I admit that I’ve ignored the Ron Paul campaign. I love the fact that he talks about Israel and Palestine, but his economic libertarianism makes this big-government type leery. Then today I learned that Paul has hired as his foreign policy advisor Robert Pape, the realist author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, which is one of the most important books I’ve read in the last five years. Dying to Win shows that suicide terrorists are empowered by their communities when there’s an occupier with a religious difference in their land. It’s not religious craziness, it’s the occupation, stupid. I have urged Pape to revise his theory somewhat in light of the burgeoning new sample of suicide terrorists across the arc of Islam, but his book’s rich database on the motivation of suicide bombers is the necessary logical antidote to the hysteria of the neolibs and neocons over "Islamofascism."
The press release says that Paul has also hired Leon Hadar, the Cato scholar who pointed out 15 years ago that when the Cold War fizzled out and it was no longer our base in Arabia against the Soviet Union, Israel had to come up with a new modus-dependi for the United States. Radical Islam! The idea of the usefulness of Radical Islam has been echoed in the last year by Mearsheimer and Walt and Trita Parsi.
Both Hadar and Pape are brilliant men who are coming up with new ideas for how the United States is to engage in the Middle East. They’re what this blog is all about; and Ron Paul should be celebrated for his foresight, and Hadar and Pape for extending themselves. I can’t wait till their ideas are reflected in his speeches; and I hope his campaign is around for the rest of the year in one form or another, if only to keep these ideas percolating up into the American mainstream…
Ron Paul is the only true peace candidate. And if you are really concerned about economics, as Ron Paul has pointed out, America cannot afford this war.
There is a direct connection between the unstated and off budget costs of this war and the downward swirl of American prosperity.
Nader went on Chris Matthews last July and while steadfastly denying Matthews' on the presidential question, dropped maybe a little hint when Matthews started to imply they're be no Paul or Mike Gravel after the primaries were decided. "Don't kid yourself, some of them are gonna go until November," Nader replied instantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkIpSDMIOA
The Cato Institute Libertarians and the Rockwell Institute Libertarians are not friendly to each other, and much of the problem seems to derive from Friedman's economic ideas.
Terror isn't "religious craziness". It doesn't really matter what stimulates it.
Its still murder of civilians. Collective punishment. An attempt to use force to get one's collective will.
There are always reasons that people do the fucked up things that they do. And it is useful to understand those reasons (if they are reasonable) to reconcile.
But, if the attempt is NOT to reconcile, but to forcefully remove, then it is hatred, pretending to be resistance.
If Ron Paul can make such a shrewd move while still only running for President, how much moreso if he were to be elected? The guy has brains and guts – he's not afraid to be educated by people who know more than himself, and to follow their advice if it is sound.
Who can say as much for any other candidate, not to mention the current administration? If we want our country back we need to take the losses of "security" that our Big Brother government offers us, take some personal responsibility, and get Ron Paul in office.
Freedom comes with a price. Which is more gruesome, the slashing in size of our obese government, or the slaughter of our young men and women in endless wars on terrorism?
Murderous racist genocidal Eastern European thieves, interlopers and invaders have been terrorizing the native Palestinian population for over a century now as part of their extremely dirty demographic war.
Not only is Zionist racism, but it is terroism.
Proportionate response is jus in bello, and Palestinians are nowhere near that, but it is worthwhile to remember that John Brown had slavers hacked to pieces, and he is considered a hero.
Slavers are a good deal less evil than Zionists, for slavers considered Africans a valuable commodity while Zionists have for the most part treated Palestinians vermin infesting the country that Zionists want all for themselves.
It says a lot about the trouble we're in that Ron Paul — the first presidential candidate in decades to propose demobilizing from WW II (63 years after it ended) and dedicating the U.S. armed forces to defending America — is regarded as radical.
Until 1940, opposition to foreign intervention was mainstream opinion in the U.S. Now permanent foreign occupations and a worldwide network of military bases are seen as a core mission of the Defense [sic] Department (formerly, the War Department). NATO's disastrous expansion campaign is not even a subject of debate.
As Ron Paul has emphasized, cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would be only a small component of a major rollback in U.S. interventionism, and is no way targeted at Israel in particular. Sadly, this too is said to be extreme. I regard Ron Paul as the only sane doctor in an asylum taken over by crazed, armed inmates.
Thankfully, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. I'm said that so many donated to him, and it is possible that he might just pocket it.
The world cannot stand the destabalization of an abrupt renunciation of treaties (the law of the land, with more authority than legislation), and other agreements in the world.
Gradually, with care to replace with alternative stable systems, maybe, but abruptly that is just radicalism.
It represents as much a destabilization as the US invasion of Iraq does.
Further, his selective interpretation of the constitution is sickening. The responsibility of the president is to execute the laws of the land, that Congress legislated, NOT to pretend that the president has the authority to not execute legislation.
If he wants to work to change the law of the land, Congress is the place. And, as his views are dysfunctional (and prospectively bankrupting the nation), unlikely to get much traction.
But, the same was said about the republicans borrow (tax the future) and spend program, utterly dysfunctional.
Witty's claims and Paul's platform have no obvious points of contact.
Could Witty be attempting to depict Paul as a fringe candidate because he wants to turn off the money spigot to Israel?
Zionists label Paul a fringe candidate because they want to continue to pick American pockets for the sake of Israel.
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-supporters-attack-islamophobe.html
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/07/scamming-americans-robbing-palestinians.html
http://bridgenews.org/bridge_news/issue8backup/martillo
On Extremism
Which idea in modern politics is more extremist, fanatic and racist than the belief that Eastern Europeans had the right to steal Palestine from the native population on the basis of an etymological relationship between the word "Jew" and the word "Judea." Could any claim possibly be more psychotic?
So Richard, since you want to pronounce on who is fringe within the American political spectrum, let's check on your loyalties.
Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have done a service for American public political discussion by pointing out as realist foreign policy analysts
1. that Israel protects no important US interests,
2. that it is a foreign policy liability,
3. that it arguably never has been a strategic asset despite the claims of Organick in The 36 Billion Dollar Bargain, and
4. that the disappearance of the Zionist state from the Middle East would at worst harm the USA in no significant way whatsoever.
So Richard if you had to choose between Israeli and American interests — the belief in common interests is either incorrect or the result of scare-mongering by Jewish or Zionist racists — which would you choose?
If I had to choose between American and Palestinian interests, it is a nobrainer for me because I am American. I would choose America, but I do not believe for one instant that such is true in your case.
WEll,
Joaquin, those are assertions, but not truthful ones.
Israel is a friend to the US, an ally, a treaty partner, a trade partner, an intelligence partner, a technology partner, an academic partner, commonly a democracy, a currently safe tourist destination, a holy land as regarded by many, a land in which many American citizens reside part time, a land in which many American citizens have close family.
Those that are Islamo-fascists (I don't use that term as a generalization) target the US because of its presence re: oil, and relative to Israel only as they seek a Jew-free or Jew-subordinated Pan-Islamic sovereignty.
They can only regard Jews as a minority, not as a peer.
Thankfully, many Arab states are fundamentally cosmopolitan. Please note that although you condemn Ashkenazi Zionism, it is the Sefardic Jews in Israel (the ones that experienced Arab and Iranian persecutions) that are the most consistent Likud voters. Its not the Ashkenazi, a great number of whom derived compassion from their holocaust experience, combined with assertion to NEVER AGAIN be suppressed.
As the safety of the Israeli people is so familial with the US, the prospect of the US allowing Israel or Israelis to be harmed is naturally repugnant.
Only where the US is so desparate that it cannot take care of its own needs (which it is very far from) would the US policy have to choose an either-or.
In any case, even if the US were to cease to be a sponsor of Israel, if it did so abruptly without a transition than ensured Israel's survival and safety, the US reputation in the world would be nil.
Again, that would only occur if the US were so desparate that it was dying. It has never been there.
The United States currently needs oil from the mideast, and therefore must pander to some anti-democratic nations and factions. Absent that need (which is permanent), the US could form alliances on more ethical grounds.
On ethical grounds, the US would continue to strongly support Israel's defense, as it has for a combination of ethical and strategic grounds.
There is no other entity that provides or could provide a comparably mutually beneficial relationship in the middle east.
Walt/Mearsheimer got some critical points wrong, and stated their thesis with too many generalizations to be taken seriously by those seeking clear and reliable knowledge.
Its an opinion, not truth.
"Again, that would only occur if the US were so desparate that it was dying. It has never been there."
The usurer's mind hard at work. How many lives were broken because of this line of reasoning. How many nations destroyed.
I see that Witty did not answer my question or in effect he did.
Given the choice between Israeli interests and American interests, he chooses Israel, for his loyalties lie with Israel and not with his fellow Americans.
Personally, I simply do not want to pay for Israeli crimes, and my immediate family has paid approximately $50,000.00 to maintain a racist Jewish state in the ME. It is time for this crap to stop, and for disloyal Israel-firsters to pay the rest of us back.
Anyway, the issue has never been Palestine but the goals of a wealthy elite among American Jews (earlier among British Jews) who are scamming both American non-Jews and American Jews that do not belong to that tiny wealthy elite.
Take a look at link to members.aol.com
.
"Given the choice between Israeli interests and American interests, he chooses Israel, for his loyalties lie with Israel and not with his fellow Americans."
A lie.
The question is an irrelevant one. It is in America's multiple interests to ensure that its treaty, trade, familial partner is safe.
The only way that those conditions would not exist, would be if the United States became a racist state that ceased trading with Israel, and threw out all of its Jewish citizens.
The relationship is permanent, though the form and setting of the relationship can change.
To urge otherwise is racist.
Even if the relative value of its intelligence and military relationship diminished it would still remain a primary trading partner, tourist destination, holy land, and inter-familial relationship.
It would serve the US and Israel and the rest of the world if Israel and Palestine formed a factual peace, and reconciliation.
Those that commonly hate Israel, and likely hate Jews, will do their utmost to make certain that that true American interest not occur.
Hamas intends to keep Israel at war. Iran intends to keep Israel at war. Hezbollah intends to keep Israel at war. Each of them only has validity in a militant setting, in the setting of upheaval.
All of the fascist entities of the past whether fascist leftist or fascist rightest have been attractive ONLY under a condition of chaos and stress.
There are reforms that Israel needs to make among the Jewish community there, between the Jewish community(s) and Arab community(s), and internationally.
Reform is different than militancy though. Its more sober. It takes more consideration to design.
But, the end result is a product worth the work, a community of former enemies that struggled in the true sense of spiritual struggle (the struggle to repair).
That contrasts with your agitation Joachim.
Joachim Martillo has written a brilliant, highly disturbing analysis of the Israel lobby titled:
Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society
http://members.aol.com/ThorsProvoni/Judonia1.htm
On my site, I excerpted it so readers could get the flavor and titled it:
'Israel lobby far more vast, powerful, dangerous than even Walt/Mearsheimer comprehend'
http://members.boardhost.com/libtoday/msg/1202510751.html
A couple of the paragraphs that I found most disturbing:
"The alliance between Israel and the US states is in the process of creating an internal American caste system dominated by a small class of hyper-wealthy Zionists. With the sort of permanent war that has been envisioned since the beginning of the twentieth century by a segment of the Zionist elite under the influence of Sorel and with the application of the Friedmanite Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein, this caste system will spread globally."
AND
"Among religious, leftist, and right-wing ethnic Ashkenazim there has long been a current of thought that Jews are safest in alliance (or better in dominating) an undemocratic government. Thanks to the Patriot act and other actions of the Bush administration, the undemocratic Zionist future is coming into being right before our eyes, and McCain looks like the most likely of current present candidates to bring about the fulfillment of the ultimate globalized Zionist dystopia, but Zionists throughout the political system are poised to influence any other possible victor except Ron Paul, whom Zionist facilitators and gate-keepers in the US media are trying to starve of media attention."
A conspiracy theory? Martillo backs all of this up in his essay. The threat is worse than even I imagined.
A halfway informed person could probably spend the good part of a day deconstructing Richard Witty's numerous deceptions. Some of the more laughable are his assertions of familial connections between the USA and Israel.
Let's see, Jews constitute at most 2% of the American population. I'm guessing that no more than half of American Jews have family in Israel. Most of them live in neighborhoods like Crown Heights, very far from the American mainstream. The 98% of America that Witty wants subjagated to his Jewish Supremacism has no familial connection whatsoever to Israel. And by the way, most of us don't give a damn about your family over there in Hebron.
Let me add that America needs nothing, and receives almost nothing from Israel. So the relationship is no more one of mutual benefit than is the mosquitos relationship to the human arm it sucks blood from on a warm summer evening.
Please Witty, go join your close family in Israel and let your nerdy kids hook up with the IDF. As you know, mosquitos eventually get squashed after they become too much of a nuisance.
Pape's book "Dying to Win," was also hugely influential to me upon reading it. I emailed him at the University of Chicago and he was very gracious and polite. Not unlike Dr. Paul himself.
The book was also included in the reading list Paul gave Giuliani after the debate last year when Giuliani said he had never heard of our occupation of Iraq being a contributing factor to suicide terrorism.
As Israelis and Americans have a history of false flag attacks, I'm surprised that no one's brought up the idea that some or many of these "suicide bombings" are merely intel operations.
If the region is so full of terror, why is there still a working synagogue in Baghdad? It's always mosques being attacked, rarely churches or synagogues.
Call me a skeptic. I don't trust the word of the media, the Feds or the military. They have too long a history of lying too much to suit their own purposes.
Based on the summary presented in "foreclosurefish", I would question Pape's conclusions, particularly that objections to occupation is the primary (and "justified") reason for suicide bombings.
The interest of Al Quaida for example in attacking Israeli vacation spots, is not to protect the Arabian peninsula, but to expel infidels from all "Islamic" land.
And, the concept of what constitutes "occupation" is an ideological interpretation.
I think the common thread about suicide bombing, is that it reflects an ideological vehemence, and among a population that has been convinced that "ends justify means".
We can confuse "determination" with "tyrrany".
OK, let's try again:
Why do hundreds of billions of dollars of military hardware, intelligence infrastructure and foreign aid, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers posted overseas, seems only to buy us more suicide bombers (and equally endless debt with interest)?
The motives are not exclusionary: they [Islamic terrorists] hate you [USA and all infidels] because you are rich, prosperous and free, AND because you are over there. It is both motives, occupation and religious craziness that drives them, the two motives feed each other.
The problem here is that most Westerners refuse to understand what "occupation" means for Islamic terrorists. According to Hamas and Al-Qaeda: Spain, South of France, Sicily and some regions in Peninsular Italy are occupied land (any land that has ever been Muslim). Not just Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It's the EXPANSIONISM, stupid!
If you understand that you'll understand why Hamas doesn't blow up buses in Jordan, in spite of the fact that Jordan was Palestine till 1946. Muslims don't occupy countries, infidels do.
Theo van Gogh filmed "Submission", for a reason. Imam Fawaz, of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague, had an altogether different reason for giving a sermon before Theo was murdered in which he called Theo van Gogh, "a criminal bastard, and beseeched Allah to visit an incurable disease upon him."
That was 2004, a year later a Danish newspaper published a humorous criticism of Islam and self-censorship (the Muhammad cartoons) that led to rioting crowds chanting "Death to U.S., Death to Israel, Death to Norway", the murdering of a Christian priest (Father Andrea Santoro, Turkey), unrestrained violence in Nigeria (mobs beating Christians, 10 slaughtered, 61 injured, 9 churches burned), 4 killed in Afghanistan in caricature bloodshed, setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, setting fire to the Danish consulate in Beirut, storming European buildings, desecrating the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza, Muslim leaders across the globe issuing death threats and Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blaming a "Zionist conspiracy" for the cartoons.
Muhammad cartoons
“>link to henryk-broder.de
All that Islamic rage had the same purpose that calls for the adoption of Sharia law in Great Britain: Expansionism, submission everywhere.
I support Ron Paul (chipping in from Europe) because I realize that you cannot fight a war without a plan (no clear targets, going in for oil and contracts for nation building, no exit strategy), without a declaration of war (there's no public approval), and you cannot fight it either by going bankrupt (insane levels of Government spending).
But make no mistake, the Islamic Jihad against infidels (West and Asia) is set to go on no matter what foreign policy is in place. They are committed to the Nation of Islam, Islamic Empire.
OK, let's try again:
Why do hundreds of billions of dollars of military hardware, intelligence infrastructure and foreign aid, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers posted overseas, seems only to buy us more suicide bombers (and equally endless debt with interest)?
OK, let's try again:
Why do hundreds of billions of dollars of military hardware, intelligence infrastructure and foreign aid, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers posted overseas, seems only to buy us more suicide bombers (and equally endless debt with interest)?
Benjamin M. M. deserves to be hailed as a PRO-Semite, the opposite of most commenters here, for his humanist promotion of fear and hysteria about Arab Muslims via selected media-funneled examples.
"All that Islamic rage had the same purpose that calls for the adoption of Sharia law in Great Britain" is a an effective, if slightly unpolished and transparent, manipulation of al-Qaeda's stated aims, for the purposes of keeping everyone afraid, and the Jews, safe.
Ron Paul is indeed an extremist for wanting to end worldwide benevolent American militarism, which is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the American people and the world.
9/11 just proves how necessary and effective our unrivaled military build-up has been–did you see how skillfully those jets shot that plane down over Pennsylvania?
(I mean, just as the passengers simultaneously broke into the cockpit and crashed it, of course, sacrificing themselves for the good of mankind and an excellent patriotic movie.)
Ron Paul also wants to abolish government regulation, which I would however be entirely in favor of. (Hey, I sold my Enron stock at the right time–Sue me.) But I am prevented from supporting that progressive policy because of an incredibly bigoted newsletter that he once wrote, demonstrating racist and anti-Semitic tendencies.
So once again, by the force of reason and reason alone, I must agree whole-heartedly with Richard Witty, who lambasts Paul's extremism and who, in a masterful flourish, crescendos, "the concept of what constitutes 'occupation' is an ideological interpretation."
Hear, hear! Such sweet words for the peace-loving Zionist soul!
Isn't Zionism, rather than "expansionist colonialism," or "occupation," best described as development, as progress, as self-determination, or even, beautification?
Just look at this report from Haaretz (which I don't recommend reading without Alan Dershowitz by your side, to balance the facts):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949976.html
The Yemin Yehuda non-profit association has begun building 200 housing units in the Shimon Hatzaddik compound, in the heart of East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarra neighborhood. In the process, the organization intends to demolish the homes of dozens of Palestinian families who live there.
[ed: I have seen some of the houses in East Jerusalem. Believe me: they GOT to go! I can't believe they've never filmed an episode of Extreme Home Makeover there--no doubt to avoid tacitly supporting Extremism in any form--because there are so many potential candidates! Didn't mud and brick go out of style, like, 1,500 years ago?]
This neighborhood is in a strategic location: If Yemin Yehuda completes its plan, it will cut the Old City off from the Palestinian neighborhoods in northern Jerusalem…
[ed: Of course the Palestinians would just LOVE it if their property values went up a little, too. Or they could drive to their jobs or visit their relatives. These people are endlessly selfish.]
The new neighborhood is slated to cover 18 dunams next to the tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik. According to the plan submitted to the Jerusalem municipal planning commission, Palestinian buildings must be demolished to make room for 200 housing units.
[ed: Invest now! Yesterday! This neighborhood is gonna explode! And I don't mean that literally--we're building a wall for that!]
Deputy Mayor Yehoshua Pollack, who heads the local commission, says he is not familiar with the new plan, but that he seeks to “advance any construction plan, be it by Jews or Arabs.”
[ed: Mayor Pollack is a funny guy!]
Pollack noted that contrary to reports that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had ordered a halt to construction in East Jerusalem, the municipality has not been informed of any such restrictions.
[ed: Look, The Yemin Yehuda non-profit association has some big guns. What can a man who is only Prime Minister do, if the non-profit just won't take no for an answer?]
Clearly what we see here is a desire for A PEOPLE to have SELF-DETERMINATION. Without doing something about these crumby 200 little Palestinian homes, East Jerusalem is never going to take off, and Jewish self-determination means that ALL of Jerusalem has gotta have some glitz, you know, high rises, Lexuses, signs of conspicuous… SELF-DETERMINATION.
Otherwise our people are enslaved. Now there are many commenters here who would like for Jews to be enslaved, or exiled, and Philip Weiss' irresponsible, uncivil journalism feeds and encourages that.
So I will continue to appear here, to remind all that Zionism is not "occupation", or "racism". Those are just easy canards for deranged goys to swallow. Zionism is humanism, Zionism is progress, Zionism is development, Zionism is self-determination, and Zionism is beautification.
"Here, here!"
– Larry Franklin
In the War of Ideas, Ron Paul is kicking ass.
Speaking of the war of ideas, does anyone read the CAMERA blog, Crapshots?
Unlike Israel on the battlefield, these folks are fighting the war of ideas with weak weapons and little ammunition:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2008/01/steaks_flying_over_gaza.html