I’ve noticed some antiwar politicians describing the terrorism in Iraq as “political” in character. Chuck Hagel has said this. So has Dick Durbin. This is important: they are saying that the terrorism is not based on fanaticism but on feelings of disfranchisement surrounding the emerging Iraqi polity (whatever that is). This idea places them in the Robert Pape camp (the UChicago prof’s landmark book is Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide) whose analysis of suicide bombers shows that they are motivated not by religion but by military occupations. And of course it puts them against all the people talking about Islamo-fascists.
It’s time to apply the same thinking to the violence in Israel/Palestine, which has grown out of territorial disputes and political rights for more than 80 years now…
Indeed. In other work for which I don't have a reference Pape has plotted the incidence of suicide bombing in Israel next to the incidence of settlement increase. They were very parallel up to a year or so ago. I don't know how that remains true since the wall was installed. I don't know how 9/11 fits on that graph, never asked him.
Don't have time to get the newspaper sources to back this up, but I recall that some of the most gruesome Palestinian suicide attacks (like the bus bombings in early 1996) seemed deliberately timed to disrupt peace negotiations or have an impact on Israeli elections. If those bus bombings hasn't happened, Peres probably would have been elected Prime Minister and not Bibi Netanyahu, and there would have been a much better chance for productive peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. (I know, I know, there are people on this blog who think there is no difference between Peres and Bibi, but that is a bit like saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush. The first guy wouldn't have invaded Iraqi and tens of thousands of people wouldn't have died).
So, yes, I guess you could say the Palestinian violence is "political." The problem is it has often been maximalist politics that has led to nothing but tragedy for the Palestinian people.
Pape would not call the suicide bombing political. He says that it is a conscious technique which occupied people worldwide (including Sri Lanka where Hindus and Buddhists are in conflict) have found effective against occupying armys of a different religion and of a democracy.
They are willing to commit suicide because such an occupation makes them desperate. But they realize that it would be ineffective against a dictatorship.
The average suicide rate in developing countries is about 12 per 100,000.
Palestine, thus, will have 420 suicides per year. This does not include the female suicide rate.
Weiss, go into politics- kill yourself.
However, when the leather-bound Semite enters and overcomes me from the rear and then pollutes me, neither the stalinist paradigm of might versus right can full explain my jiggy feeling throughout.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley
Anti-semitic posting #1
I am quite convinced that unless people understand the current systematic deception regarding the role of Jews* in modern international finance – and in its apparent antagonist, international proletarian revolutionism – they will not be able to do a single thing about zionism. This deception takes the form that the zionists can represent themselves as the inheritors of the oppressed anti-imperialist masses, rather than of the oppressors and imperialists, by exploiting the common ignorance of modern social and political history in general.*(not 'the Jews', as if they were a sort of telepathically coordinated solid bloc, but enough of the most powerful Jews, who among other things can use the rest as pawns)Rowan Berkeley
Anti-Semitic Posting #2
Incidentally, I think it is a sociological fact about the Jewish world that gambling addiction is its most prevalent vice, just as alcoholism is its least prevalent. Im sorry I cant offer a link to a survey that demonstrates this, but I dont think its very controversial. Ultimately, I think it derives from the diasporic condition
I'm sorry, but I don't see any anti-semitism in those posts.
The first one explicitly makes the distinction between Jews as a whole and what SOME powerful and rich Jews might be doing. This can't be anti-semitic unless we are to believe that there could never possibly be any villains or evildoers among Jews (g-d forbid!).
As far as the second one goes, even though Mr. Rowan Berkeley admits he cannot substantiate his claim with evidence, it is not anti-semitic either. For example, if one were to say that alcoholism is the most prevalent vice of say, Native Americans, or say, the British, would that be "anti-Native American" or "anti-British"?
I don't think so.
I agree, nothing "anti-Semitic" there, Mr. Anonymous Smearer.
(Although why do I have the feeling you're going to be disappointed to hear that?)
Hello? Are there any reasonable people out there who were troubled by the posts attributed to Rowan Berkeley, and by his defenders? Is there anyone besides me who thinks there is something deeply wrong with them? Am I the only one? Forget the word "anti-Semitism." That's a loaded term. Is there anyone else besides me who is willing to say it is just "wrong" to make these proclamations, and to explain why? If so, I beg of you, renew my faith in the idea that this blog is serving a useful purpose by airing views that could help America and the Middle East -inluding the millions of Jews who live there. Because some of the regular contributors –not all of them, thank God– are just parroting Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and Posse Commitatus, and sneering at anyone who is offended, accusing then of being Abe Foxmans who just want to censor "the truth…" I'm waiting…I beg of you. Speak out!
Hello? Are there any reasonable people out there who were troubled by the posts attributed to Rowan Berkeley, and by his defenders? Is there anyone besides me who thinks there is something deeply wrong with them? Am I the only one? Forget the word "anti-Semitism." That's a loaded term. Is there anyone else besides me who is willing to say it is just "wrong" to make these proclamations, and to explain why? If so, I beg of you, renew my faith in the idea that this blog is serving a useful purpose by airing views that could help America and the Middle East -inluding the millions of Jews who live there. Because some of the regular contributors –not all of them, thank God– are just parroting Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and Posse Commitatus, and sneering at anyone who is offended, accusing then of being Abe Foxmans who just want to censor "the truth…" I'm waiting…Please weigh in here
"Is there anyone else besides me who is willing to say it is just "wrong" to make these proclamations, and to explain why?"
Joker, when are you going to do the part about explaining why?
You must be joking,
Visit:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com
and see for yourself that anti-Zionism is MOST CERTAINLY NOT anti-Semitism.
And as far as "parroting Henry Ford" goes, what matters is the truth and not that some truths or facts might be also used by bigots for their own agendas.
On both points:
"Early on Judt quoted Arthur Koestler in support of the idea that the proper measurement of an argument is in its truth, and that it matters not at all whether bigots might make the same case for their own reasons. Koestler, some 50-plus years ago, had been explaining to American intellectuals that just because there were demagogic and ignorant anti-communists didnt mean that communism wasnt a real and evil force. Judt also let drop the bombshell that a major publication (most knew it was the New York Times) had asked him if he was Jewish while considering an article from him last spring on the Walt-Mearsheimer essayhis point being that the editors only felt it safe to allow criticism of the Israel lobby in their august pages if his answer were affirmative. He further related that he was told by Amos Elon, the Israeli author, that when Elon had asked an Israeli ambassador of the 1960s what had been his greatest accomplishment, the emissary replied, I have convinced the Americans that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html
So let me say clearly that yes, you are part of the though police, only coming from the Left. All you care about is to shield Zionism from criticism, even if that means essentially defending the Likudniks. Here is Gore Vidal explaining why and what your agenda really is:
"… In a sense, I rather admire the way that the Israel lobby has gone about its business of seeing that billions of dollars, year after year, go to make Israel a 'bulwark against communism'. Actually, neither the USSR nor communism was ever much of a presence in the region. What America did manage to do was to turn the once friendly Arab world against us. Meanwhile, the misinformation about what is going on in the Middle East has got even greater and the principal victim of these gaudy lies – the American taxpayer to one side – is American Jewry, as it is constantly bullied by such professional terrorists as Begin and Shamir. Worse, with a few honorable exceptions, Jewish-American intellectuals abandoned liberalism for a series of demented alliances with the Christian (antisemtic) right and with the Pentagon-industrial complex. In 1985 one of them blithely wrote that when Jews arrived on the American scene they 'found liberal opinion and liberal politicians more congenial in their attitudes, more sensitive to Jewish concerns' but now it is in the Jewish interest to ally with the Protestant fundamentalists because, after all, 'is there any point in Jews hanging on dogmatically, hypocritically, to their opinions of yesteryear?' At this point the American left split and those of us who criticized our onetime Jewish allies for misguided opportunism, were promptly rewarded with the ritual epithet 'antisemite' or 'self-hating Jew'."
Gore Vidal, foreword to Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion : The Weight of Three Thousand Years".
http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1
So please spare us the bullshit. Whether you realize this or not, you are just the backup team of the bullies who have attacked regular posters and Mr Weiss with incredible viciousness, repeatedly, every day, without ever saying a word to them.
Gee, I wonder why.
Exactly. I didn't see such sensitivity when Pearlman and Adolf and the "wise king" and Tommy and all the other racists who think Arabs are animals were – and still are – spitting venom at regular posters and Phil.
That's what "peacenik" and other "Leftists" who showed up lately are really all about. When reasonable posters like Alan or Brenda or Deborah and even Phil get attacked by admirers of Meir Kahane, they have nothing to say!
And that while trying to convince us that WE have to be careful of what WE say!
And then they even proceed to enlighten us on the great necessity of the Israeli Lobby in order to counter the "vibrant" anti-Israel Lobby (peacenik)!!!
Right! With such "Leftists", I'll take Pearlman anytime. At least he is honest.
Lets just ban Jews from holding office or working for any media organization. Clearly none of them can be trusted. Well, besides Phil of course. He is one of the (few) good ones. He can keep his job.
I'm too tired. Sorry folks. I can't summon up the energy to explain to you why words have consequences in a public arena, that you can actually encourage harm by spouting certain things in a certain way.
You're right. I'm not going to argue now with the theory that understanding Jewish control of the international financial system is the key to undertstanding Zionism and the delusions perpetrated by Zionists, whom you deem the descendants of oppressors and colonialists rather than the descendants of oppressed and disenfranhised people. And I won't explain why calling Jews degenerate gamblers while admitting that you have no proof of that is not expressing "truth." I was hoping someone else would renew my faith in this blog by doing so.
Sorry to disappoint you beause I know you want to believe I am part of the thought police. I like much of this blog because criticising Israel, the occupation, the Israel lobby and the domestic political contezt of American foreign policy is valid and necessary. But you are the ones who are making such criticism more difficult, because, in the public mind, anyone who does so will automatically be lumped into the same category as you.
"What matters is the truth and not that some truths or facts might be also used by bigots for their own agendas" is not very convincing when precisely what you are saying HAS been used by bigots, routinely. Henry Ford believed he was educating America, just like you do. I wish you would read about ths history of bigotry.
But again, this is a test. Will someone else help me out there!!!!
And just as the above post by "Nuremberg" proves, the only ones posting anti-Semitic garbage here are the aforementioned Meir Kahane admirers.
We've seen enough provocations on this blog by these people. They even used regular posters' names to post anti-Semitic garbage, trying to discredit them — as if you can really discredit people who've been posting here for months and are known to regular readers as anything but anti-Semites.
But "You must be joking" doesn't see a problem there. He would rather be upset engaging in witchhunts chasing anti-Semitic ghosts than open his eyes and see the methods the Eretz Israel crowd is using, even here, in this little blog…
It seems when the racists and the bigots and the bullies are Jewish the sensitivity of some "Leftist" readers here is not offended.
You must be joking,
This is why you have NO real difference with the Eretz Israel crowd, which has graced this blog with their provocations, attacks and incredible arrogance and bullying.
Because they've been saying the same thing as you did in your last post, that what Phil Weiss and regular posters and critics of Israel policies have said is essentially what David Duke says!
******
"The burden of the anti-zionists is that they are this point highly aligned with racist genocidal anti-semites. You can argue all day about the causality, but the truth is that Phil Weiss and his peanut gallery here are lockstep with David Duke."
Posted by: BA | January 23, 2007 1:39 AM
******
So just because David Duke is attacking the Lobby, we shouldn't. Just because he might occasionally use some valid arguments, we shouldn't use them, right?
No. We don't care about David Duke. We care about the truth. That's all that matters.
And if you want to argue with logic, and Koestler, and Judt, that's your problem. So let me repost, so you can read this when you won't be too tired:
"Early on Judt quoted Arthur Koestler in support of the idea that the proper measurement of an argument is in its truth, and that it matters not at all whether bigots might make the same case for their own reasons. Koestler, some 50-plus years ago, had been explaining to American intellectuals that just because there were demagogic and ignorant anti-communists didnt mean that communism wasnt a real and evil force. Judt also let drop the bombshell that a major publication (most knew it was the New York Times) had asked him if he was Jewish while considering an article from him last spring on the Walt-Mearsheimer essayhis point being that the editors only felt it safe to allow criticism of the Israel lobby in their august pages if his answer were affirmative. He further related that he was told by Amos Elon, the Israeli author, that when Elon had asked an Israeli ambassador of the 1960s what had been his greatest accomplishment, the emissary replied, I have convinced the Americans that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html
And still no word on the Pearlmans and the Adolfs and the "Nurembergs", huh?
Gee, once again I wonder why.
I'm fairly new to this blog and the "Pearlman" fellow you mentioned has not been around much in the last few days. Now I've gone back through the last week and read a bunch more. So you folks are right. Pearlman and the right wing provocateurs trying to disrupt reasoned conversation are disgusting, They are part of the problem. They have been calling people on the Jewish left "self-hating Jews" for decades. So I do apologize that I didn't take them on sooner, but I didn't know about them, OK? You can choose to believe they are no different than me but you would be wrong.
That said, I still think that some of what has been written on this blog tonight is dangeorus. I doubt that the same people (Roman Berkeley?) I'm worried about would write whatever they felt like about African Amerians, or gay people, or Latinos without understanding the history of bigotry against those groups. But somehow, they feel perfectly comfortable to spew out ancient canards about Jewish financiers without worrying about the consequenes. That canard, and the idea that Jews are degenerate gamblers, hnas nothing to so with the Palestinians and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. And it has nothing to do with AIPAC and the neocons. It is just destructive and hateful. Good night.
Please listen to what "you must be joking" is saying. He/she is not alone.
Greetings Yids and Goys.
I'm a J-E-W Jew and I'm here to say to the Pearlmans Adolfs and Nurembergs that you're being very rude and behaving very immaturely. How dare you mock the nice people here who are trying to explain that Jews are wholly responsible for getting us into a war in Iraq and for pulling the wool over the eyes of the kind of slow goys. Geez, you act as if someone were going to kill you or something, when we all know that THAT never really happened. Just more Jew trickery.
So to the Pearlmans, Adolphs and Nurembergs I say STOP!! You are total jerks and should just leave this board.
Kick some ass Phil!
"you must be joking" is "peacenik"
I doubt that the same people (Roman Berkeley?) I'm worried about would write whatever they felt like about African Amerians, or gay people, or Latinos without understanding the history of bigotry against those groups."
– If you are implying that in this case, because the subject is Jews, I feel able to dispense with "understanding the history of bigotry against this group", then you are completely wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rowan's first post basically just saying that Jewish political power depends on hiding massive financial power behind a public image of oppressed victimhood? How is it possible to quibble with this?
In fact, couldn't a cynic say that Joking's attacks are just more of the same old narrative of eternal victimhood?
(BTW, I don't remember seeing Rowan post either of those comments on this site. Did Joking gather them from somewhere else? If so, shouldn't he tell us when they were made, what was the site, and what was the context? Maybe he could even point out some of his own contributions at this other site, so we could get a feel for his own thinking.)
"you must be joking" wrote: "But somehow, they feel perfectly comfortable to spew out ancient canards about Jewish financiers without worrying about the consequenes."
Then "salvage the good" wrote: "Please listen to what "you must be joking" is saying. He/she is not alone."
Well, I'm sorry, but even the Washington Post, not just Blankfort or Phil, have written about Jewish financiers and their control of the Democratic Party. And are there not Jewish financiers behind the American Enterprise Institute and the other right-wing think tanks that keep on beating the drums of war against Israel's enemies?
Who is Saban who founded the Saban center where recently the Clintons got to meet the great Avigdor Lieberman?
Is it anti-Semitic to point these crucial facts out? Yes, it plays into stereotypes, but is it true or not?
Since "salvage the good" and "you must be joking" don't want to deal with the power that many prominent Jewish financiers have and how they use it, in America today, on behalf of Right-wing extremist Israeli policies, they can't be helpful.
They would rather not talk about such facts because, well, what about David Duke?
Right! So let me reiterate:
These are the useful idiots of the extremists.
These are the people who carry too much baggage to let people understand why, for heaven's sake, the Lobby has been so successful.
These are the people who think we need them. Well, we don't need you. You are part of the problem. You present your helping us change policy as some kind of favor to us! But in reality, you have to do it as a favor to your own people, whether in Israel or the Diaspora.
If you are worried about the backlash, especially if Bush dares attack Iran, and if you are capable – for once! – of thinking long term here, then tell your Liberal friends to stop smearing Carter and Walt and Mersheimer and Judt and support them. But you won't, because, well, many of the things they say are what David Duke says!!!! The horror!!!
Well, again: You better realize that you have to do this for the sake of the vast majority of Jews who have let their leaders pursue reckless policies regardless of the consequences, not us "hysterical anti-Zionists". Until you do, we don't need you.
P.S. I suggest you open your eyes and see the "Joo" above and what this provocateur is posting. He is arguing in a sarcastic way what you two are saying to us.
Now, that can't be right, can it?
The quotation about gambling being the commonest jewish vice is from a comment I made on a blog run by a pol sci prof named Cutler:
http://profcutler.com/wordpress_blog/
I stopped posting there because like many leftist Jews he has no problem supporting the propaganda against Iran (unless he has changed his stance since then).
The other one, I can't place. I would have thought the people who cite them should give the sources, I cannot remember everything I ever wrote.
Well since we are holding everyone in a religious or ethnic group responsible for the action of some members of the religious or ethnic group, I'd like to raise the issue of Islamic fundamentalism and the terror commited by its adherents. Phil may have not heard of this, but there are millions of Muslims who have a serious vendetta against non-Muslims and believe that if you don't subscribe to their mythology and laws you are eligible for a one way ticket to hell. Sounds like a group that shouldn't be given any opportunity to influence our foreign agenda. Especially those wimpy Muslim apologists that say that Islam is a religion of peace and try to cover up for their more militant colleagues. My God – They are as bad as peacenik. I'll take Osama over them any day. At least he is honest and direct.
And how about those black folks. Man, have you seen how much crime some of them commit? Talk about lacking self control. If those middle class negroes don't get their brothers and sisters in line than they are going to have to suffer the backlash. I don't want to hear about no Jack and Jill mumbo jumbo – you're responsibile for getting your crazy relatives in line.
Oh – and Christians are at the heart of this Crusade against the Ummah. Until Christians – and I mean all Christians – get their reckless leaders under control, they are all fair game for retribution. Saying you don't agree with Pat Robertson is not enough. If you are not stopping this man from exercising his freedom of speech you are going down with him Christian!
And don't even get me started on the Irish, Chinese, and Mexicans.
Thanks to Phil and his merry band of supporters for helping me to simplify my understanding of the world. I had been really suffering from the complexity, but it's so much easier this way.
It's hard to believe that Hillel teach their volunteer trolls to simply change the subject, but that seems to be the case. I have a strong feeling that the only reason the US Jewish community leaders leapt upon Darfur was so that they had something to which to change the subject.
Yes, back to the subject: Why did Joker throw in that bit about "Jews are degenerate gamblers"? It's not in Rowan's post.
Is this the self-loathing that we hear so much about?
"Now I Understand",
You still don't understand because you are too defensive, you carry too much baggage and you have unfortunately been used in being taken advantage by some very smart manipulators.
You can bet that if the Black community had all their leaders uniformly beating the drums of war against African countries in order to support some country there where many African Americans had emigrated, that there would be a backlash. Especially if they were really close in succeeding in their efforts.
You can bet that if the Arab community in the US had all their leaders uniformly beating the drums of war against say, India or Russia and had virtually succeeded in making this the foreign policy of the US, that there would be a backlash. Especially if they were really close in succeeding in their efforts.
And you know that a great part of the Anglo-Saxon Establishment supported South Africa's apartheid, that there was indeed a great backlash, and that this backlash succeeded in reversing policy, thanks to the efforts of many white Americans who hate racism, not just the efforts of the other ethnic or racial communities. Not to mention the Civil Rights Movement!
So you can twist my words all you want, but the truth of the matter is that there is nothing really comparable to us Americans seeing America's foreign policy becoming Israel's foreign policy thanks to the brilliant efforts of many prominent Jewish leaders, think tanks, intellectuals, commentators and talking heads.
And all your analogies are wrong. You mention moderate Muslims against radicals. Well, we don't see any moderate or Leftist Muslims in the US trying to smear former presidents who happen to be also Nobel laureates in order to protect the radicals' policies, do you?
We don't see any moderate or Leftist or even Right-wing secular Arabs with lots of money creating think tanks or such institutions where Arab racists who want to push Israelis to the sea and drown them there can meet the Clintons and Rice, do we? But we see the Saban Center and the Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations promoting Avigdor Lieberman who wants to do just that to the Palestinians! And now he is Deputy Prime Minister in an Israeli Government coalition that includes the Labor Party for heavens sake!
So please, give it a rest. For all your rhetoric, instead of going against the Zionist Establishment by exposing how it really works and how it has become so successful – which is the only feasible way to counter it, instead of really doing something against an Establishment that promotes and defends not just Lieberman but also the Israeli religious parties who want a theocracy and to expel the Arabs, and the settler fanatics, you'd rather worry about David Duke who is a joke!
So here is a lesson in politics and public opinion: When an ethnic group succeeds in making its priorities American foreign policy, all its members will pay the price, whether this is right or wrong. This is real life. When the US was supporting apartheid South Africa, the whole country was accused of being racist, not just the WASP Establishment. After all, it was official American policy! And even then, we didn't see those who were expected to be at the forefront of the fight to change policy, namely the Left, put their ethnic or tribal or racial concerns as Whites ahead of their duty to their country. Remember the Civil Rights Movement if you want another example of change from within, by grassroots movements becoming a formidable force that succeeded. It would have never succeeded if white people, who after all were the majority, had not joined the fight. And we remember Jewish Liberals do more, much more than their part.
So let me reiterate for a last time:
It's time to stop worrying about the David Duke jokes and worry about the racists and extremist nationalists and religious fanatics who actually have real power.
Let me repeat:
It's time to stop worrying about the David Duke jokes and worry about the racists and extremist nationalists and religious fanatics who actually have real power.
Power that kills Americans, Israelis and Arabs. If you won't confront them, or you want to confront their ruthlessness with velvet gloves because you are afraid of anti-Semitic ghosts and a few stereotypes being proven as true, even though this is today, in America, not Germany in the 1930s, then you are part of the problem.
Alana,
Here is the post I was referring to. I guess "degenerate" is my gloss.
"Incidentally, I think it is a sociological fact about the Jewish world that gambling addiction is its most prevalent vice, just as alcoholism is its least prevalent. Im sorry I cant offer a link to a survey that demonstrates this, but I dont think its very controversial. Ultimately, I think it derives from the diasporic condition."
As "ToughDove" noted a few days ago, the question isn't WHETHER to talk about the lobby, the occupation, the Iraq war and the Jewish role in it. All of that should be examined and discussed. The question is HOW to talk about it.
That post –and a few others I've seen on this blog now that I've reviewed it– had nothing to do with any of the critical issues Phil is trying to raise. What purpose did it serve? How did it enlighten anyone who wants to figure out a way to stop the current war and prevent the next one, or to convince the U.S. government to put pressure on Israel? I am in favor of those things. If any of my detractors are, too, why can't you at least acknowledge that we are dealing with a very difficult problem here. Free speech always poses challenges. You cannot decide what will offend people. If you want to convince them of something, all you can do is decide whether any purpose is served by offending them.
Would you feel comfortable posting or reading broad generalizations that assert that African Americans are promiscuous and that is why they have so many single-parent families? I certainly wouldn't.
The post you are referring to was posted by someone who wanted to prove that Rowan Berkeley is an anti-Semite. It wasn't posted by the said poster in the context of this blog.
That's why it couldn't have anything "to do with any of the critical issues Phil is trying to raise" or "enlighten anyone who wants to figure out a way to stop the current war and prevent the next one, or to convince the U.S. government to put pressure on Israel".
Duh!
P.S. Oh, and "degenerate" is your gloss? Maybe it is others who should read about the history of bigotry and how it manifests itself in unsuspecting ways, through slips of the tonque etc. Certainly one would have expected that from people who insist on lecturing others on manners and respect of sensitivities.
So let me get this straight. Joking was so worried that anti-Semitism in the posts here might distract us from "the critical issues Phil is trying to raise," that he went out to ANOTHER BLOG to find more examples?
OK. Agreed. I've said my piece about tone and language and won't do it again. Let's get back to figuring out what needs to be done. If you want to waste your energy assuming that you will be angry at what follows, go ahead. But I hope it contributes something useful and practical to the conversation.
Here is one of the most perplexing questions in recent American political history: if polls have consistently shown that most American Jewish voters have been to the left of AIPAC (at least when it comes to a Palestinian and an end to settlement expansion) then why have the elected officials who represented them not expressed those views more often and more clearly?
I've been living with this, and appalled by this, for years. One simple explanation is that, at least up until recently, most American Jews who are sympathetic to Israels peace camp just haven't been obsessed enough with this issue to make it the focus of their political activity.
American Jews, as a whole, are distancing themselves from Israel. A large swath of them couldn't tell you who the Prime Minister is right now. Israel ranked sixth on the list of priorities for American Jewish voters in 2004, behind issues that included the economy and health care and Iraq. according to a poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.
In contrast, to American Jewish hawks, Israeli security is often their mission in life, not just their most important political priority. Today, they are the ones who fan out on Capitol Hill and threaten to withhold campaign contributions when politicians dont toe the AIPAC line. And they are the ones who annoy politicians and let them know their votes are being monitored carefully.
Liberal American Jews, on the other hand, are not single-issue voters; they care about AIDS, abortion rights, preserving the domestic safety net and a host of other issues. Many of them, trust me, are appalled by what is happening to the Palestinians. But those who are politically active tend to be otherwise engaged. Very few get worked up enough to call or e-mail Members of Congress about Israel. More importantly, they can't bring themselves to threaten or annoy politicians for voting the "wrong way" (i.e. tne AIPAC way) on Israel. The AIPACers, of course, don't hesitate to use threats.
So even politicians who have large Jewish constituencies to the left of AIPAC are rarely willing to stand up to AIPAC or groups to the right of AIPAC (there are several of those, BTW, like the Zionist Organization of America), or to vote their conscience on Israel. I can think of Barney Frank (D-MA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert Wechsler (D-Florida), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and, of course, Hillary Clinton, who is the worst of the lot.
I have personally witnessed one of them bluntly explaining to a small group of Jewish peace activists, I agree with you. Im with you. But I cant say it, because right-wing Jewish voters would lash out.
So that's been a concrete, practical. infuriating dilemma. It may be, though, that the clearcut need to do something about the occupation because it is in America's interests will soon awaken this dozing, slightly left-of-center Jewish giant, who could make doing something about the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy a high priority. That is why the so-called "Soros initiative" may be coming into being at precisely the right time.
I have been reading this blog for quite some time. So far I had resisted the temptation to offer my thoughts, mainly because I was convinced that most posters here, for all their good intentions, are just too naive or ignorant of political power and how it is acquired and used in modern societies to grasp the problem in its full dimensions.
The overly sensitive Jewish Leftists who post here lately are not naive though. They are smart, educated, and according to Phil Weiss, who vouched for one of them, veterans of political activism in America.
The truth – and of course they could never admit this – is that they are terrified because they only know too well what has been going on and how Jewish "philanthropist" money, and Jewish extraordinary organizational abilities, and brilliant Jewish talking heads and commentators were able to reach unprecedented power in American politics, to the point where, as every American slowly begins to suspect, Israel's foreign policy has become American foreign policy.
They understand that if Americans really knew, all Jews would pay a price. (Of course, contrary to what the smart manipulators of Jewish victimhood fears endlessly imply – see Borat – there would be no pogroms). So their only hope is to counter the Israel Lobby and the Zionists from within the Jewish community, before the American public fully grasps what has happened.
I can only say to them, Good Luck, My Sympathies.
The real problem however, and this is why Jewish Leftists will not be helpful in the bigger picture since they would rather hide it than admit it, is that the Jewish communitys leaders and their minions have only been too successful in a game that has been open to anyone with enough money and lobbyists to buy the policy of their preference.
That's why the Jewish community's leaders are indeed becoming a convenient scapegoat. Because the truth is, America has since a very long time lost her "democracy" to Big Money and Lobbies of all flavors.
As long as the American people cannot bring themselves to solve this fundamental problem, that their representatives, whether Democrats or Republicans, are sold out to the highest bidder, nothing will really change.
Blame the Israel Lobby all you want. Everything you say is right. Everything! But at some point you have to realize this is just a symptom of a very serious sickness in American Democracy.
So, to all the well meaning anti-war activists here, My Sympathies as well. You constantly concentrate and focus on a single tree while always somehow failing to see the whole forest.
Addendum:
1) "… I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
General SM. Butler, "War is a racket". [Book on Amazon]
2) "… Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, farewell speech to the American Public.
Nice post, RealityCheck. I too have been starting to think about the structural problems in modern mass democracy that permit lobbies like the Israel lobby to flourish. As you mention, there's always been the problem of corporate power, now exacerbated by globalization, but increasingly I worry about the structure of modern electronic media. Today more than 80% of all the information Americans receive comes to them through just five corporations.
(BTW, did ToughDove just acknowledge responsibility for that smear campaign against Rowan Berkeley?)
No. I was getting sick of all the "smearing," too.
David wrote: "I too have been starting to think about the structural problems in modern mass democracy that permit lobbies like the Israel lobby to flourish."
I have been thinking about this too. One of the issues has been simply it has been off limits to talk openly about it. Once that taboo is broken, then the problem will likely be solved just by open and honest analysis. It was the taboo about talking about it that was the problem, not just the simple fact that it existed.
(1)It may be, though, that the clearcut need to do something about the occupation because it is in America's interests will soon awaken this dozing, slightly left-of-center Jewish giant, who could make doing something about the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy a high priority. That is why the so-called "Soros initiative" may be coming into being at precisely the right time. isn't good enough, this is the Soros who arranged for Clinton to smash up ex-Yugoslavia so that he could seize the resources of the Balkans.
(2) The gamblers' psychology which Jews actually celebrate in popular story and song is extremely relevant since only this explains the manic and irrationalistic jewish political style.
(3)The common or garden marxist theory of exploitation does not explain why the 'military industrial establishment' should destroy its own assets throughout Western Asia, sorry – this is Jewish strategy, not 'military industrial complex' strategy. At the end of this process USA will be cast aside like a sucked orange husk. Remember what Israel did to the British – at one point they were going to bomb Westminster from a small plane, just as a little gesture, but fortunately the French stopped them taking off…
I can't find the story about the zionist plan to bomb Westminster from a small plane anywhere, but I know I've seen it discussed online. This would have been some time between 1946 and 1948, obviously. Someone says they found it in Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", but I don't have that book.
1) Rowan wrote: "The common or garden marxist theory of exploitation does not explain why the 'military industrial establishment' should destroy its own assets throughout Western Asia, sorry…"
This is because this destruction, as we witness in Iraq, has been an unintended consequence as far as the US Establishment goes. This is why Blankfort for example offers the theory that the neocons in the US were duped by the Israelis. And even then, the US is building at least four huge military bases in Iraq. That's how you secure assets (see oil access) historically. In fact, the first thing Rumsfeld did after storming Baghdad was to dismantle the US bases in Saudi Arabia with the intention to transfer them to Iraq.
Check this out:
www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/toc.htm
a) Mission (www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/chap1/over1.htm)
The mission of the U.S. Central Command is four-fold:
* Promote and protect the interests of the United States
* Ensure uninterrupted access to regional resources
* Assist friendly states in providing for their own security and contributing to collective defense
* Deter attempts by hostile regional states to achieve geo-political gains by threat or use of force.
b) Oil (www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/chap1/aor.htm)
Unrestricted access by the industrial nations of the world to the Central Region's vast oil reserves remains an imperative. Despite previous oil price shocks which caused many nations to temporarily pursue energy alternatives, no appreciable decline in the world's demand for oil is predicted in the foreseeable future. Oil remains a relatively cheap source of energy, limiting incentive to explore alternatives. The narrow crescent of land extending west from Iran and south to the United Arab Emirates contains over two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves. With declining oil production in the U.S., Russia, and Southeast Asia, world dependence on Gulf oil is expected to rise from one-fourth today to about one-third by the late 1990's. Without costly major development of Russia's oil production capabilities, the world's demand for oil can only be met by the vast oil reserves of the Arabian Gulf region.
c) Access (www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/chap1/aor.htm)
This growing global dependence on Gulf oil and the large volume of other trade through the region make unrestricted access to the area vital. The three strategic chokepoints – the Suez Canal, the Bab al Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz – are key to maritime freedom in the region. Control of any of these by a non-friendly power could seriously disrupt trade and restrict access to the region's oil resources. Consequently, it is vital that the sea lines of communication (SLOCs) which pass through these chokepoints are kept open. Unrestricted transit is not only critical to the international merchant fleets, but is also an imperative for the introduction of forces necessary to combat hostile actions which might threaten the oil fields themselves.
******
If what you meant was that having the US in direct confrontation with the whole Arab world and the Iranians is contrary to US interests since they have so much oil, you are partly right as far as the military-industrial complex goes, because wars is its game and reason for existence. For the said complex, if the US could win those confrontations with wars and completely control the Middle East then all would have been fine for everybody. That's why even the Council on Foreign Relations had no objections to the Iraq War – just "reservations" to cover their butts. Again, Blankfort may be right here, in that Israel got the whole US Establishment to go for it (through the great efforts of the neocons, Fox News etc) without them realizing what they were getting themselves into. This is why even the Baker Report, which is as Traditional Establishment thinking as apple pie is American, only tries to save what could still be saved, namely the huge bases and the oil contracts while keeping a US military presence in Iraq. They never advocated complete withdrawal, right? That's no coincidence.
Not to mention an issue of great concern, the privatization of major traditionally military tasks, which seems to be the way of the future (see Blackwater). Not to mention that oil companies, major corporations like Halliburton etc and the military-industrial complex (through an ever expanding military budget) are the clear winners of the war in Iraq, regardless of the failure to control Iraq completely.
War is indeed a racket.
2) … "this is Jewish strategy, not 'military industrial complex' strategy."
The Israeli game is to completely destabilize the Middle East and get Sunnis and Shiites destroying each other in civil wars. Then at an opportune moment someone like Lieberman could finish the job by expelling the Palestinians and complete the Eretz Israel project. We are already witnessing three civil wars, the first full-blown (Iraq), the other two (Lebanon and Palestine) escalating. This is music to the ears of the complex. This is not however what the Traditional Establishment would want, but only because they are not sure this would end with complete US hegemony over the Middle East, which is the only thing they care about. What they worry about is unintended consequences. The war in Iraq for example only strengthened Iran. They didn't want that to happen.
So you are only partially right. The Israeli factor was the catalyst, but anyone who thinks that this war could have happened without the Establishment's and the complex's blessings is naive. Name one single member of Congress who says we should completely withdraw from Iraq and abandon the huge bases we built there. You won't find one.
"Anyone who thinks that this war could have happened without the Establishment's and the complex's blessings is naive."
Yes. This is why M&W described the Israel lobby's role in this war as necessary but not sufficient.
Another way of saying this is that any democracy is always experiencing pressures to get involved in war. But there are also forces and mechanisms which, most of the time, can be counted on to keep these in check. The question is why these checks and balances failed so miserably this time. To me the answer is clear: this time the media was complicit.
I don't understand the disagreement, since obviously I never said that zionist geopolitical activists physically held the hands of non Jewish bureaucrats as they signed the mobilisation orders.
As for the complicity of the media, this should go without saying to anyone who has devoted the slightest real study to the events of 9-11, which clearly imply media falsification of events from start to finish.
My fundamental view is that everyone in politics without exception follows the commands of those who control the money supply. Everyone without exception – dissidents tend to have plane crashes, or get accidentally shot by muggers. And I am not exaggerating – I see the USA from a comfortable distance, and I can afford to see things about it that might be too frightening for the average ihabitant to recognise.
Rowan, a)what is your take on 9-11 and b)is there anyone or any site you are pretty sure has an accurate or at least plausible view and who/which is not part of the disinformation campaign?
My take on 9-11 is that the demolition of the Towers was performed at least partially by pre-planted explosives. In this context obviously Larry Silverstein is the key player. It is hard to see people like, for instance, Chertoff as any less sinister – but it would be evidence of a puerile racism to imagine that all the core conspirators were Jews. The gravy train created by this thing is vast and there is plenty of gravy for all the "homeland security" gangsters.
Nevertheless, basically, we are looking at a constitutional coup conducted by people of zionist rather than american orientation.
I don't think it is correct to talk about a disinformational campaign in the formal sense, like a concrete conspiracy hatched in a physical smoke-filled room, in many cases. Outside of the core conspirators, there is merely a climate of conformity. It's like under Stalin : you didn't need to send goons to every journalist's doorstep to make the situation clear.
Within the area of 9-11 studies there are some very suspicious but entertaining extremists, claiming for instance that the planes were all computer generated artefacts and didn't exist at all. While this hypothesis is unnecessary and even off-putting, it makes for some very entertaining video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxwpO4MJc2o
is hilarious, and paced like a rock video at three mins. total length.
Regarding the disinformation campaign, I was talking about the many 9-11 "investigators" who were proven to be disinformation agents, creating "noise" or making outlandish claims in order to disorientate and discredit those who had a genuine interest to examine the official story.
Any site you could recommend?
I don't think you can often 'prove' anyone to 'be' anything, but right now the disinfo king (or queen) would be Nico Haupt, I reckon:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
The general direction of the disinfo is towards an Alex Jones style evangelical isolationism, but with science fiction trimmings.
Incidentally, a helpful two minute animation telling you everything you need to know about Alex Jones is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXspT2VtOE
One might ask why I call Jones an 'evangelical isolationist'. Well, I would distinguish this (ultra-Protestant) tendency from the mis-labelled Catholic 'isolationism' of people like Buchanan, who are not isolationists at all. What I am talking about is a sort of internal emigration by baffled ultra-Protestants, and a splendid indication of its political impotence is given by Alex Jones' recourse to mountebanks like retired Colonel Donn de Grand Pr, who it appears makes his living or at least augments his pension by claiming to represent an anti-zionist faction in the Pentagon which is plotting a counter-coup:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html