess, by Pakistan.
When US needed a proxy in Afganistan it chose the Wahabists of Osama. Why not some other gr or faction? It wasn't that hard to do, I'm sure. Strange, when you think of it, right?

Every country of those three has its own gr's of dissidents, but they don't have much in common; the only gr that has something in common in all three, is the Islam Fundism. This is a very imp pt, IMO.

When Islam did its job, in the future, then it will be its turn to be fried, but it won't be of the magnitude that the said countries present, or so the US policy makers think. Let's cross the bridge when we reach it, so the US reasons, IMO.

As for the blame that Isr is force-fed Pals and thier state, to US defense, Carter et al will answer that they save Isr from itself, a very galant interventionist approach on the part of a good friend. What can you say against this kind friendship, esp when it's supported by a constant aid, material and other, in many instances? Nothing, right? I mean, the goyish and Jewish John Does swallow such an excuse easily.

From what I know of int'l politics, everything is expedient to a country's interests, including the well-being of another, and this, I'm afraid, is inclusive of Israel, BUT, in our case up to a certain pt and the history proves it, I think. As I said, we're allowed to hold our head above the water, no more. Everyone is allowed by default to defend itself but Israel and the Jews, and this is the real crime of the modern times.

You're right, we need to gain influence, but how? This is why I said in the New Year wishes article that the Jews didn't change, they still don't believe in the absolutely possibe imminent danger that still exists for us and you agree w it, too. Hard to penetrate the extablishment and even then, it's hard to change a set of mind.

As for the blogs tool, it is only one of many that we need to explore and I hope that our posts are read and taken in consideration.

We need a berain-storm to explore all the possibilities that we have open for us and to make the best of it.

Thank you for reacting.

14. kuhnkat said:

Dan Barkye,

If the US would stop the attacks on it why didn't we take out Saudi Arabia and ALL OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT THE ISLAMONAZIS????

That's right, as powerful as the US is we can NOT take on the entire world at once and that is what we would have to do. Being internally divided several times means that we do not have the internal will to even TRY!!

15. felix quigley said:

Greetings everybody

The first thing I wish to say is that I have long believed that Israel and the Jewish people are not as isolated as appears. I say this from personal experience, my own experience.

Ireland is now a very anti-Semitic country. It is so at least in part because the Palestinian Arab myth of refugees etc has been skilfully promoted and taken up by Government, Media and neoleft cum republican.

I say this not for any national parochial interest but because you will find that replicated in all European countries using differing forms.

The contradiction is here and I hope you understand it because even in this dark period and the dangers from the Sharon leadership it spells great hope for the Jewish struggle for freedom. For Irish people to NOW be free then they have to break from all of above and make a new analysis of the Israeli Arab situation.

This issue is dragging Irish political life right down into the gutter. A nation of people cannot be anti-semitic and maintain its self-respect. You can see that from my part there is an element of national self-interest here!

I believe the same thing applies on an international scale. Especially in relation to America!

It is now not possible for the American ordinary person to free himself, to become a cultured person, while this contradiction exists.

All Francisco, Jared and John Loftus has ever done is make an exhaustive analysis of history and facts of current life.

We are not at all into conspiracy. The very opposite. The conspiracy nut spews projections OUT OF HIS HEAD. No research. No facts. No evidence.

In that regard it is not us here who are nailing the US elite. It is the daily facts that appear on the pages of Debkafile which is our most valuable resource. While others may read the facts and take another sip of their coffee, we read the facts and THINK!

I have read, I hope I am not misquoting, David Gerstman lumping Saddam and Milosevic together (on the Fisk article)

People like this should understand the basis that people like Francisco, Jared and myself give our body and soul to the Jewish cause. We are not fresh to politics. We have followed very closely the roles of the US elite, the British elite, the German elite over a long number of years in the 90s as it used the most base treachery to break up Yugoslavia.

Myself, I am very observant always of the suffering that the British has caused to my ancestors.

The British began much of this when they promoted Hajj Amin el Husseini in 1920. The question is why they did this.

Some answer by saying geo-political interests and strategy. I do not agree. There is a deeper reason. It is that the British (I naturally exclude that section around Lord Balfour) HATE JEWS.

I also apply the same to this US elite we are talking about. Not geo-political interests. As hard as it is to handle if you are an American, this American elite HATE THE JEWS AND THEY HATE WITH A VENGENCE THE JEWISH STATE.

But in a way not yet raised here there is a geo-political reason too.

Yugoslavia had to go because Yugoslavia had independence. Tito was not completely a stalinist, remember. Of course he was a bureacratic functionary and more so as he grew older. But everything is contradictory.

In any case the US elite saw Yugoslavia in their way as they drove towards Russia, China and to a lesser extent India. But it was their ruthlessness which is relevant. And it was that the Media operated a conspiracy on the issue - even apparantly and to my surprise effecting our own David Gerstman!

Now the Jewish people are not just any people. Jews have a history and it is a history which is long and honourable and which is based on their ability to stay apart and to think for themselves. That is very dangerous to the US elite. The EU falls in line because they have long sensed this.

This is why this debate is not academic. A new genocide is imminent.

Can it be stopped? Well not in the way posed here. To stop it you have to go back to the thing I said first. To be free we all have to fight against the dominant Israel hatred in our countries. Once again I believe the Jewish people are becoming the centre of humanity and the future as well of humanity. A cadre, a new leadership has to be built!

16. Bill Narvey said:

Felix,

Not disagreeing with your views, just how do you propose:

A new Jewish leadership be built - from the ground up or by reforming existing Jewish leadership institutions?

Just what should that new Jewish leadership be doing or do differently than is being done now?

Such new leadership will be able to get those Jewish leaders who now seem to speak more for Palestinians/Muslims then Israel, to still their voices or align with the new leadership?

As for Prof Francisco Gil-White's references to an American ruling elite, that elite as I understand his point, has continued in power or in the position of the power behind the ruling powers for a great many years and through both Republican and Democratic adminstrations.

It would be useful for Prof Francisco Gil-White to name names, unless he does so in his writings that I have not yet covered. If names are not identified, the meaning and significance of an alleged American ruling elite that has an anti-Semitic/anti-Israel agenda is lost in the murkiness of the allegation.

17. Dan Barkye said:

First, I would like to ask Ted (Ted, are you reading this? Pls, do -) ) to move this article w its comments to the front page, b/c it seems to me that it is *here* that the real debate is going. It started w my reply to Bill's "What to do" and it grows into a rich and, hopefully, fruitful one.

Freedom is abstract and it takes much understanding to grasp its real nature. Engels, Marx's ideological twin, said that "Freedom is not lying down, waiting for a peeled banana to fall into your mouth". Following in free association this colorful anti-definition, it seems to me that to ask the Western ccountries to reassess their freedom in terms of brotherly love (not being antisemitic, as Felix suggests, if I understood you correctly) is, sorry to say so, futile, and so, the future is not so bright, IMO.

The issue is for real, a new Shoah IS possible, and I'm sure that we'll be called nuts for warning our brothers of the very real danger that lies ahead, as Jabotinsky was called at the time, but it is a responsibility that we will have to bear and share.

I propose: To bring our message and worldview to all involved thru the following means (not in order of imp):

- Lectures in Jewish centers;
- Appointments with Jewish and local leaders in the countries of our residence;
- Appointments with Israeli leaders;
- Articles in the mainstream media in all its forms;
- Pamphlets;

For this we need to (not in order of imp):

- Raise a new, proactive (by this I mean "peaceful militant", if there's a meaning at all to this weird expression) Zionist movement;
- Prepare thoroughly researched and supported papers, W/O A HINT of sensationalism (the subject is sensational enough);
- Prepare thoroughly researched refutal papers for the accusations that will be sure to be thrown in our face re Isr-Pal conflict and Isr so-called atrocities(think "You shoot at innocent stone-throwing little kids");
- List of Isr-Pal conflict definitions and terms ;
- Etc.

Any other idea is welcomed.

I know, I know that all I said above is done in some way or another. What is *not* done is the transformation of all those sporadic actions into an organized movement, w a centered mouth, capable of bringing a well defined, centralized and positive msg.

What can *I* do right now:

- Approaching my local Jewish org;
- Lecture in Hebrew and English;
- Writing essays and pamphlets;
- Spread the word of our notions and worldview.

Kol tuv, brothers!

Dan (call me Dunny, as in "sunny". No, not the Aussy meaning of the word, hehe)

18. Omri Ceren said:

I'm late coming into this conversation but I take it as an article of faith that nothing which can be explained by incompetence should ever be ascribed to malice. There is such a thing as institutional memory, especially in the halls of Foggy Bottom. Practices and sensibilities are incubated and enforced by everything from eye-rolling of friends in hallways to the body language of superiors during meetings to the promotion of like-minded deputies in offices.

That the United States has an a vaguely pro-Arab and anti-Israel policy is far better explained by reference to norms that describe ‘dispassionate analysis’ and ‘diplomatic respectability’ than it is by invoking some sort of age-old, psychological desire to exterminate Israel. No one at the State Dept. wakes up and says "I'm going to try to destroy Israel today". Rather, ingrained assumptions about how an analyst acts, what leaders are given a wide berth, what priorities should be triaged, etc all contribute to a climate inhospitable to Israeli interests. During the Cold War, it might have made sense for the United States to sacrifice Israel in order to win Arab backing. It would have been immoral, but it might have made sense. And so State Department conventional wisdom solidified. But in an age of global Islamist terrorism, US interests and Israeli interests align - conventional wisdom at the State Department just hasn’t caught up yet.

This explanation certainly explains the inconsistency of US policy better than Prof. Gil-White's does. It can account for such inconsistency as a function of the relative access that the State Department had to the Oval Office in various administrations. For instance - why have we seen more US pressure on Israel during the last few years compared to 2000-2004? Because Secretary Rice is much closer to President Bush than Secretary Powell was. These are credible explanations - using uncontroversial assumptions - that do at least as well a job explaining what Prof. Gil-White finds so troubling.

If this less grandiose but far more plausible theory is right - if it's not about agenda, but about sedimented institutional practices - then the solutions being proposed will have to be rethought. Rather than radical political change, those who think that the State Department is misguided have much slower and more painstaking work ahead of them. Future leaders have to be instilled with two elements: (a) a clear understanding of the concrete situation in the world, (b) an understanding of diplomatic practice, and (c) the thick skin to resist Foggy Bottom's subtle Leftward pull. Future diplomats must be incubated in the same way that conservatives incubated future Supreme Court justices – they must be familiar with knowledge about the world, they must have an understanding of how that knowledge is produced, and they must be equipped with the ability to defend their beliefs.

Among other things, this task will require reorienting conservative campus leadership from its current, ‘activist’ obsession. Crudely: modern liberal campus activism predated conservative leadership movements - so at the beginning, campus activism was Leftist activism. By the mid-1970s, that essentially meant moral exhibitionism - seeing and being seen shouting in the streets. When modern conservative and Jewish leadership programs arrived (again, crudely, on the heels of the New Right), they mostly tried to beat liberal activists at their own game – marching and demonstrating. The critical exception to this rule came in the form of institutional, party activism – Young Republicans. While self-styled and self-aware Leftist activists were in the streets, Ralph Reed and Newt Gingrich were plotting in cafeterias and Sam Alito and John Roberts were sitting in libraries. Today, these young Republicans are slowly advancing at the glacial pace of bureaucratic institutions – first the House (change every two years), then the Senate and Presidency (change every four years), now the Supreme Court (change only when someone retired from a life appointment). Changing the institutional practices of entrenched bureaucracies will take even longer – there, when someone retires from what is essentially a life appointment, you can't just appoint someone new - the person who was the last person's deputy steps in. It's impossible to just replace people at the top of a bureaucracy - institutions simply don't work like that.

This is not some sort of Machiavellian scheme. But in order to change the institutional practices of the halls of power, future leaders have to know that there are actual people walking those halls and that those people believe certain things for certain basically well-meaning but fundamentally misguided. The cocooning self-referentiality of typical campus politics has to be abandoned in favor of difficult study and nuanced understandings. Gratifying posturing sessions and eye-rolling will not change career diplomatcs.

Oh, and re Prof. Gil-White's claim that he provides copious documentation. I've written the following on him in the past:

A couple of things about [Prof. Gil-White's] site and the book. Any site that has to prominently display a link to an article titled "Is this website doing 'conspiracy theory'?" is already somewhat suspicious. And the apologia itself is sketchy at best - the main argument seems to be (1) that it's not a conspiracy theory if it's true and (2) that you can look everything up yourself. Of course, the entire point of a conspiracy theory is that it takes seemingly (and almost always actually) disconnected facts and weaves them into a dark plot. "You can see the evidence for yourself" is always the conspiracy theorists' emphatic claim of justification.

I'm not saying that this particular theory on the State Dept. is conspiracy theory (although I strongly suspect that it is - I just haven't done the work yet to go through the footnotes), but "copious documentation" is not a defense against the charge of conspiracy theorization. Conspiracy theory is about levels of evidence required for proof and disproof, not about the existence of the evidence itself.

19. Thomas the Wraith said:

Sorry this was not good. I read most of "Bush Jr's War on Iraq: A General Introduction" and it was terrible. He makes one key mistake very early and that leads him into strange and simplistic ideas. He says, in bold, "The first hypothesis about any policy must be that its actual effects were intended." No. That is in no way the 'first hypothesis'. It's actually absurd. The very idea shows an odd conception of human nature to say the least.

For example, in 1944 there were more kamakazi pilots hitting US ships than in 1942, or 1943. Does that mean that US policy was to create kamakazi pilots? US policy is created by large institutions and large institutions often do not produce the results they intend. New Coke anyone? Waterworld? Look at large corporations. Just because Delta went bankrupt doesn't mean Delta wanted to go bankrupt? Working backward from effects to intentions is not a valid method. (Look at your own personal life. Your girlfriend catches you naked with another girl. Was that your intention?) People make mistakes. Large groups of people make large mistakes.

Moreover, US policy is the result of several different competing institutions and individuals. They have different agendas, pressures, and motivations. Policy in not monolithic.

"Isn’t the Bush administration composed of “US officials”? And isn’t Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, supposed to be mouthing the US’s official policy towards Iraq? And if the growth of Iranian power is not what the US ruling elite wants, then why are Khalilzad and other US officials calling for withdrawing the troops, a policy that will abandon Iraq to Iran?" It never occurs to him that the various officials and Khalilzad are independent actors who are not reading from the Official US Policy Script. As for why we are withdrawing some troops - does the man read the news? Domestic political pressure. He treats US policy as if it were some body of knowledge floating in space, free from domestic political concerns. How bizarre!

Overall a simplistic, paranoid cartoon passing as "political analysis."

20. kuhnkat said:

I would repeat a story about "Foggy Bottom". When BushII got in and sent his people into Foggy Bottom, they had to continually remind the morons there that they WORK FOR THE US. That their job was to promote the interests of the US.

As McCarthy and others have found to their dismay over the years, the US State Department was severely compromised by the Soviets. What the Soviets didn't destroy the general moronic lefty attitude of those highly educated ELITES did.

Currently the Bush administration does more internal fighting with the bureaucrats and LIFERS in the administration than they do with other countries!!

With the cash available to the Saudis, that makes a third MAJOR player in the US gubmint.

21. Peretz Rickett said:

I think I have to agree with Thomas the Wraith. It is a well documented "Evil Puppetmaster" theory, but documentation is not proof of authenticity. There are similar "Evil Puppetmaster" theories with just as much documentary proof that the controlling cabal actually masterminded 9/11, not the islamofacists; or that a plane didn't really crash into the Pentagon - it was a cruise missile; etc., etc., the puppetmaster theories are myriad.

A person acts in his own interest, period. Different ideologies might compete in a person's mental battlefield to determine this interest, but he will, in the end, act towards his own self-determined interest. The puppetmaster theories ignore this completely, unless they also theorize that the puppetmasters are immortal. Their plan, as can be plainly seen through all the 'evidence' is proceeding right on schedule, over the course of 60 years and 3 generations and will continue up until it is finished in another 50-60 years. So a member of this cabal is really nothing more than just another peon doing his daily grind toward the master vision of his master. I just wonder who the masters of the cabal are? Eventually we'll come to an immortal, apparently.

I don't quite understand how this cabal, bent on the extermination of Jews, spent so many resources and manpower to terminate Nazism, to only then implement its masterstroke of killing the Jews surreptitiously. It would have been far easier to let the Nazi machine finish the job without intervening. Public opinion demanded that the Nazi's be stopped? I thought the cabal controlled and manipulated public opinion?

This is nonsense. One cannot determine intent by examining outcome.

Make no mistake, I'm no fool and I don't think that the US is a very good friend or ally. It's very disturbing. The blame for it need go no further than understanding that Western civilization is infected with a disease called leftism - where everything that was wrong is not right and everything that was right is now wrong. And here in Israel we are as much infected by this disease as elsewhere.

Civilization is what is going to kill us. When one is so civilized that he frowns upon killing the enemy, then it is the enemy who will eventually kill one's civilization.

22. ShyGuy said:

I fully agree with every single word Peretz said in his post, #21, above. Nothing else to add.

23. radiorote said:

As it stands, the Bush Administration handed over Iraq to Iran in 2003, in order to ensure the Shi'ites did not over run US troops. If they were able to calm the Shi'ites, Mr. Bush stood a better chance in taking the 2004 election.
It is that simple.

24. ShyGuy said:

Please prove your assertions, RadioRote. They seem baseless to me.

25. Ted Belman said:

I am indebted to all of you for your insightfull and intelligent comments. I am sorry I wrote the following in my post. "In order for Israel to defend itself, Israelis and Jews must be totally convinced of the dedication of the world lead by the US to destroy the State of Israel. There can be no other explanation to the events of the last 57 years." This was way too extreme and doesn't reflect my beliefs. It was too hastily written. My thinking is in line with the thoughtful comments here which rejected the consiracy theory. See my next post The Core Question.

26. Felix Quigley said:

Greetins to all

First of all I want to clear up something I said that has not been understood as I meant it.

I said that the US elite hate the Jews and the Jewish state with a vengence. They do so in a way that is comparable though obviously not quite the same (because there are different historical issues) as the British did during the period from 1920 to 1948 when they grew the fascist opposition to Israel and then bailed out of the Mandate. I am saying that the dominant issue was hatred, Jew hatred, anti-semitism.

Of course you can take it from me as a fully paid up Irishman that the British hated the Irish. But their hatred for the Jews was different.

Note that I am not saying for a moment that there were not serious geo-political issues involved as well. But I am saying that it was the hatred issue that was dominant.

Jew hatred is based on ignorance. It is a base emotion and it does not need any logic. This seems to be the case with Hitler´s writings and we see it all the time, the latest being the Iranian President.

The great trap that my friends here are falling into is to suiggest that this is not the case also with the American US elite. Por que non?

I am saying that there are geo-political issues involved but the dominant issue in the case of the attitude of the US elite towards Israel is Jew hatred. This takes the form in our modern era as hatred of the state of the Jews, which is Israel.

To understand this I feel we must turn towards what happened in Yugoslavia in the 90s. There Yugoslavia as it was constituted stood in the road of the US Empire, and it IS a kind of an Empire, as it moved Eastwards. This is factually easy to show.

Yugoslavia had never really been the creature of Stalin and it therefore maintained a certain independence of spirit.

That independence earned for Yugoslavia the bitter hatred of the US elite, the British elite, the German elite etc.

This led the US to support the fascist Croatian movement and its leader President Tudjman. The anti-Serb campaign which I witnessed daily in the British Press when I was working as a supply teacher in London ended in the violent expulsion of Serb ordinary folk from the Krajina. This was how Tudjman described the action later and this is what the US elite fully planned supported and executed from behind the scenes:

"And there can be no return to the past, to the times when they the Serbs were spreading cancer in the heart of Croatia, cancer which was destroying the Croatian national being and which did not allow the Croatian people to be the master in its own house and did not allow Croatia to lead an independent and sovereign life under this wide, blue sky and within the world community of sovereign nations...They [i.e., the Serbs driven from their homes by the Croatian Army] didn't even have the time to take with them their filthy foreign currency or their knickers."
-- Franjo Tudjman on Croatian Radio, transcribed by the BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 28 August 1995 "
(http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm)

And as well if that were not enough the US elite supported the Islamofascist Izetbegovic in Bosnia. Who was this man Izetbegovic?

I quote from the same source the following for you to read. These words wewre spoken in an interview by US Ambassador Zimmermann:

"As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a Muslim fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as we were its victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that Izetbegovic is some sort of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like he is a moderate politician who is trying to do the best in a difficult situation.
_________________________________________________________________

[Jared (Jared Israel, editor of tenc.com) Comments:] The reasoning here is charmingly ostrich-like: Proof by Rejection of Negative Consequence. 1) Fundamentalists are terrible. 2) It would be terrible if Izetbegovic were a fundamentalist. 3) Therefore Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.

Fortunately Izetbegovic wrote a book about his beliefs. It is called "The Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija"). Here's an excerpt:

"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non-Islamic societies and political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..." (p. 22)

It is ironic that Zimmermann uses Iran as the example of what Izetbegovic is not. Actually, Izetbegovic was especially fond of the Iranian Fundamentalists. Moreover, the US encouraged Iran to smuggle arms and terrorist trainers into Bosnia during the fighting, despite an embargo on importing arms. When challenged about this at a Congressional hearing, Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith confirmed that the US had indeed approved the shipments." (ibid)

I could go on, much further. But perhaps there is enough to show how the US elite was prepared to join the Nazi fascists and join the Islamofascists in order to destroy the independence of Yugoslavia.

Enough to understand their hatred of Jews.

Because the Jewish people as a nation have always been separate and being separate historically have always thought independently.

As Francisco has shown on his site www.hirhome.com the Roman genocide has not usually been well understood. The genocide was necessary for the Roman "Fascists" because the Jewish ideology was a revolutionary ideology. There is an unbroken link from then, through the Nazi Holocaust into today.

And this is where I was really misunderstood.

I did not suggest we wait until all the nations of the world stop being anti-semitic. That would make me sound something like a peace preacher which I most definitely am not.

I believe that the ideas and principles of the Jewish nation have once more come to the fore. And let me be blunt, Ireland no longer has got a revolutionary or even if you dislike that word a principled leadership. The Left is now a supporter of Islamofascism and is leading the hatred of Israel.

I was saying that many people not just of course only in Ireland but internationally are now caught up in a gigantic contradiction. If they continue to support the Palestinian fascists they will become more and more reactionary themselves. To gain freedom many millions must break out of this contradiction. Believe me millions will break out of this contradiction because it is an intolerable contradiction. We must be ready and it is why we prepare here by having discussion of ideas with no holds barred!

To stop the US elite and the Islamofascists bringing their vengeance in the form of a new genocide then these millions must find a voice. That is why the suggestions on organisation by Bill and others is vital. The lead must be given.

This is why we must not make excuses for this US elite, this British elite, this German elite, this French elite, this Venezuelan elite. We must prepare to mobilise the ordinary man and woman, the masses, to smash them on this issue.

27. Dan Barkye said:

Re US' hidden goals, after some reading and reflection of Gil's articles, I wrote in another article that I do not believe that "the extermination of the Jews in the US' boresight" is a possible bottom line understanding of the US policy. For me this issue is closed.

What is not closed for me is the call for action that I (posts 13 & 17) and Felix (his call for the need for new cadres and new org, end of post 15) made, following Bill's q "What to do".

I know that all the proposals I made may not look so good at first sight, but this is an optical illusion. Remember that this is exactly what Herzl and the First Zionists did at the time, a sustained campaign of persuasion of the powers that be, the Tsar, the Sultan, the Euro govs, by all means available, articles, pamphlets, personal meetings, etc..
If we want to have a stronger impact on the real-life developments, then we have to act, not only to talk, and for that matter we do it among ourselves w not much external effect.

W the risk of being stoned (duck!...), I renew my call for decisive and proactive action.

Maybe it's time to form a sub-org in the Jewish establishment (The Zionist Congress, frex) that will bear the stamp and the voice of our ideas to so many and at such high levels.

Pls, react, even if it's only to tell me that I'm wrong and foolish to think so.

Dan

28. Dan Barkye said:

Felix, I'm sorry I didn't read fully your post w its renewed call for action. So we are three, now, in this call. Good! I made some suggestions including what *I* can do. Let's see what we *all* can do. I'm sure it's much that we can do.

Dan

29. Ted Belman said:

I think the ZOA has got it right so we already have an organization and a voice. "There is a time to sow and a time to reap". Now the Roadmap has to run its course. There will come a time that events will conspire to recommend a diferrent solution. We must believe this and continue to spread the word. It is our time to sow.

30. Dan Barkye said:

I take it, Ted, that your re is a reply to mine (and, by implication, to Felix and Bill, too).

You say "There is a time to reap and a time to sow. Now the Roadmap has to run its course. There will come a time that events will conspire to recommend a diferrent solution. We must believe this and continue to spread the word. It is our time to sow."

I fully agree w your analysis of the Roadmap's lifespan and outcome, but, if by spreading you mean our comments here and elsewhere, then I think that this is not enough (or I miss something of which I'm not cognizant), and this is my departure pt for my call to action.

31. Ted Belman said:

We must build our constituency one by one and build our coalition one group at a time. This we are doing to a limited ad hoc extent. I mention the ZOA because they have an organization , funding and credibility. I also remember when Benny Elon came to the US to sell his Plan he had many an audience with Christian Groups right wing Jewish groups and Congress. We have to build this coalition. I would like to start a list of all groups we can count on and then mobilize then to a joint action plan. We must sell the idea to Congress that a two State solution is not workable and won't lead to peace.

The first order of business is to strengthen Likud in the hope that they form the government. All we can do really is to lend moral and intellectual support. We are not alone, nor should others feel they are alone.

32. Ed D said:

I agree with all of you who want action now. Give me some lead and I will do as much as possible. A good place to start, in my mind, is with the Jewish leftists, both in the US and Israel. I believe in the power of people if they can get their head out of the sand.

33. Alex Eisenberg said:

Dear all,

Francisco suggested that I read the postings here, as a lot is being discussed on the issue of the survival of Israel and Judaism.

I've been reading his work and collecting source texts on this broad subject since 9-11, when the extremeness of the events violently shook my head. I've been in touch with Francisco and Jared Israel since then and find their work really compelling.

However, I'd like to point out a couple of issues, all related to what you've been discussing here.

First, about Loftus's "Secret War Against The Jews." I've had occasional e-mail exchanges with John Loftus (or whoever answers in his stead) in the last 3 years. What I can tell you is this: VERY STRANGE. I've read two of his books, co-authored with his Australian partner, including the one just cited. In his e-mails and in his website he says things that contradict the overall picture he gives the public in "The Secret War." In one of his e-mails to me (which he by the way never signs) he went out of his way to defend the current Bush, stating black-on-white that Bush Jr. has nothing to do with his corrupt father. He also said that US intelligence is no more geared towards turning other governments into their puppets, but rather into democracies! Then, when I questioned him about Bush Jr.'s policy of forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian fascist state within its borders, he simply said that the majority of the Israelis have always approved of it, and because "the only" (my emphasis) remaining problem in Israel's vicinity was Syria, the US was about to destroy fascist Syria as soon as the Iraq issue came under control.

Well, clearly enough, the problem with Loftus is not that his position contradicts what he put in his book as facts (many of them totally unverifiable, as opposed to Gil-White's), but rather that his position contradicts what any rational mind CONCLUDES from the reading of "The Secret War," which is why some of you have included his name alongside Francisco Gil-White's and Jared Israel's. In other words, it makes no sense to defend the current US administration as a departure from all the previous (which is what Loftus told me by e-mail), given that its policies and actions are just the same.

Now, if you guys have read Gil-White's article on how the American and the British Jewish leaders (that is, leaders of institutions like The American Jewish Congress, or the World Jewish Congress, which are about the same, or Foxman's ADL) have been treating the people they supposedly represent, in total submission to their American and British overlords (the ruling elites of these countries), and also his article on the origins of the CIA, you will perhaps be scared if you knew that Loftus — who worked as US government prosecutor against Nazis in post-war US — whose intimate knowledge of the CIA community is painted as being manifest in his books, has been the first non-Jew to be invited to preside a Jewish institution such as the Florida Holocaust Museum!! Isn't it pretty telling of how Jews are outright fooled by the US ruling elite? Given the extraordinary power and corruption of US intelligence on the one hand, and the high-level position Loftus had in the government on the other, can you possibly believe that John Loftus could get away with revealing truly sensitive CIA info, publish it and have a weekly radio and TV program on a major news company?

Well, since some truly sensitive information has been declassified through the Freedom of Information Act, and Christopher Simpson's "Blowback" was published in 1988 (considered the most authoritative source on the relationship between the US and the Nazis), it is interesting that Loftus published his "Unholy Trinity" in 1991, and later, when Simpson's "Blowback" went out of print, then the "Secret War Against The Jews" 'took over.'

Why did Loftus need to write "The Secret War," and the "Unholy Trinity"? It could be either out of indignation and a true sense for informing the public, or damage control. I think we should find that out.

Second issue: someone, a specialist, must seriously address the works of Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris and "The Palestinian People" by Baruch Kimmerling & Joel Migdal. The books by these 'new historians' have become the mainstream intellectual basis for professional anti-Zionists and antisemites. Efraim Karsh - from King's College - has done some good refutation of Morris's works, but that is far from enough. These authors argue that the State of Israel was born out of an ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs. My view is that we can't move ahead with the defense of Israel without addressing these authors.

Shalom rav,
Alex

34. scott said:

Well there's really been some great illucidation of the problem in this post. I'm convinced Omri's the smartest guy here. The one flaw in his thinking is that he believes in the basic goodness of righteous conservative ideology based on the basic decency of right thinking human beings. Unfortunately this is a fatal flaw. But for a few brief summits attained, western man has been on a gradual slope of moral decline since shortly after the Reformation and in the past five dacades this slope has taken a precititously downward angle. Even the evangelical Christian world has fallen for heretical doctrines that are now rendering them empty shells of men. Like the last description below.

A great Jewish sage once said:

6And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12AND BECAUSE LAWLESSNESS WILL ABOUND, THE LOVE OF MANY WILL GROW COLD. 13But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Later one of this sage's students, who had also sat at the feet of Gamaliel, added this:

1But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It is as clear as day to me that the whole world will turn against Israel. Indeed already has.

35. Bill Narvey said:

Re: Omri Ceren's Posted Views

Omri displays a depth of knowledge and understanding of the workings of the American government, its State Department and the nature and workings of bureaucracies that few possess.

Still Omri’s comment that Israel is being pressured more since C. Rice took the helm of the State Department from C. Powell because the State Department has greater access to the President, does not satisfy.

While that may be true, the Mid east and Israeli-Palestinian situation was changing with White House anger with Arafat’s rejection of the Barak offer and American’s conceding finally Arafat was not a person Israel could negotiate with. With Arafat’s failing health and death and Abbas arriving on the scene hope again was renewed and once again Israel was being pressured. Add to that the almost certain differences in attitude vis a vis Israel that Powell and Rice have and in this case it would seem that Ms. Rice is of the view that the Palestinians want and will be satisfied with what the West wants for Palestinians, if Israel would just give that much more.

Still Omri’s analysis does contribute to greater understanding of why America is doing what it does vis a vis Israel. His comment that the bureaucratic depth of the State Department is somewhat left leaning also gives further insight.

Though his analysis seems far closer to the truth that Prof. Gill-White’s, Omri’s advice on what must be done for American government bureaucratic conventional thinking at the State Department to catch up to recognizing that American interests are now aligned with Israel’s and presumably for America to support rather than undermine Israel, is unsatisfactory on two counts.

The problem with Omri’s counseled process of making future leaders more responsive and adaptable to existing and ever changing global circumstances and to those that impact on Israel and Israel’s relationship with America, directly or indirectly, is that it is far too complex and it will take far too long.

Far too much can happen to Israel for the worse before American governmental and bureaucratic thinking comes around and when it does, Israel may not be there anymore.

The problem with quick fixes of course is that they rarely sustain, but in this case with Israel seemingly approaching a brink of disaster, a quick, but effective solution must be considered, found and acted upon.

That solution will probably be achieved by those who clearly see that a strong vital and secure Israel is as necessary and important to Jews and Israelis as it is to America and that the threat of radical Islam is more of a clear and present danger than the West will allow itself to believe.

Those charged with the solemn duty of ensuring a quick and effective solution must gain the President’s ear and eyes and open both to the reality that radical Islam cannot be negotiated with and can only be defeated by mounting an all out war to defeat its soldiers, generals, financiers and supporters including the 5th columns of Muslim radicals throughout the West.

In that regard, the White House also must be shown that the Palestinians are a part of radical Islam, do not want and never wanted their own state and they neither deserve nor are entitled to it. Palestinians have always been focused on Israel not having their own state as opposed to Palestinians having their own state. Secondly, the Palestinians have always been the pawns of the Arabs who want the land of Israel for themselves. If Israel could ultimately be dispossessed of that land, the Palestinians would almost certainly be shoved aside and again become Arabs governed by whatever Arab state(s) take control of the land of Israel.

The time for pro-Israel advocates to act effectively to turn thinking at the White House around is now. Later could be just too late.

I leave it to people far wiser than I to find the solution that is needed now and to take the lead in acting to ensure that solution succeeds.

36. Dan Barkye said:

The magnitude of the problem that Israel is facing and the danger in its wake, that of the very real possibility of the destruction of Israel, and, not a moment too late after that, the extinction of the remaining Jews wherever they are, are to my mind, and as stated here almost by all, very, very real.

We discuss the US so much here b/c this country is of an ultimate committed value for the well-being of Israel, in spite of what is said by many. So let me add more of my 2 c's to the mix.

There's a well defined position of pol sci pundits that the 'personal' is at least as influential to the policy making process as the 'impersonal', the objective pts of view in deciding such policies, to say that the policy, in whatever level and direction, is colored by so many personal whims and factors. Omri took this pt ad extremis, almost, and for that matter, in a very eloquent manner. I beg to differ. I'll explain the accepted view of policy making (which I'm sure is known to many here) as shortly as possible and then take it to its conclusion regarding the case of US vs Israel.

When all is said and done, the objective takes the upper hand. There should be no questions about that, otherwise the nation is imperilled and this is unacceptable. Yes, there are ups and downs in this or that measure, in this or that policy, but no one can tip the "objective" to the personal to the pt of endangering the well-being of the nation. Yes, there were grave mistakes in the history of too many nations, but all started w an objectively defined policy, not personal. I'm not talking of "L'etat c'est moi" by Louis xvi (?), I talk about the modern times.

This means that once the aims and the goals of the nation are set, then the decisions are made, and the machine is put in motion to implement them.

The aims and the goals of the nation are defined by their relative import to its well-being and to ensure its existence. Those are, schematically put and in order of importance, existential needs/goals, important ones, and regular needs.

If what I describe as an objective process of policy making is indeed the norm, can any one imagine a personal whim, fancy, caprice, or impulse, or a geographical/physical proximity and access to the President, taking the lead as *the* policy making pointers? I, for one, find it hard to believe, much more to make of it a policy making starter of my own. If I were a policy maker, I'd try to find the goals and aims of the nation in question and discern what should follow from it as the overt or covert official policy, and this is how IntServ work. Of course they take in consideration personal factors but only to a measure, not as the rolling ground for it.

So, if this is the case w US, too, and there should be no reason not to, then in order to ensure its raison d'etre, which is very simply put, the making of money (the freedom blah-blah vs the money-barons pull is very simply solved), it needs to ensure its global reach; in order to do this, it needs to ensure its hegemony, and this is what they are doing since the "cannons" policy w Tokio, in the 19th cent, and before. The opening of global markets is imperative to US, and to do it, the need for democratization of each and every country in the world is imperative, also, in order to enable it to open its markets to the private enterprise. Ultimately, it is my belief that Marx is right, and there will be no int'l borders, but only econ entities w a need to control the (flow of) goods only, the people being controlled by the means of production relations.

If I'm correct, then in order to ensure that the Arab states stay in line and ready to serve the US global econ interests, which are of an existential nature to it, by whatever means possible, oil included, then the situation has come to a pt in which the democratization of the Arab states is of an imperative and immediate need for the US.

As such, they cannot afford to overlook the need, real or not for us but real enough for the Arabs for all the reasons they may care to lie or tell the truth about, for a Pal state, and a democratic one, at that. Same w the Europeans.

Again, if I'm correct, then the picture becomes clear. A need to support a Pal state is of an imperative nature to the US.

Now, the hard nut, here, is "With Israel, or without Israel" by its side?

I contend that it is "With Israel". This, for various reasons, not the least being the Protestant background of the US and its Christian Right, and the Holocaust guilt feeling that crashes quite effectively any tendency to the contrary, w a mix of some other lofty notions in it. The danger to us is from fringe factions taking the lead, not that of the present US elite represented by the CFR, mainly, and the Neo-Cons. Same, w the relative differences, w Europe.

This sounds like the old take on the US policy, but this is so b/c this is how it really is, and the Neo-Cons are there to make sure that the US is the benevolent hegemon that they want it to be.

No Star Treck style Prime Directive "Do not impose" principle as to the int'l policy, as indeed it never was for the US. If it was in their interests, they acted accordingly w/o second thoughts and w/o blinking.

I am of the opinion that Israel is in their best interests as a democratic and developing force in the region, as indeed Herzl put it when he tried to convince the powers that be, namely that the Jews will be the West cultural bastion and standard bearer to this backyard of the West, a powerful argument that he kept hammering in every ear, and so, an offer that the West couldn't refuse after all, in spite of the Queen's Foreign Office Arabists.

But so is a Pal state in their best interests. We better be ready for it and try to make the best of the situation.

Our task is to be able to stand on our own feet, no matter what, w or w/o US, w or w/o friends of any kind. Our task is to do what *we* have to do, namely to ensure the continuing existence of the Jewish nation. Here, I am totally w Felix, w whom I find myself increasingly in step - no elite of any country to which we have to answer.
If US is w us, so much the better. I think she's w us after all.

I'm not sure I understand Ted fully, so I won't keep hammering my call to action, but in my heart I think we need a determined, sustained barrage of propaganda in every direction, not the least the call that Alex made, namely that "we can't move ahead with the defense of Israel without addressing these authors" (re post #33, end para).

37. BobW said:

Sholom Dan,

It was Louie the 14th, the "Sun King".

Kol tuv,
BobW

38. felix quigley said:

Greetings all

Alex, I applaud you for getting in touch with Loftus. I too was troubled by this man in many ways. But I took information from his article published here which I think truthful. I actually put his article on the site www.isil.blogspot.com with some interspersed comments. (the first article you meet)One of these for example was

"(Loftus said he was of Irish background, well these last 2 paragraphs are an example of our eternal affliction, ie blarney…or bullshit. Ignore them, the jewels lie elsewhere)"

I applaud Dan very much for his emphasis on practice. Theory has to be translated into practice and this is to my mind the great weakness of many of us academic types.

I myself would concentrate our resources on 2 areas, the role of the Israeli leadership which betrays, centred around Sharon, its roots etc, and also the role of the Left ie the neo left internationally.

As I tried to point out the danger is seeing this centred around the US. I feel that Francisco is correct in going to the Roman genocides. The Romans did this because they were forced to do it, and the reason was that Jewish ideas were mobilising masses of poor.

I do think that this is the motive force throughout history and explains why there has been genocide in every century against Jews.

With suicide bombs there has already been one in recent years, and we saw how this began to merit say 6 lines if that in Western papers and TV.

In other words the West will accomodate itself quickly to a genocide.

It could take the form of an Al Qaeda dirty bomb, or anything. And it can happen even as the US and British elite issue statements which deplore it.

You see we learned in Jugoslavia that they have the art of theatre, one thing for the ordinary man, another in reality.

In this situation the attack on Francisco´s method is just not on. I mean from people who supported the surrender of Gaza under Sharon. Not very clever in my humble book!

To look at the results of actions of politicians, since we distrust them so much, is absolutely valid.

If a pattern emerges, such as from Eisenhower Dulles, through Carter and now Bush Rice Khalizad, then we form conclusions.

The reality is that Iraq now emerges as a great danger to Israel.

There is one other reason for the US elite to link up with Islamofascism. One of the issues this global power is concerned with is how to keep in subjection the over billion of the poorest of the poor human beings. I think they have concluded...why Islamism is the answer! All laid there ready and waiting by history, with its huge bonus for them of the ultimate scapegoat...jew hatred.

The great thing about Ted and Israpundit is that he helps to develop the discussion. ie Jews ARE Democratic. My point. And why reactionaries hate them.

39. Dan Barkye said:

Thank you, Bob! Yeah, the Sun king, it escaped me and it's really uncharacteristic, due modesty.

Thank you, Felix, for your compliment. True to the last word: The weakness would be if we restrict ourselves to words, only. I think that it should be a natural thing to analyse, deduce, and apply, to the praxis of the real life, the conclusions arrived at.

But I didn't get your pt yet. Are you for Gil's theory about the hidden US agenda? I think you are, from what I can gather from your last post. I really don't think it's the case. Now, not that I'm a sucker, it would be a true danger in our case not to be awake and aware, but what purpose would an extinction of the Jews serve to the US? If this is the case, then one must assume that US is in the mix of all the believers in the "Jewish global rule" label w all its implications. This is what I see as the real question here: Is US w all of them or not? Is its elite poisoned w the same antisemitic potion which is a constant threat for us wherever we are for the last 2k yrs? It's possible, but it would take a great stretch of mind and logic and empiric experience w them, to believe in it.

40. rudie said:

I think Fransisco Gil-White is right. All his material is documentally supported and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. US Government is not Israel's ally and wants Israel to disappear. Those who have read "The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aarons and "The abandonment of the Jews" by David Wyman would more readily accept this stark depressing truth. One reason is to buy Arab's favor and have unobstructed flow of oil. Ruling class of US is associated with oil companies who view Israel as huge obstacle. Second, a lot of politicians, particularly in State Department and academia are sheerly bought by Saudi's money. The other is plain Jew-hatred. It's not possible to rationalize this irrational feeling, which many try to do. For those Jews who lived in Eastern Europe and tried not to hide head in sand when observing disgust and repugnance felt toward Jews, it's unfortunate fact of life.

41. Alex Eisenberg said:

Dan,

You wrote: "but what purpose would an extinction of the Jews serve to the US? If this is the case, then one must assume that US is in the mix of all the believers in the "Jewish global rule" label w all its implications."

The answer to your very good inquiry is simple, but very long. I will just give you what I consider the beginning of the answer. The problem is not with your inquiry, but rather the way you formulate the question above, which takes us away from the core of the problem. The US ruling elite is not specifically interested in the extinction of the Jews. They are interested in keeping and expanding their unparalleled wealth and power, and, in order to do it, all peoples (including the US population proper to a certain extent) are expendable. Their actions betray the prospect that if Israel needs to be destroyed on their way to totally conquer the East, so be it. For example, Latin American countries have not been laid waste by the US because it has been able to control them pretty much the way they always wanted, but most of its population is kept poor and uneducated, so people here (I'm writing from Brazil) have never been able to organize and oppose their corrupt governments so as to try to heal their miserable situation. The few times when they got to the antechamber of something like that, the US immediately cut it short by infiltrating hundreds of agents who helped train the military dictator's armies to crush the civil populations. Actually, thousands of fugitive Nazis have fled Europe and worked in South America under American sponsorship. In some cases they were directly paid by the CIA, as the Klaus Barbie case (the butcher of Lion, responsible for the torture and death of the French Jews in WW2). Barbie was a CIA agent who helped the then Bolivian dictator commit horrible atrocities against ordinary Bolivians. Well, if this has always been the case in South America since WW2, why wouldn't the US do whatever is needed to thoroughly penetrate the East? Did you ever ask yourself why the US has never imposed (and it had and has the power to do it) the only possible solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict that would not result in genocide, namely, to complete the population exchange, as was done in Europe and Asia after WW2? It cannot be just for oil, since the US has inherited from Britain the virtual control of Arab and Persian oil for decades. It must be then for a much broader strategic reason, namely, the use of Islam as a weapon against the US ruling elite's REAL possible competitors - Russia, China and India. Look at what's going on right now in the ex-soviet republics, in Eastern Europe and the Middle East: old fascists and their offspring are taking over countries like Croatia and the Ukraine; Bosnia and Kosovo have been turned into Muslim fundamentalist states; Islamic 'revolutions' are devastating countries like Azerbaidjan, Kazakhstan and Chechnya; and hitherto weak separatist movements in India are strangely gaining power, not to mention the mess in the Middle East. This being the picture, do you think a democracy like Israel helps the trend? Israel could have been a model for the Middle East since its inception if the US had invested in that direction. The opposite has always been the case. Therefore, if we don't enter a period of incredible God-made miracles for the Israeli Jews, we are simply very close to the fourth holocaust of our history... (Chas vechalila)

Best,
Alex

42. Per said:

I very much agree with you on this, Alex. However, after having studied these phenomena for a few decades, I have come to reject theories that presuppose some kind of conspiracy or grand design in the back of the heads of greedy madmen. Much of what is seen as a result of conspiracy, appears to be unintended results of human actions meant to produce something entirely different.

I have admired the work of John Loftus for many years, and he is demonstrably not spinning conspiracies. He is simply telling us a story based on his access to formerly closed files. Much of it can be corroborated by other sources, and nothing is improbable. Professor Gil-White is spinning theories, but again, this is how science proceeds, - through conjectures and refutations, as Karl Popper would have said.

Concerning the fate of Israel and the lack of support from prominent Jewish intellectuals, I am also shocked by reading the propaganda by such people as Avi Schlaim (although Benny Morris is not quite as cunning). Schlaim is currently travelling far and wide in Europe calling for support from the easily incitable Europeans for a boycott of Israeli products. My hope is that these people will boycott products from Microsoft and Intel, so that we may get rid of their propaganda on the Internet.

The understanding of Zionism must be thoroghly clarified and cleansed of all the religious and ideological sediments that have accumulated. A Zionist must again become a Jew who barely escaped murder in Europe by fleeing to Israel. Anti-zionism (which is now replacing "antisemittism" and becoming "respectable in Europe and America) must be demonstrated to be the policy of those who whish to prevent the Jews from escaping the next Holocaust and the completion of Hitlers pet project.

Kol tuv
Per

43. felix quigley said:

Hi Bob

Yes I am for Francisco and Jared Israel's theories that the US and also the EU does have a hidden agenda.

But it is not to wipe out the Jewish race but to use anti-semitism as a weapon of world control.

I think the importance of Yugoslavia is that for a time this US and EU elite used Serb phobia and hatred to enable them to knock down one state, Yugoslavia, which had a certain independence but because of historical weaknesses was vulnerable, and replace it with a series of client states. The other importance was that the role of the Media was highlighted, when one examines the evidence there is only one conclusion, there IS a conspiracy at work.

Alex has answered for me. I would add this though. I always do emphasise the need of the West to control indirectly the fate of the over billion human souls who are Muslim, and I believe the most advanced thinkers of the US and EU elites do see Islamofascism as the answer. But obviously they prefer the kind of Islamofascist leaders who are "civilised" and do not fly planes into towers. But inflicting terror by stoning buried to the neck Muslim women passes. Part of the control of this Muslim billion is of course the Protocols and all that filth.

It just now strikes me there is another bonus for the US and EU elite. By the clever use of this Palestinian issue, based on Jew hatred, the elite have actually negatived completely the Left, what we call the neo-Left. Not everything is planned, of course not, but smart operators can study the general trend and use it.

My point about a cadre in each country stands, but obviouisly we have to try to clarify these issues here.

Unfortunately there is a bit of this nonsence in this discussion. To call somebody a conspiracy theorist kind of rules out the discussion and the evidence. It is the evidence we are after. And Omri´s explanation for these phenomena in my opinion do not hold up.

What did Francisco do to get fired from his lecturing post. Why, he brought forward the historical truths about the role of the Nazi and Palestinain Arab Hajj Amin el Husseini. And its connection with the present Palestinian movement. The man who was leading the firing, but not openly, he also had a bit of theatre going on, was connected directly to US Intelligence. But this man, Lustick, had never presented himself to the public as a defender of Husseini!

Bush said he was a friend of Israel, great pal of Sharon, yet it was he (not Carter) who took the step of ramming through the Palestinian state.

I do not understand the strange twist brought into the discussion by Omri. To me it is most valid to look at the results of actions and if those results show a pattern or trend then we can reach conclusions or moments of truths. A bully strikes a kid in the playground 3 times but each time he gives an excuse and even apologises. But after the third the kid starts to form some conclusions.

What we learned in Yugoslavia is that the elite who rule and have the power are quite capable of performing theatre for the masses. That is all the time in operation. To survive we have to spot it. Often you can only understand the real intent by seeing the CONSISTENT outcomes.

So to sum up

1. The US does have a policy. It is not as a friend of Israel but as an enemy. It seeks to stir up anti-semitism to use as a ploy in the world at large for its own reasons.

I think that that is not far removed from Hitler's initial writings. That changed though as events changed. And so it can with the US elite too. We know the sheer hatred of the European elite for Israel.

2. The US elite are disowning their own studies about the defence of Israel and are handing over areas that will make Israel indefencible. Not an accident or being misguided...they DO know the score!

3. The US has got major interest in stirring up potential hostile populations in Russia China and India with a view to influence and control. In this the economic realities in America need to be explored.

4. Using the issue of Israel and anti-semitism the elite which rules us, and its client media, has got the Left in its back pocket. Given the economic realities above that may be very conscous.

Of course there are different levels of conscousness but as Dan says the objective trend is there. But the leadership, especially the CIA who saved those Nazis in 1945, are very conscous in what they do.

44. Dan Barkye said:

Alex, you didn't read, apparently my posts (7, 9, 11, 13 *in particular para 4 - 8* copied below, 17, 27, 28 and 30), which, from what I wrote, you echo, and so, we find ourselves on the same side of the equation. I'm glad we are. I find myself in step w Felix, too, in every post almost, at least in principle.

I can only repeat my call to action, in which I totally agreed w you (your end para of post 33) - your call for the imperative necessity to refute the Jewish, I almost want to say traitors, but I'll refrain, writers, and others, who rebut Zionism and Israel.

From the lot that I wrote, I choose to post here again the following from post 13, as I mentioned in the beginning (pls, read the first sent in 5th para, bot not only, as to why I say that we are on the same side):

"The "immediate" for the US is to counteract a possible rival, and, as of now, they are exactly who Loftus mentions: Russia, China and India, b/c of demographic and industrial potential. The best way to fry them is to awaken sleeping dogs in their midst and for this the Islam Fundism is just the tool.
Just look around: Russia has its Sunni neighbors and Islam fanatics in Chechnia and elsewhere in Central Asia, esp in Uzbekistan; China has its own in the Uighurs, in Sinkiang, nicknamed the Pivot of Asia, to put in perspective the region's importance in global terms; India has its own, too, the Islam fundies bent on Kashmir as an immediate excuse, supported, I guess, by Pakistan.
When US needed a proxy in Afganistan it chose the Wahabists of Osama. Why not some other gr or faction? It wasn't that hard to do, I'm sure. Strange, when you think of it, right?

Every country of those three has its own gr's of dissidents, but they don't have much in common; the only gr that has something in common in all three, is the Islam Fundism. This is a very imp pt, IMO.

When Islam did its job, in the future, then it will be its turn to be fried, but it won't be of the magnitude that the said countries present, or so the US policy makers think. Let's cross the bridge when we reach it, so the US reasons, IMO.

As for the blame that Isr is force-fed Pals and thier state, to US defense, Carter et al will answer that they save Isr from itself, a very galant interventionist approach on the part of a good friend. What can you say against this kind friendship, esp when it's supported by a constant aid, material and other, in many instances? Nothing, right? I mean, the goyish and Jewish John Does swallow such an excuse easily.

From what I know of int'l politics, everything is expedient to a country's interests, including the well-being of another, and this, I'm afraid, is inclusive of Israel, BUT, in our case up to a certain pt and the history proves it, I think. As I said, we're allowed to hold our head above the water, no more. Everyone is allowed by default to defend itself but Israel and the Jews, and this is the real crime of the modern times."

Absolutely, as you can see I agree w you that Israel is expandable for US, as any other country, on the altar of the dollar, but, somehow, in principle, I cannot believe that it will come to such an end, for reasons that I wrote in another post, mainly the religious background of the US.

Another absolute for me is something for which I call in all my posts: PROPAGANDA, PROPAGANDA, and PROPAGANDA again. I note that there is an article here, posted today, saying exactly this: "The Challenge: Educate Opinion Makers" by David Bedein, INN. I haste to read it and to comment on it, and to reiterate my call to action on ALL levels, in ALL directions, in ALL ears available, by EVERYONE who cares to care for our cause (the caps are for emphasis only to make the pt, not as a shout in your ears, -) ).

I think that a concensus is starting to build here around the notion that Israel is expandable to the interests of the US. The debate revolves around the q of what is the measure of that futility and irrelevance of Israel for our only ally. Are we so trivial, for God's sake? Let's prove them we're not by all means available.

If the conclusion is that we are worthless to shadow this earth, even in the eyes of this sole ally of ours, the US, then our situation is dire, indeed, and so I renew my call (which was posted around in diff occasions in diff words, even here; see my post in article "Vatican call not to let Israel to rule Jerusalem") to depend on ourselves entirely and to do what we need to do no matter what, no matter who, AND LIVE in spite of them all!! We can do it, together we can do it! We did it many times in the past, we'll do it again, by God! I said here and I say it again "The dogs bark and the caravan is passing by". We are, were, and will forever be, the caravan.

45. Ptah said:

I have to agree with Omri on this one. The argument is essentially theory based: one postulates a theory and looks for facts to fit it. We read the argument, then conclude that it must be true because all the facts stated fit the theory. However, "all the facts stated" is not the same as "all the facts": the illusion that the theory is expandable is based on the fact that the theory initially is proposed because of a pre-selected bias. When a contradictory fact is discovered, often a tweak of the theory or an explanation of irrelevance is all that is required. The Theorist will persist if the tweak to the theory to accomodate the NEW fact happens to broaden the theory with respect to the initial bias.

For instance, logistics is a critical component of modern warfare, and other than the war for its independence, Israel has fought as a modern army. There have been several occasions where Israel could have been destroyed easily by the United States by simply not re-supplying them. The justification that "the american people would not have tolerated that, so the politician had to re-enforce israel", or "the united states had to maintain Israel because of ***, while preserving the intention of destroying Israel later" overlooks the fact that it contradicts the poffered "principle" that "outcomes indicate intentions". What happened to THAT? SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! DENY! DENY! DENY! its not the facts that support ANY theory that a proponent brings forth, but the facts that contradict the theory that a critic brings forth, that are telling.

The flaw of any theory based on deducing intentions usually is that the intentions "deduced" are invariably malevolent, and justified as being hidden because of their malevolence. Half the time, I am convinced that the intent of this sort of theorizing is to deliberately provoke an unreasoning and emotional defensive (survival) reaction that the bare facts does not support, with the justification being that a spin on the facts that are visible reliably reveals facts that are inherently not visible: i.e. intentions. It was thus that the serpent tempted the woman in the Garden, and I get the impression that getting to the truth is not the ultimate intent of the theory. HA! See how easy it is to start wondering about intentions, putting a different spin on the facts, and appeal to suspicions to arouse a desired reaction?

Here's where I think the problem is: the united states government civil service is run by liberals who maintain their control by filtering for liberals during the hiring process. The French are more direct in that they require ALL their civil servants to have come from only a few Ecoles. The main point about liberals is that they only TALK about compassion for people, but in REALITY show a callous dis-regard for people. Why bitch about the thousands killed by the US when it invaded Iraq and ignore the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam? Why bitch about the single digit millions killed by the Nazis, but the silence for the hundreds of millions killed by Communism. Why overlook the atrocities of the terrorists in Iraq and bitch about Guantanamo? Did you know that the calculated death rate of soldiers in Iraq is LESS than the murder rate in Washington D.C.? Why bitch about the former and NOT raise a bigger ruckus about the latter?

The Yugoslavian scenario being posed as the template for the Israeli scenario assumes the theory being proposed in the first place is correct, by assertion, without proof itself. I HAPPEN TO REMEMBER the debate in Congress, when the Republican senators asked, quite logically IMHO, what exactly was the strategic value of Yugoslavia to us, and the best answer I remember getting was that the EU/NATO couldn't get their shit together and that WE had to help. Since a LIBERAL was the President at the time, you didn't get the firestorm for that war then than we did now. I CHALLENGE you to find a similar volume and character of invective launched against Clinton THEN that is being launched against Bush today.

As a citizen of the United States, I can solemnly tell y'all that Israelis are not being treated any worse than American citizens: the government will let shit happen to you, and me, as long as their agendas are being met and we don't get enough voices to scream loudly enough about it. As long as we keep silent, they'll think we'll take anything they allow to happen to us, and won't tolerate anything that they're sure we won't take lying down.

For better or for worse, here's what I see as the lowdown: The Jews are lumped in as Westerners, with Arabs being the "other", because when viewed from a cultural standpoint, the Jews CREATED the West via Christianity, while Islam is viewed as coincidentally influenced, but otherwise independent. If you haven't gotten the impression yet that the Western Intelligensia hates everything about Western Culture, then you won't understand why I have gotten the impression that the Western Intelligensia loves Islamic culture because the latter invaded Europe, the cradle of Western Culture, over 11 centuries ago.

And how, exactly, is the behavior of liberals in the US government that don't want Israel to effectively defend itself ANY DIFFERENT from the behavior of liberals in favor of gun control to effectively hamper american citizens from defending themselves? The reason they oppose zionism is that zionism, at base, equals Jews plus Jewish homelands plus guns, and it's the GUNS that they object to. Ever notice how NICE they talk about Israeli Jews when Israeli Jews DON'T use their guns, and how much they HOWL and spit poison when Israeli Jews DO use their guns?

Bottom line: the same people I'm fighting in the culture wars here are the SAME people who are hamstringing Israel, and for the SAME philosophical reasons. The anti-western culture attitude they display toward me is the same attitude that is called anti-semitism when directed toward you. Indeed, I suspect that the hatred for Judaeo-Christian Western culture is based on the fact that it all STARTED with the Jews.

I suggest that Israel get a clue and start acting a bit more like North Korea or some other third world country with regard to their enemies, for it sure seems to me that the EU sure doesn't gived a shit about countries that don't give a shit about EU opinion.

Pls. forgive the language: this pisses me off because I so much badly want Israel to succeed and prosper and be at peace, and my government is not making that happen. Beyond that intention and goal, however, I admit to being LOST: I am convinced that a Palestinian state would be a bad thing in general because the foundation, the people, support the moral atrocity of suicide bombing, but it seems to me that the majority of Israelis aren't convinced.

At the moment, my hope is that Dubya, having demonstrated an ability to see that Arafat wasn't an honest player, will exercise the same ability in enough time to see that the Palestinians in general are not honest players. Poker playing Texans seem to have that ability. However, that insight came to him when he was not besieged by other concerns, and I'm having a feeling that my high regard for C. Rice was misplaced because she isn't insisting on Dubya seeing that Israel is chipping into the pot, but the Palestinians have never "seen" Israel, much less "raised" them.

46. Ted Belman said:

Ptah

Great comment.

What is your new email address?

47. Bill Narvey said:

I commented earlier and elsewhere that while I am inclined to Omri Ceren's comments regarding Prof. Gill-white's premise, I am not inclined to Omri's views either for reasons, several of which I mentioned earlier and will not repeat here.

Further I take issue with Ptah's view that the American civil service is run by liberals and that liberals while speaking of compassion for their fellow man, in fact show callous disregard for their fellow man. Ptah is confusing a distinction between liberals who may be social welfare oriented and left wingers and their ideologies that are very guilty of that which Ptah charges Liberals with.

I also disagree with Ptah in stating "Bottom line: the same people I'm fighting in the culture wars here are the SAME people who are hamstringing Israel, and for the SAME philosophical reasons."

American foreign policy for the last 50 plus years has been to balance its unswerving support for Israel with recognition and respect for Arab/Muslim interests. Over the years various factors, situations and circumstances have emerged in the quickly changing Middle East. Further there have been rapidly changing global realities that America has tried to respond to, first as it sought to maintain its balance against the forces of Eastern Europe/Communism and with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the old Soviet Union and the democratization of Eastern Europe and on becoming the world's only super power seeking to balance its interests against the politics, much of envy that sought to create other power centres.

Combine those factors with the differences in perspective of Liberal or conservative U.S. administrations and you see a history of the U.S. that while leaning more right or left in its foreign policies, has not abandoned its core policy of seeking to balance between its support for Israel and support for Palestinians and Arabs.

The exception and earliest left lean departure from its central policy was under the Carter administration. As regards Israel, Carter seemed to be a borderline left winger and his pontificating since would seem to support that earlier conclusion.

Further, since the first Oslo, it appears that American policy has continued to lean more or less left which favours the Palestinians over Israel. That favouring recently seems to be getting too close to dangerous for Israel.

The reasons for that lean are not limited to subtle entrenched left leaning liberal and pro-Arab and anti-Israel sentiments in the State Department, if there really are any, but rather America's reacting to emerging and changing situations, seeking allies in its war against radical Islam and to bring about the elusive peace in the Middle East and maintaining its role as honest broker and facilitator in that regard from amongst its enemies or at least nations whose anti-Americanism and politics of envy are matched only by their anti-semitism.

With all this we see America continuing to pressure Israel to a certain goal of peace with Palestinians that by all the evidence is not attainable, unless that goal of peace is defined as Israel being destroyed and the Palestinians take over all of Israel and live in peace amongst themselves. Even that seems uncertain.

If it is true that Palestinians are just the pawns in the ongoing Arab war against Israel as I believe, should victory come to the Arabs, it seems inevitable that the Palestinians will be pushed outside the halls of power, will be redesignated Arabs and will live out their days as citizens of whatever Arab nation or nations wind up with Israel's land.

What I also do not disagree with is the view often expressed in this forum that the Bush administration and other Western leaders who continue to harp away that Islam is a religion of peace and that there are only a relative few bad radical Islamic apples, actually believe what they are saying.

Unless the Bush administration and other Western leaders read different news reports and analysis than we do and to which we are not privy, it is inconceivable they do not see things exactly as we see them.

So why do Western leaders insist on minimizing the threat of radical Islam and continue to push Israel to make concessions that takes them to the brink of disaster while overlooking Palestinian failings, treachery and perfidy?

Why do Western leaders continue to pat Palestinians on the back and assure them that what the West wants for them is what they want, even though the evidence is compelling that the only Palestinian goal they have thus far embraced is that Israel cease to exist?

There are more immediate and pressing reasons and influences for Western leaders and the Bush administration in particular to speak disingenuously about facts on the ground than being influenced by subtle entrenched liberal bureaucratic bias with a slight pro-Arab lean.

48. kuhnkat said:

Bill Narvey,

Substitute the term Lefties for the term Liberals in Ptah's post.

Please don't let the fact that the Lefties have appropriated the Liberal label, kill this dialogue.

Oh yeah, it isn't a SLIGHT pro-Arab lean. From both sides there HAS to be a pro-Arab lean due to the Resource and Economic issues we exist with.

49. kuhnkat said:

Bill Narvey asks:

"So why do Western leaders insist on minimizing the threat of radical Islam and continue to push Israel to make concessions that takes them to the brink of disaster while overlooking Palestinian failings, treachery and perfidy?"

I will ask you a question in return. Why did FDR and his Generals ORDER the Navy Commander of Hawaii to stand down and keep his aircraft and ships in port just prior to being attacked by the Japanese, not to mention ordering the only modern warships (3 new aircraft carriers) at Honolulu to sail to the South Pacific? (incidentally resulting in the Naval Commanders subsequent Courts Martial for not doing his job)

Remember the ratcheting up of International opinion over the GENOCIDE IN KOSOVO before Clintoon unilaterally went in on the side of the Islamofascists?? This was the lefties Golden Haired Boy and it still took a Propaganda Campaign the likes would have made Hitler and Stalin Proud to mobilise public opinion in the US!!

For the real conspiracy theorist envision the CIA actually intercepting enough information to tag the 9/11 guys but suppressing it on their own or Presidential orders to get the US unconscious public woken?!?!?! (3000 people, compared to a Nuclear hit later if the Patriot Act and warantless intercepts and attacks on the backers aren't started)

This may not be the same situation, BUT, in the US, most of our wars have required major efforts by the Politicians and Military to mobilise the Public Opinion to BACK ENTERING ANY CONFLICT!!!

Remember the Maine. 44 40 or fight. Dominoe Theory. Destroyers being attacked by torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Every war we have engaged in has had its unique efforts to enlist the population in backing the President in engaging in the war. Whether you believe Bush's stated reasons to go to war in Iraq or not, you have to admit that it wasn't a slam dunk to get the people of the US to go along with him.

The people of the US WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTING ISRAEL taking its land back and pacifying it by violence, or by peaceful means at this point in propaganda.

My conspiracy theory is that the Islamists must be drawn so far out that even the Lefties will shut up or be pulled down by the enraged mobs of US citizens. (see US population did not support entering WWII by about 70% or more before Pearl) (see lack of response to the rioting in France, Germany, Belgium, Australia, atrocities committed in most Muslim countries against Christians and other non-muslims)(see all the current useful MORONS who think the suicide bombers are freedom fighters)

Currently, with Hamas looking to take the elections, we can expect an increase in atrocities committed against the Israeli civilian population. The story about the mother of the suicide bomber running for office is making a little more impression on the MSM than the usual ME story... If it is shown that the Israelis have given them everything they can reasonably expect to get and they are doing exactly what they have always said they would do (although the MSM would never report on it before), there is a chance of support from the US population. The fact that Ahmadinejad is being the Picture Perfect Nazi Muslim on International TV is definitely helping also.

The fact that the EU and the UN is agreeing that Syria has been murdering politicians in Lebanon will help there (MSM doesn't like it when the murderers get close to them)

So, we will probably have a better idea of what we are guessing about by the end of the year. It is starting off to be quite an exciting one. I think it fits the old Chinese Curse "May You Live In Interesting Times".

I will be praying for Israel.

50. Bill Narvey said:

Kuhnkat, you are not alone in your prayers for Israel.

I am not familiar enough with American military history to comment on your questions and points.

I would say that the loss of so many American lives and so much American blood in the Viet Nam war still impacts on the American psyche. America needs clear and convincing reason to resolve to declare war and sacrifice American lives and blood in the process.

The 9/11 attack by Bin Laden gave Americans both clear reason and a clear target to go after in Afghanistan.

As regards Iraq, the target was clear, but the reasons to go after Saddam Hussein somewhat less so. In spite of what seemed at the time to be good intelligence, there still were moral issues and issues of whether Hussein posed a direct threat to Americans that led some Americans to speak out against the war.

The EU, East European and Asian nations that had also framed their objections in those terms. Just as it soon enough became clear Saddam did not have WMD's, so too did the reasons for the EU's Russian's and Chinese refusal to support America in that war, which reasons had everything to do with protecting their oil for food scandal assets and nothing to do with morality.

The target of Islamic radicalism is easily stated, but its generals and soldiers are much more difficult to find. The conundrum is that the supporters of radical Islam, the Saudis, Iranians and other OPEC nations are well known to America, yet America chooses to ignore Iran as a target and as for the Saudis we all know that instead of taking the Saudis out for their support of the forces that brought 9/11 on the heads of America, America seeks to ally with the Saudis against radical Islam. Strange, but true.

There is a truism in life that people decide what actions to take based on their assessment, prudent or not of what is in their own best self interest. Governments are no different when it comes to determining their national and international policies.

As I stated before, America for a number of reasons, in taking the role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and taking the lead in that regard, seeks to pursue its own self interests.

American policy broadly stated is to support Israel, but that policy is balanced with a need for policies that allow it to pursue its political, economic and military national and global strategic interests and that includes pursuing interests with Arab states.

The balance of America's policies has it appears tilted against Israel, to some greater or lesser extent depending on your point of view. With Israel being in a precarious position surrounded as it is by hostile Jew hating nations and being expected by UN Resolution 242 to give up territories thereby reducing its size as its natural growth needs demand more land, not less, even a lesser American tilt against Israel that favors Palestinians by forcing further Israeli concessions, puts Israel at grave risk.

Israeli concessions to Palestinians, whether motivated by the deep Israeli desire for peace or by American pressure has only served to increase both Palestinian terrorism and new strident demands. Peace is appearing more elusive than ever.

Its long past the time for Israel to stand firm and push back against the Palestinians and regain so much that Israel has already lost. Israel will need a very strong, wise and resolute leader to accomplish that. Such leader will also have to be one possessed of great diplomatic and persuasive skills to stand up to the Americans without causing Americans to turn their backs and instead lean more than ever in support of Israel.

As I pointed out earlier, Israel also needs greater united support from world Jewry and other supporters of Israel. Israel's needs are now. How best to effectively give that support therefor must be determined and acted upon now, because later could be too late.

51. Felix Quigley said:

Ptah wrote above

"The flaw of any theory based on deducing intentions usually is that the intentions "deduced" are invariably malevolent, and justified as being hidden because of their malevolence. Half the time, I am convinced that the intent of this sort of theorizing is to deliberately provoke an unreasoning and emotional defensive (survival) reaction that the bare facts does not support, with the justification being that a spin on the facts that are visible reliably reveals facts that are inherently not visible: i.e. intentions."

This is wrong! This is not a theory based on deducing intentions or indeed a theory of any kind. What we are talking about here is a METHOD and Jared and Israel are not the first to use it.

And so I do not recognise this as the METHOD used by Jared Israel or Francisco Gil White. So what is this METHOD?

Both of these men started from a position of accepting that the PLO was a national liberation movement and that Zionism was at fault. Like many of us they are from the Left.

They were involved in studying the role of the media in the Yugoslavian war and they concluded that the Media did not have an interest in the truth and that the Media had a hidden agenda.

When they saw the same Media lies over the Jenin issue then they began to study the Israeli Arab issue in depth. (Some years before that I had already started opposing the Left becauase the Left were supporting this Palestinian phenomenon, and that did not sit in my mind with the history of the Holocaust. But I was attracted by the type of exhaustive analysis these two Americans were able to effect)

One of the things these two uncovered (most knowledge was actually there but they brought it together) was the fascist origins of the Palestinian movement. Their investigations led them into uncovering a great amount of facts. This is quite similar, and I hope he does not mind me saying it, to the articles which Joseph Alexander Norland, co-founder of this site, wrote here on the Eisenhower Dulles years.

The method is this and I am astounded it is being distorted:

1. Jared and Francisco did not set out with a "position". Of course there was a spur to research, but as far as is humanly possible they began with a clean slate, with a research into all available facts (note not a selective research...that is too dishonest to even contemplate) and out of that to allow the conclusiions to flow.

2. They were careful to annotate their research.

3. Those who do not like the conclusions must therefore also deal with the research. The sources have carefully and so thoughtfully been provided.

And that is exactly what those who attack on the basis of conspiracy theorist have not done (Not had time to do, not bothered to do, NOT DONE)

And there that matter rests and will continue to rest.

52. Felix Quigley said:

If I can be forgiven a few other comments:

The centre of this discussion, not always stated or even implicitely acknowledged, is the need for the Jewish nation (in Israel and in the Diaspora) to absolutely break from its dependence on the US power, or any other power, and to establish its independence. The work that is done on Emperors New Clothes (www.tenc.net) and now more lately on www.hirhome.com is central in this necessary project. That has to be effected one way or another if Jews are to survive as a proud nation. Yet that theoretical work important as it is is not going to be sufficient in this epoch. However in my ideas about practice and theory I will come onto that later.

Firstly I notice that the opposition to this necessary line is projected here on this site by Omri. His line is totally, or if not totally, largely to tie the interests of the Jews with America. Thus I find a certain humour in Omri’s suggestion that Jews should interest themselves in the training of a new batch of US diplomats. But Omri warns it could take a little while…think generations here. Think also marauding hordes of Arabs mushrooming over the hills and humour suddenly turns to tragedy.

The problems with the two sites above and with all of our general approach to the issue (if it can indeed be called a problem)is the ageold one of how to translate theory into practice. Most of us are afflicted by this scourge of academia and it is often acknowledged as our inability to translate our theory into practice. Israpundit is also at the centre of this. It is wonderful at providing analysis and information. Ted Belham, the editor, is one of the best at encouraging open discussion of ideas so affirming the progressiveness of the Jewish cause. But still, when all is said and done, it is a discussion group.

I come back to an issue I raised before but not understood or at any rate taken up. That is for a cadre to be educated in an understanding of the dialectical relationship between strategy and tactics.

Our strategy flows from our historical and contemporary analysis. This is where the sites above have done sterling work. And there have been many other individuals and sites also. The Jewish movement is definitely gifted with a devoted intelligentia.

Yet, for some mysterious reason there is a large gap. Yes I am back to Yugoslavia again.

It is quite impossible for the Jewish movement to even begin to orientate itself correctly in this minefield of contemporary politics if one casts blithely aside the experience of the conquest of Yugoslavia by the US, EU and NATO. To even begin to understand the US psychology towards Israel in the modern period you have to without a doubt see its psychology towards Yugoslavia, no buts, no ifs, you have to do it.

What do we find though. That the Jewish movement and even Israpundit studiously ignored Yugoslavia. Yes I know Israpundit was founded some time later but that does not matter!

However while it was ignoring Yugoslavia there was another political tendency which was charting every US and EU move that was made there. Out of that and out of nowhere else has come Jared Israel and Francisco Gil White. The opponents of Francisco, and they are indeed honourable, cannot possibly cut the ground from under him if they ignore Yugoslavia. In fact you could say that on this side we have all come out of that experience.

We are all nominally friends of Israel but there are two diametrically differing tendencies. That is why I emphasised nominally. Objective forces are so severe and sharp, the vital ingredient of correct leadership is so vital, one political tendency will betray, one will lead to victory. I hope this is not taken in a personal manner but it seems to me to be the history of our experiences in whatever country we come from. And Sharon's political trajectory would tend to back me up on that.

The former tendency is already if not yet far advanced at least explicit inside Israpundit. That is why I have drawn attention to the work of your contributor, David Gerstman, who in attacking Fisk in a recent article also lumped Milosevic along with Saddam. By doing so he was implicitely lining Israpundit alongside NATO and against Yugoslavia. And all that went on there. I emphasise, Jews will be defeated if they follow that road. Especially as I feel that David is taking up a position on that without having studied exhaustively the issue. So back to the level of prejudice. This prostration in front of US and EU power must be fought against and defeated.

So to return to the important issue of strategy and tactics. Our strategy flows out of our understanding of all these issues. The Jewish people have a right to a Homeland, a Jewish state which is defencible. A historical right.

Tactics are related to strategy but are not the same. It is possible to take one example, to make a tactical retreat at certain periods. But in doing so it must be explained that such a retreat is forced upon us and it must not be dressed up as some kind of victory. As the Stalinist Israeli Left did with Gaza.

So Israpundit is at a turning point.

If one follows even for a second the line of Omri, one will find oneself prostrate and helpless and at the whim of the US and EU power elites. (My feeling is that in Omri's case something like this did happen over Gaza). It will disarm the Jewish nation and it will also disarm the ordinary American and European man or woman who must be won to a knowledge of the true state of affairs and must learn how to oppose their ruling elite.

We cannot dismiss any of the work of these sites above. But that in itself though so important is insufficient.

We have to build in each country a cadre, perhaps no more than 5 or 6 initially, which will fight for a political line. We are, however, still at the stage of struggling for that political line. So I imagine these issues will continue to be fought out on Israpundit. Good!

53. BobW said:

Shalom Kuhnkat,

Re # 49;

It was Admiral Husband Kimmel at Pearl Harbor who was disgraced - much more than just the Star Chamber - by FDR. Kimmel was the Navy's Pacific Commander. Also disgraced by FDR was General Harold Short, Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Short's air corps also was responsible for patrols.

Gen Short was court marshalled but later cleared by Congress.

FDR had both of them set up.

Kol tuv,
BobW

54. Dan Barkye said:

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by the rather obscure posts of Omri (to which I responded) and Ptha's.

Beside the case I made in my re (# 36) to Omri for objectivity in the decision process that is employed by default by the decision makers, I'd like to add my stand to Ptah's.

ALL the facts are relevant to a theory, the pros and the cons; both are telling, not only the cons. The inclination is there fo a proponent of a theory to be picky about them, but all in all, if he wants to have a voice then his facts better be right.

I see a correlation between the liberals', aka in most cases "the inteligentsia", stand in many issues and their stand in the Isr one, but this correlation is not leading me to the conclusion that this is b/c of the Judaic roots of the Western culture. It's more of a repulse for the utter materialism of the West, a materialism that finds its climax in the consumerism culture, that they hate. They find some solace in Islam for this perceived mishap of the West, but so they find in other Earth or God/Prophet other cultures. The only link here is that many antisemites found a way to Islam and all the modern Islamic extremists found their way to Hitler, but here it ends, too. To blame for this its Judaic roots, is a far cry, a very wide hyperbole. I can bring a more robust argument for this blame directed at the Jews: The roots of capitalism are perceived by many pol sci pundits as coming from the Protestantism. Well, the Protestants are known to have a much stronger connection and sympathy for the Jews. So then we'll say that hating capitalism is to hate Protestants, and so, the way to hatred of Jews is wide open, right? I won't buy this argument.

Yes, Israel should behave like N Korea, and this is the stand you'll find in all my posts, and of others', too. I say it again, and again, and yet again: Israel should stop talking and start acting for real, no matter who, no matter what, for the simple reason that *her* existence is on the balance and her right to self-defense is sacrosanct as that of any other country. This should be a given, and it is exactly this that makes me say "Israel, start acting for real, no matter who, no matter what", b/c for many it's not a given, for many Isr's right to exist is debatable, expandable. If so, then let us start listening solely to what WE have to say in our defense, w/o listening to what others have to say. After all, it's OUR well-being that is in question, not theirs, so let's tell them "Shut up and don't ever tell me what to do! Play w the fate of your kids and your women, not mine!".

This is my credo, to be found in all my posts, directly or indirectly.

Kol Tuv,

Dan

55. bunuel said:

Is it possible for someone articulate to squiz out of the above the "5 essential points" ?

56. M. Simon said:

Bill Narvey,

The explanation is oil. World civilization depends on it.

Accomodations must be made.

I have read (who knows if it is true?) that Sharon would not accept the Load Map as long as Iraq was run by thugs. If so it would mean America and the Bush Admin. has paid a very big price for Israeli acceptance of the "Map".

The way out? Independence from oil as a transport fuel. Which is a 100 year project. We are at most 20 or 30 years into it. It will take at least another 25 years before any economically significant effects are seen. Hybrids are the first glimmer.

57. Dan Barkye said:

Simon said (hehe, the song, the song):
"I have read (who knows if it is true?) that Sharon would not accept the Load Map as long as Iraq was run by thugs. If so it would mean America and the Bush Admin. has paid a very big price for Israeli acceptance of the "Map"."

If this is true, then surely US must have (and put) much, very, very much stake on the peace process and its positive results. Then why didn't she did it so long ago, when it was easier, why now, when the price is higher for all sides involved?

58. M. Simon said:

Strategy - winning the information war is essential to victory.

The return of Gaza has been instrumental in changing perceptions in the media re: the Palis.

In war it is very hard to take a tactical loss in order to gain a strategic win. Especially in a battle that goes on over years. The loss is real and painful. The gains distant and not assured. (a look at the German left wing re: the Schliffen plan is instructive here - the left wing was supposed to lose to draw the French out of position. The General in chage of the left was winning - and so he won the battles on the left wing and helped Germany lose the war)

Which is why Sharon will be missed.

What some here forget is that the loss of Gaza need not be permanent. It is a tactical retreat necessary for victory.

The history of the last 60 years shows that Israel will not be allowed to win decisively on the battle field. Thus the win must come from a change in the views of the Western public. So here I agree with the major thesis of this discussion.

Sharon has given us a gift. The Palis are exposed. Let us work to make sure their nakedness is seen by all.

59. M. Simon said:

Dan asks:

If this is true, then surely US must have (and put) much, very, very much stake on the peace process and its positive results. Then why didn't she did it so long ago, when it was easier, why now, when the price is higher for all sides involved?

Correlation of forces.

Before 1988 (when the Soviet system declared defeat by exchanging defence ministers with the US - which BTW China did a year or so ago) there was the Soviet problem.

Post '88 there was no problem.

9/11 changed everything.

60. radiorote said:

Not baseless, just understudied by a number of observors. In 2003, the Bush Administration was afraid the Shi'ites would rebel in Iraq and thus overwhelm US troops in the country. Is this not so?
The Administration struck an accord with the Shi'ites through Sistani and Iran that the Shi'ites would retain political power in Iraq once the elections took place and accordingly, Tehran would become the overseer of Iraq. The defense departments Golden Boy, Chalabis, was their 'man from Iran' to do the job. That was until another competing US agency spilled the beans on the US Defense Department by asserting Mr. Chalabis was a spy.
No Shi'ite rebellion would give the impression that the US had everything under control in Iraq and would move Mr. Bush closer to the White House in 2004 -- apparently his only real game plan that stood a chance even if for selfish reasons.
After the bi-laterel agreement,the US arrested Saddam. This created a dilemna for the Bush Administration. With Saddam gone, the US believed the Sunni's would give up the ghost in their insurgency (the one the Bush Administration pretended was never occuring unitl it was too late)and the Sunni's would join in the political process.
This did not sit too well with the Shi'ites who had established a very sophisticated intelligence group in Iraq and knew the US was making agreements with Sunni's behind their backs.
To make a long story short, the Shi'ites and Sistani led the US into a trap which sparked the Shi'ites into an Iraqi rebellion. It ended with a political agreement between the Shi'ites and the US. This two party accord was initiated after Sistani (who led the US into the trap which sparked the insurgency) called off the rebellion and ceased hostilities to prove to the Bush Administration that Iran ran the show in Iraq and any further double cross would lead to another rebellion.
There is more to this, but since it is all rather dry and long winded -- these statements can be used as a pointer to other such incidents and agreements should one want to further pursue this point.

61. radiorote said:

Professor Gil-White certainly brings up some darn good arguments worth consideration and Mr. Belman deserves credit for bringing them forth.

There is no conspiracy when motives are acted upon under one's nose. There has not been any cover-up when those in charge spell out what they plan to do and no one effectively counter-attacks these plans. In cases as these, it is not conspiracy, but complacency.

The Middle East, as all know, is a very complex region with currents changing on a daily basis. We might all agree, for example,the Arabs are far better propogandists than the Israelis with their "everything will be alright' outlook. If the Israelis have this sans souci view, then who will bother to come to their assistance?

The US State Department and White House may have a distinctive Arabist bent, but it also should be pointed out that, historically, US foreign policy abhors power blocs in any part of the world -- from large countries such as Russia and China, to tin pot dictators such as Mugabe and Soe Win. To the US, as long as countries are kept off balance and unable to keep a maintain a foothold in any area outside their boundraries, than all the better for the US. This policy also includes putting a lid on the expansionism of US allies. Canada and Mexico being one example, although they are going to have a rougher time with Canada in the near future.

The US includes this foriegn policy against Israel as well. When the US thinks their Arab 'allies' are falling out of line, the US woos Israel. When the US is on good terms with the Arab 'allies' or want something from them, they throw Israel to the dogs as the Bush/Bandar MidEast 'Road Accident' demonstrates. But these alliances are usually temporary if it proves worthwhile to change alliances based upon some dilemna d'jour.

The question becomes how far can the US make a shifting alliance without extracting a price to undo such an alliance as was the case in the Iraqi handover to Iran in 2003, although that was more for self serving White House purposes and far less for pratical reasons. Little wonder the Iranian leaders publicly supported Mr. Bush in 2004.

On the other hand, Israel and Iran has a very strange love-hate relationship between their countries as well.

The US likes Israel when it suits the US to do so. One may recall it was the now-Arabist UK which assisted Israel in creating nuclear material just a few decades ago.

When Professor Gil-White insists that US policy is anti-Israel he certainly has a point worth refelction. The question becomes whether or not the current Administration is willing to further take Israel to the brink if the White House feels it neccesary to extract certain favors from other Arab countries.

62. felix quigley said:

M.Simom commented above

"The history of the last 60 years shows that Israel will not be allowed to win decisively on the battle field. Thus the win must come from a change in the views of the Western public. So here I agree with the major thesis of this discussion."

I believe this is correct. Much has been said in this debate because it is a complex issue, but this is definitely a truth.

Time and time again Israel has been held back from really defending itself by the elite of the US and the EU.

The second aspect M Simon refers to is about the need for a change in the views of the Western public.

This also is true. As long as Israel is isolated then it cannot hope to win. The issue Israel faces is anti-semitism. This is something Israel did not create and so can do little about on its own.

That leaves Israel in the present position. Tactically it must fight in order to survive. This will require all out struggle on especially 2 fronts. The struggle against that Israeli leadership which was centring around Sharon in Kadima, not that far removed from Labour. Second, the struggle against the neoleft or the islamofascist supporting left in the West.

Israel will be forced to fight tactical battles such as this election where it is necessary for Likud to make a showing that will provide a base to defend from. Israel has got its enemies from without and from within.

Is there a hope for the future. There may be. Many ordinary western people are now becoming concerned about their own position re Islamofascism and re Sharia.

But without new leadership no hope.

63. Dan Barkye said:

In one of my posts (I don't remember where) I said that "Israel has to got thru the valley of death to find life", and I meant Gaza (maybe I even mentioned it, it escapes me, now).

Simon said "What some here forget is that the loss of Gaza need not be permanent. It is a tactical retreat necessary for victory."

Anyway, since I so much hurt anything bad that happens to Israel, I always want to see a deeper, and hidden, reason for blunders that the Isr leaders make. Of course, mistakes are made and they do them, too. But, in regard to Gaza, and other concessions to the Pals, I always remember that the motto here is "We can always go back and retake it" if things go out of hand there in our detriment, and the massive Isr military reactions to the 2nd Intifadeh are most telling. They went "unpunished", at least indirectly, not as feared by some that we cannot do it b/c we are forbidden by the powers that be. We did it and the hell w it all, as I so love it to be done.
That being so, I'm glad Simon makes a pt of enduring a tactical loss for the sake of the strategical gain, b/c this is what I think, too.

In this regard, by association, does anyone know if there is an emmigration wave, small or big, among the Pals (toward their sister countries, like the Gulf Emirates, or Saudia, or others), like it was before the Oslo Pact? If yes, what are the no's and the tendency?
I ask this q, b/c it seems to me that this pt is of of a paramount importance.
I cannot imagine that so many will endure for so long the hardships of the protracted war w Israel, w its dire consequences for them in terms of human life and economic price, no matter how savage they are in being willing to sacrifice endlessly.

Re this, pls see "Arab Population in the West Bank & Gaza - THE MILLION-AND-A-HALF PERSON GAP" at http://www.pademographics.com/, a very int'ing art.
From the summary:
"The assumption that Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza pose a demographic threat to Israel has to be radically revised. The 2004 Palestinian-Arab population was closer to 2.4 million than to the 3.8 million reported by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. These findings should have a significant impact on politicians, policy makers and international aid agencies.
"The million-and-a-half person gap occurred because the PA numbers are based on Palestine Bureau of Statistics (PBS) 1997 projections, not on actual population counts.
"There were dramatically fewer births and lower fertility rates, and instead of immigration, the West Bank and Gaza experienced a steady net emigration.
"The claim that Jews will become a minority in the region are incorrect. Since 1967, Jews have maintained their 60% majority in Israel, West Bank and Gaza and since 1990, the Jewish population has grown by 2.5% a year, only a slight fraction below the growth rate in the West Bank. The declines in Palestinian Arab growth rates and the vitality of Jewish growth rates which are the highest among Western democracies, will preserve this ratio."

I take heart from this. What is bothering me is the influx of non-Jews coming w Jews as their extended family b/c of the Law of Return that governs the immigration mechanics in Israel.
Among them you can find real and avowed antisemites, no kidding here; you can see them (the non-Jews) in the cemeteries w crosses on their necks, in filled-up churches in Jaffa, and elsewhere. My pt here is not xenophobia, but a fear that the Jewish character of Israel is compromised by the practical need for "Jewish" population, a need that dictates a more lax approach to this phenomenon. This is a shoot in our foot, b/c the war imposes on us to do *precisely* what we fight against, and for, in the very war (the attempt to make the contry non-Isr/Jewish; to enable us to preserve the Jewish character of the country - I hope I'm clear), paradoxical as it may seem.

64. danak said:

61 comments from most learned men. Must be something to it then. The secular manifestation of the spiritual key is, fittingly, the dead head of the petoleum-automotive complex. Is is destroying US political,economic, social and moral life. If left unchecked, it will destoy the USA in a short time.

Dollar hodlers, e.g "Saudi" Arabia, petroleum hungry China, Jew hating, oil whoring euros, will cash in and the dollar will be shown for the worthless fiat money that it is.
TheUS, if the oil harpies have their way, will crash in an irreversible "death spiral," like a plane hurtling to earth with no hope of recovery.

Many laugh at the Hebrew prophets, but its all there gentlemen and the oil- bidness-contolled US wil go down, like all the others who curse thee O Israel! MSM laughed at and tut tutted Pat Robertson when he said that Hurricane Katrina was a "cleansing" by "Jehovah." Ole' Pat, always a bit eccentric, should be paid heed and the real Americans, the middle class who foots the bills and takes the crap of the Weimaresque elite, should get off the oil wagon or they will be thrown off. along with the paid - off CIA and State Dept. You can take it to the bank, remembering BCCI along the way.

65. M. Simon said:

Danak,

Uh. Can you name one major currency backed by gold?

The Chinese system of banking is corrupt. As is the Russian.

The European economy is in decline. France and Germany have had about 10% unemployment for over 10 years.

I have seen the immanent collapse of the American banking system predicted for 75 of the last 50 years.

America keeps getting stronger.

Why is that?

BTW Israel is doing the best of any developoed country in % growth this year. Rumors of its decline are greatly exagerated.

66. Dan Barkye said:

I'd be very grateful to all if this comment is read to its end and commented upon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This most intelligent and engaging debate is coming to its (natural?) end, it seems, and I'm sorry for it, b/c I thought that it would bring a much needed trigger for a proactive effort to propagate our stand in original terms. There are many bodies that promote the Isr-Zionist stand, but something diff is needed, something that is able to defeat the fascist-left by unmasking its sheer stupidity and illogic, and to convert some of them to a saner attitude toward the reality of the 21st cent and the Isr-Pal conflict.

I don't have all the answers, but I made some suggestions and I proposed a brain-storm in order to analyze the media needed to bring to the fore our message, and to suggest pts of action. I still propose it.

We can count on very bright and learnt heads from among the participants here and from the outside.

Frex, one pt that can be wrought and hammered w/o respite in the ears of everyone, is the Zionist claim for an historical right for this beloved little piece of land for the Jewish nation. This is The pt, the Main pt w which the left is attacking us.
By drawing the attn to the logical implication that, by denying the Jews the right to return to their land from which they were exiled (not one that they left willingly, a very imp pt), b/c what was is 'passe', dead, fait-accompli, and so denied the right to be worthy of reviewing, then:

- The same right is denied for any displaced gr of people, and so they contradict themselves in the most obvious manner;
- Further, if they do so knowingly, then they are guilty of demagoguery;
- Further, yet, such argument on our part can win the hearts of many such gr and nations;
- And yet further, if the left is making this pt, then they are guilty of propagating the notion of Might makes Right, b/c in so doing they propagate the notion that anyone who is happening to be living on any piece of land is entitled to stay there forever just b/c the rightful owner is denied the right to reclaim his property once it has been taken and inhabited by any stranger. This is known as Squatting. And though this specific manner of taking a property is codified and legalized (at least in the US) to the pt that it is legal in specific cases to do so, I believe it can be contested b/c of the way this is legalized (I won't go into details into this, here, but you can inform yourself w it, I'm sure);
- And so on and so forth w many other arguments and counter-propositions.

Kol tuv, ehai ("All the best, my brothers!"),

Dan

67. Alex Eisenberg said:

Hi Dan,

Let me tell you first off that I respect very much your viewpoint concerning the religious background of Americans. I do have very good American friends who are Christians, and I am aware of how some Christian groups in the US are sincerely and wholeheartedly supportive of Israel – actually more pro-Israel than most leading Jewish institutions in the US (leaving aside the issue of how representative they are of American Jews), which is certainly the saddest of contemporary Jewish saga.

However, your straightforward and honest assertion presupposes a degree of unity and ideology among American Christians which I think does not correspond to reality. And your assertion also presupposes a degree of democracy proper which is not the US reality since the end of WW2 and the passing of the 1947 National Security Act. I will not address my latter point now (not the point here), but let’s just think together about the former: American Christians who support Israel are NOT the majority of American Christians. As a matter of fact, the most traditional American churches (Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans and other protestant denominations, plus Episcopalians and Catholics) have never been pro-Israel, and some (Presbyterians and Episcopalians, judging from their leaderships) have recently proved to be specifically anti-Israel, openly calling for public divestment from Israel (this is an extension of European traditional churches’ policy). Jews should be very thankful to non-traditional evangelical denominations who are real Zionists (and I just don’t take the Armageddon argument recently posted here any seriously). But I encourage you to carefully look at how politics and religion intersect. The picture is so diverse, so lacking of any unity, that one can hardly find any evidence that American religiosity could make any difference. It has never made any difference in American foreign policy since WW2 (at least), so why would it make now? Neither can I see any historical evidence for a Christian background to be any favorable for Jews.

Best,
Alex

68. Alex Eisenberg said:

Responding to Ptah and Ted Belman, who agreed with him (be patient, it’s a long answer):

I will quote Ptah along my answer. Ptah wrote:

“The argument is essentially theory based: one postulates a theory and looks for facts to fit it. We read the argument, then conclude that it must be true because all the facts stated fit the theory. However, "all the facts stated" is not the same as "all the facts": the illusion that the theory is expandable is based on the fact that the theory initially is proposed because of a pre-selected bias. When a contradictory fact is discovered, often a tweak of the theory or an explanation of irrelevance is all that is required. The Theorist will persist if the tweak to the theory to accomodate the NEW fact happens to broaden the theory with respect to the initial bias.”

Even before discussing Ptah’s points, I just want to point out that the paragraph above, which is presented as a critique of theory-based arguments, simply happens to be universal. Moreover, it is the way science works. Serious thinkers do not simply forge a theory out of thin air and keep expanding it to fit contradictory facts. The theory is formed WHEN a certain amount of facts seem to constitute a logical pattern. Therefore, the theory can only be truly expanded if the new contradictory fact happens to fit in a broader pattern that includes the previous one (just like relativity was before Einstein realized what led him to general relativity). Bias is inevitable, which is not the same as being sought after! So the difference between serious thinkers and charlatans is that serious thinkers will expand their theories when broader patterns are discovered, and discard them when contradictory facts consistently disprove them. This is why Ptah’s “tweak to the theory” idea is insufficient, and pretty much disproves his own argument in that it is true of any thinker and theory and his/her facts.

Next quote:

” There have been several occasions where Israel could have been destroyed easily by the United States by simply not re-supplying them.”

This could be due to my ignorance, but I know of only ONE such occasion, namely the Yom Kippur War. Before that, other countries could have destroyed Israel as well by not resupplying it (France, for example). The sentence above, and indeed the rest of the paragraph (not quoted, but you’ll find it in Ptah’s original post) is intended to criticize a theory by implicitly presenting another theory as if it were not one. By discarding Gil-White’s theory on the grounds that every arms sale to Israel should mean a good intention towards Israel, Ptah presents HIS theory, which he indeed states: “outcomes indicate intentions.” But even HIS theory Ptah failed to present in full. One deduces from his continuation that he means “good outcomes indicate good intentions.” But it is still incomplete. We deduce from his text that he means “US arms sales to Israel indicate good intentions.” Well, now we have Ptah’s theory in full, which he presents as being superior to Gil-White’s, which is in turn thrown into the ‘any theory’ bin. Now please correct me if I am wrong: how can one be convinced by a theory that is presented without any regard whatsoever to context? Even in physics (which is considered less prone to bias than social sciences) it is impossible to discuss any idea without context. So, when one reads Ptah’s theory in full, it turns out that he has less (much less) facts than Gil-White. Once stated in full, Ptah’s theory is either valid for all countries that buy US arms (that is, half the world, not only Israel), or it is entirely flawed. Well, let’s take Iraq and Iran. During the long war between these two countries the US sold arms for the two of them, according to every turn of its interests. Now, can one reasonably state that the US had good intentions towards the two countries as it sold arms to both in times of bloody war? Well, given the billions of dollars paid by the US taxpayer in intelligence operations abroad, I assume those arms sales are not just ‘business as usual.’ Obviously the same can be said in regard to Saudi Arabia and Israel. These two countries have always been in ‘cold war,’ with the Saudis always preaching highly antisemitic stuff and sponsoring tens of suicide bombers in Israel. What are the good intentions of the US towards Israel as it arms the Saudis to the teeth? This is where context makes THE difference. If the historical contexts analyzed over some decades clearly form a pattern, then we DO have the basis for a theory. If Ptah really wants to challenge Gil-White’s consistency, then he has to collect actual historical facts that contradict Gil-White’s theory. Interestingly – since he talks of facts – he didn’t provide any.

Next quote:

Here's where I think the problem is: the united states government civil service is run by liberals who maintain their control by filtering for liberals during the hiring process. The French are more direct in that they require ALL their civil servants to have come from only a few Ecoles. The main point about liberals is that they only TALK about compassion for people, but in REALITY show a callous dis-regard for people. Why bitch about the thousands killed by the US when it invaded Iraq and ignore the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam? Why bitch about the single digit millions killed by the Nazis, but the silence for the hundreds of millions killed by Communism. Why overlook the atrocities of the terrorists in Iraq and bitch about Guantanamo? Did you know that the calculated death rate of soldiers in Iraq is LESS than the murder rate in Washington D.C.? Why bitch about the former and NOT raise a bigger ruckus about the latter?

Here we go. Instead of providing facts to prove his theory is correct and Gil-White’s wrong, Ptah changes his subject to liberal-versus-conservative polemics in order to convince us that in the end Israelis don’t suffer any more than ordinary Americans the consequences of liberal politics in America! Never mind the fact that whatever prevails in American politics – democrats or republicans – the foreign policy never changes! I just wonder if Ptah really thinks that all the European Nazis in the Republican heritage groups that several times tilted the political balance in their favor never had any influence on US intelligence against Israel… I am not a democrat, nor a republican. I am not even from the US. Just read some history…

Now what do the data Ptah provides above prove about the US’s supposed friendship with Israel? The point is NOT whether the US killed more or less Iraqis than Saddam, but rather WHY the US invaded Iraq in the first place, since the alleged reasons were a hoax. Even if Saddam had WMD, why did the US openly attack Israel in the past for having destroyed the Osirak? As for Ptah’s question “Did you know that the calculated death rate of soldiers in Iraq is LESS than the murder rate in Washington D.C.? Why bitch about the former and NOT raise a bigger ruckus about the latter?” Well, I shall answer this question with another question that is general, having nothing to do with the specific context of Iraq: did it ever occur to Ptah that the idea that the US is entitled to invade any country (that has not attacked the US) as it pleases is in principle absurd? How can one assume to live in a democracy and yet be able to suggest that his reader should consider the comparison between the number of dead soldiers in a war and urban violence as a measure of how worth a war is? Has Ptah realized that this is the precise opposite of the ordinary Israeli’s mindset? Israelis hate wars and never fight unless mortally under threat. Nowadays not even under mortal threat, due to unprecedented American pressure, as Ted Belman concedes in his interview to Tovia Singer!!

Next Ptah says that Gil-White’s comparison between the Yugoslavian and Israeli scenarios is not valid because the theory underlying it has been asserted but not proved. Well, I would then expect Ptah to tell us why Gil-White’s theory is wrong and prove it (as Ptah himself demands from Gil-White). But again he evades the burden of proof by deviating from the point and falling back into liberal X conservative polemics, which, tellingly, confirms Gil-White’s theory, which includes the realization that US internal affairs do not affect its foreign policy, and is meant not to. Ptah challenged us to find as much invective against Clinton as there is against Bush. Well, all he has to do is to read Gil-White’s and Jared Israel’s articles on Yugoslavia (it is A LOT of material to read). They do attack Clinton as much as they attack Bush.

Now, look at this: “As a citizen of the United States, I can solemnly tell y'all that Israelis are not being treated any worse than American citizens: the government will let shit happen to you, and me, as long as their agendas are being met and we don't get enough voices to scream loudly enough about it.” Wait a minute, are we talking about one or two countries? Bechaiekhem, do you really think it is fair to compare the way Israelis are treated and US citizens? With the exception of the American soldiers dying in Iraq, Americans live a normal life as if their country were not in war. In fact, a life that Israelis never experienced (unless they spend some time in other places). It is more than time for Israelis and Jews to realize that Israel is in great danger. If a new war takes place, it might be the last…

Next: it is not true that “the Jews created the West via Christianity.” The exact opposite is the case. Christianity and its association with European despotic polities has been responsible for preventing the West from absorbing Judaism. Christianity has survived BECAUSE it allied itself with European despots against the Jews and their civilization. Perhaps one could say that the Jews HELPED in the creation of the West IN SPITE OF Christianity’s demonization and persecution of the Jews. Also, the Western left (not the entire intelligentsia) came to praise Islam only after the demise of the Soviet Union. But democrats in the US are not doing this more than republicans, and the reason for that is simple. Islam has become a US (and European) global weapon. So it is not the policy that is different, but just discourse.

Finally, Ptah wrote:
“Bottom line: the same people I'm fighting in the culture wars here are the SAME people who are hamstringing Israel, and for the SAME philosophical reasons. The anti-western culture attitude they display toward me is the same attitude that is called anti-semitism when directed toward you. Indeed, I suspect that the hatred for Judaeo-Christian Western culture is based on the fact that it all STARTED with the Jews.”
“Judeo-Christian Western culture” is a senseless, useless and PC concept. In fact the first appearances of ANY social concept in which Jews and Christians are on the same side of the coin (even then negatively) was in the 19th century, when social science was born and religion as such was first attacked as a backward feature of human beings (most prominently by Karl Marx!). It is only in the American continent that a “Judeo-Christian” idea (not culture!) makes any positive sense (as observant Christians and Jews feel overwhelmed by pervasive secularism) as opposed to the negative Marxist sense. But insofar as one conceives of a ‘Christian culture,’ it has always, and of necessity, been defined in opposition to Judaism, and pretty much determined and institutionalized what we call antisemitism. The reason why I’m making this crucial distinction is that the only field in which any “Judeo-Christian” idea could make any sense is ‘Christian theology,’ which needs the Hebrew scriptures to justify the so-called New Testament. But ‘Christian culture’ refers to a few Middle Eastern and all European cultures that adopted or were compelled to adopt Christianity as their religion. And these cultures have been systematically taught to hate and persecute Jews as their nemesis. And their prevailing ideology was in fact the opposite of Judaism. Therefore, it is absurd to conceive of something like a “Judeo-Christian culture.”
But Ptah’s point is not quite “Judeo-Christian culture”. This is just a method for convincing Jews that their ‘real’ problem is liberalism and the left, despite the fact that conservative politics and the right have been just as bad for Jews as liberals and the left. Conservatives know very well that the left has not always had a suicidal, anti-West ideology (and it still doesn’t, and this is what betrays their stupidity). Criticizing one’s own tiny ruling minority is not suicidal. On the contrary, it is the basis of what we call democracy. What the original left used to criticize was the aggressive invasion and real or quasi-real enslavement of other peoples, which is what several Western countries did and still do all over. This means that Jews, who have been ‘politically’ identified with the ‘left’ over the centuries (nothing to do with historically recent Marxism, but rather only social justice, which is what the Torah is about) are only partly safe by allying with the West, because the West is not fighting Islam to preach decency, but rather to prevent Islamic despotism from supplanting Western despotism. For Israel it has been safer to ally with the West, but this may cease to be the case when it becomes clear that the West considers Israel expendable on the way to its pursuits. So the problem with liberals is not their critique of Western despotism, but rather their lack of criticism of Islamic despotism. The true bottom line is that Jews are again serving as scapegoats of both right and left in the West. Jews are being lied to when they are sold the idea that religious conservatism goes in a set with political conservatism. This has NEVER been the case in Jewish history. In the past it has been Jewish orthodoxy that preached (and kept and observed) social egalitarianism, whereas ‘liberals’ like Josephus were betraying their own people by allying themselves with despotic foreign rulers. Judaism as we know it today (that is, rabbinical Judaism) was born of a revolution against the political conservatism of the priestly class (Saducees), whose practices were usurping the Torah. This should be enough to counter the lie that political conservatism is ‘in principle’ good for Israel. How better is the current Bush, or his father, or Reagan were for Israel than Clinton and other democrats? None of them ever cared for Israel. Arms sales were a result of cold war maneuvers, which is also what explains the arming of Saudi Arabia and Iran by the US.
Finally, the belief that political conservatism is better for Israel and the Jews is just as suicidal as the Israeli left. It fails to observe that antisemitism is the most powerful Western (and Islamic) political weapon. It knows no ideology. Just like a wild card, it can be used at any given moment for any given interests. Conservatives take advantage of the fact that the left’s discourse has become openly antisemitic to appear as though they were pro-Israel and philosemitic ‘in principle.’ This is not and has never been the case. It is not the worsening of a bad that makes the other bad good. Beware rabotai!
Alex