Is the Israel lobby pushing for a military confrontation with Iran? You betcha. Ratcheting up the pressure on Iran was one of the main currents at AIPAC's policy conference. Congress is about to approve what Dailykos calls "Iran war" legislation, that Kos's reporter says is being pushed by AIPAC, in the wake of Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert's meeting with Nancy Pelosi. There are 169 co-sponsors of this bill, mostly Republican. It brings together all the firebreathers from lib to right, from Dana Rohrabacher to my secret Israel lobby crush, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
Richard Witty has often said that I'm too polemical and confrontational. But this legislation is getting no mainstream media coverage, and it could lead to another disastrous military operation in the Middle East. Everything I write on this blog is in the context of Iraq, a calamity for my country that was pushed in good part by neocons who were trying to undermine the peace process, such as it is, in Israel/Palestine. This discussion needs to take place out in the open.
You're not remotely polemic and confrontational enough! About half the time I look to this website for coverage of US politics on the Middle East and I get charming musings about modern marriage…
Objecting to unilateral war is not polemic.
What do you think of Dan Fleshler's most recent post describing that he didn't believe that AIPAC was advocating for war with Iran.
I disagree with you about the degree of influence that AIPAC or whatever amalgam is the "Israel Lobby" had in the Bush administration's unilateral invasion and fraud to gain permission to invade Iraq.
So, if the question is up on US war with Iran (which its not clearly), WHY do you think it is not a good idea?
Make the ARGUMENT!!
Don't worry about it. Bush isn't going to attack Iran. What does he need the aggravation for. And a president Obama will roll over for the Iranians like a dog getting his stomach scratched. So, the Iranians will get the bomb, there by touching off a regional nuclear arms race. Basically the most unstable part of the world, run by a bunch of lunatics, with most of the worlds oil reserves, on nuclear hair trigger alert. But I guess all will be well. The Black Jesus will lay hands, all will be well.
I think it is true that Iran has not budged at all.
The Daily Ko's approach of "nuclear free middle east" sounds wonderful.
But, the conditions that make that possible have not occurred, and it is not Israel that is the culprit.
It requires renunciation of all aggressive intent by all nations in the region to make that happen.
Otherwise the continuing status of deferred war with those states that have not established diplomatic relations with Israel remains.
Urge the change already!!!!
Israel has the bomb. And Israel is the only country in the Mideast which routinely attacks their neighbors.
So let's not be listening to any lies from the Love Israel/Don't Give a Crap About America Crowd as to Iran destabilizing the Mideast when Israel is more obviously the real catalyst of unrest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/weekinreview/22bronner.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin
Certainly, this article deserves your comment Phil, as important as a Daily Kos scree, no?
In short, it suggests that a calm instead of a peace is a fraud, a manipulation by Hamas to achieve power, a precursor to actual war, an APPEASEMENT with evil.
"Israel has the bomb. And Israel is the only country in the Mideast which routinely attacks their neighbors."
What planet do you live on Chuck?
http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/216
"I have read even more drivel than usual about AIPAC in the blogosphere these days, and thought I would explain a few things to those who have never attended an AIPAC Policy Conference.
First of all, AIPAC does not appear to be trying to prod the U.S. to bomb Iran. If it is, I have not seen any credible evidence, just a lot of inferential yammering by those whose stock-in-trade is to promote the notion that the so-called “Lobby” is a bunch of bellicose fifth columnists."
…
I have no use for Richard Witty, or even carrying on a conversation with him. Most of the time, I find his posts obfuscatory and either intentionally or unintentionally oblique.
Why you even pay him the respect of addressing him directly is beyond me…
The more interesting topic of conversation is that Daily Kos has, once again, been forced to confront the elephant in the room, Israel and its benighted AIPAC supporters, in spite of its continually trying to ignore everything about Israel. If one is a daily reader of Daily Kos, which I was in the early days, one is struck by the way in which both the writers on the site and the commenters often bend over backwards to blame everything on Christian Zionists, oil companies, and the military industrial complex. Even now– peruse the comments– there is a constant berating of Christian Zionists, as if Christian Zionists controlled AIPAC.
In discussions of the Middle East, a determined ignorance of Israel's occupation, its beligerence, its ethnocentricism is standard fare at Daily Kos– this should be of more interest to you than the predictably vacuous comments by Richard Witty.
Preemptive attacks have been Israel's signature for a long time–the thing about preemption is that there is no clear criteria for when it is justified under the old Just War doctrine (developed by Christians), which relied on obvious signals, e.g., visible troops amassing along a border, etc… Israel defied Kennedy, snuck in the bomb, has had a "who knows?" policy regarding its 200 nukes ever since–why should Israel be the only with nukes in the Middle East? India was allowed, so too Pakistan, de facto–why stick it to Iran, which is more democratic than our ally, Saudi Arabia, for example? If you were Iranian, surrounded by American military power, threatened by Israel, America's top ally, what would you think? Israel hit Iraq, then Syria. Bush calls Iran part of the axis of Evil–What planet do you live on, Witty? Anything to get the USA to attack Iran for Israel, eh? Some American trench buddy, you are.
Interesting exercise: go to Dan Fleshler's site and read Richard Witty's comments there and compare them with those he posts here.
Witty, I live in America, formerly a Shining City on a Hill, founded by among others, my forebearer William Bradford nearly 400 years ago. America would be way ahead if disloyal types such as yourself cleared out for the land you love – Israel. As the prior poster points out, you are a fundamentally dishonest POS. Perhaps if you weren't, you might acknowledge that Israel has attacked Lebanon, Syria and Gaza within the last couple of years. More recently, they have been conducting exercises to attack Iran.
Why don't you and your IDF loyalist boys pack it up and make Aliyah? Most Americans don't want any part of your soon to come attack upon Iran. And we very much resent your AIPAC crowd trashing our once great country for your religious purposes which apparently include ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Quit pretending to be a liberal because that's just another lie to obscure your complete devotion to the racist cause of Zionism.
IRAQ COMES HOME: THE WAR OF IDEAS, BY PHILIP WEISS
Phil places this at the top of the blog to stress the mistakes of the Iraq war and to identify the people who are responsible for it. Now these same people are making a case for war in Iran.
Many politicians and pundits have apologized for their pro-Iraq war votes and articles in favor of regime change. However, these people who have been chastened by the Iraq war seem to be silent about the future war with Iran.
In order to avoid another nightmare, the people pushing for the Iran war must be identified and villified publicly.
America needs an active duty Senator, Congressman, or senior military man to come out loudly and proclaim that the Israel Lobby is pushing for war with Iran. The silence must be broken. That courageous person may never work again politically, but he/she will save many lives and tax dollars.
If you don't care about innocent lives or tax dollars, just think about $10.00 – $30.00 per gallon gas and waiting outside a service station for hours or days for the ability to do so. ?
TPM is on it too. Debbie Wasserman is a neocon. That's like loving Eva Braun.
From Dan's posting.
"I know this is a rather inconvenient truth. Painting the AIPACers with a broad brush as a dangerous, evil band of Likud supporters and war-hungry “neocons” makes it much easier for those who oppose the group to mobilize, and to write angry op-eds and blog posts filled with reckless generalizations that ignore complex, institutional truths. Mea culpa: I’ve written a few of those myself."
From the New York Times article.
"But it looked very different here. Most Israelis consider the truce with Hamas an admission of national failure, a victory for a radical group with a vicious ideology. As they look ahead, Israelis can’t decide which would be worse, for the truce to fall apart (as polls show most expect it to do), or for Hamas actually to make it last, thereby solidifying the movement’s authority in Palestinian politics over the more secular Fatah. Moreover, most think that Syria should not get back the Golan Heights — its ostensible aim in talking with Israel — and that the truces and negotiations amount to little without the return of captured Israeli soldiers held for the past two years."
Is Hamas willing to accept Israel? Or, is it just using the time to consolidate power?
Except Eva never officially represented Germans in government; indeed, most didn't know about her. DW is a hot neocon, Israeli Firster. She's rabid–watch out, Phil!
Contressman Ron Paul has come out specifically against the zionist neocons (actually all neocons).
The most progressive approach for the US is the pro-Zionist, pro-peace approach that J Street and hopefully Obama present.
Their approach is sober, realistic, benevolent, minimizing risks to all parties.
And, clearly in the US interest and in the human interest.
Re: Jewish American Heritage Month in the USA:
The measure was criticized by Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America, a national Christian organization based in Fort Lauderdale. Cass objected to "teaching Jewish history without talk of religious practices and values," saying "We cannot seem to have an honest discussion about the Christian roots of America." He also wondered how much tolerance would Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz have for a Christian Heritage month? Wasserman Schultz believed the situation was different, saying "Judaism is unique, because it is both a culture and a religion", and that "she would not support teaching any religion in public schools."
.
.
.
'Making a case for war in Iran'? Read the article pat. They are STARTING A WAR!! This is really scary.
I see that Waxman, Jackson, and Frank are among the sponsors. Incredible.
I think the last best hope is that the Yankee Slaver faction of the Ruling Class will finally make a stand against the Zionist Thug faction, and there are a few signs they may be trying to do so. But they are in a weak position. The Zionists have total control of the government and the mass media, and probably they manage the bulk of the wealth.
The Yankees still *own* the bulk of the wealth, and should not be completely impotent. But can they find a standpoint and a fulcrum to employ this lever?
If this article is true, the Zionists are on the verge of destroying this country's future. It is hard to see how it could be lying. OMG.
"Richard Witty has often said that I'm too polemical and confrontational. "
The confusion between whether you are advocating or reporting is a difficult one.
.
.
Clearly 'Witty' is a Zionist jamming project, and the only way to deal with it is to skip over it.
What's in the US interests is to have our policies determined by those loyal to America, not Israel. That would preclude Zionists from getting anywhere near the policy levers.
A truly neutral foreign policy with regard to Zionism would earn the favor of Arabs and loosen up the oil spigots. Yes, we could actually be buying oil from Iran. We would no longer be stuck paying out hundereds of billions for the Zionist juntas war in Iraq. What would that do for the dollar once we brought the federal budget under control? We wouldn't even need some phony homeland security agency with a bloated budget spent tending to the security needs of synagogues across the USA. Gasoline would be back to $2 per gallon and we could return to a sustainable economy with no more foreign adventurism to pay for. Poor little Israel would just have to manage on their own. Of course Witty could move there and help them out to his heart's delight leaving peaceful Americans to tend to their own affairs. Think how much more pleasant it would be if Witty were writing his demeaning comments about the US military from his Zionist homeland.
.
I would guess 'Madrid' is Morpheus.
I'm a humanist, a Jewish one, a Zionist one.
I am not qualified to be president of the United States, as I could not in good faith take an oath of office that would require me to support the "interests", and certainly not the military heavy-handedness, of the American empire as a superpower in the world.
Anyone that is engaged by an administration serves at the pleasure, at the request, of the executive of the administration itself. They are responsible for their selection and manner of implementation of policies.
To hold AIPAC responsible for the Iraq war, but NOT Bush/Cheney, is idiotic in my view, or intentionally malevolent.
That math is part of my criticism of the fetishizing of Walt/Mearsheimer thesis and messengers.
I consider it humane and secondarily clearly in America's interests to support Israel's defense (in relation to significant powers that have failed to recognize or establish diplomatic relations with Israel, resulting in a current state of deferred war).
Both Syria and Iran could change their approach and recognize Israel, establish diplomatic relationships.
That would be an example of "realist" policy, not the rationalization of what constitutes "realism" justifying Walt/Mearsheimer's switch from "realism" to "advocacy".
It strikes me that if the zionist are successful in getting the US into more ME wars, that aside from it destroying the US as we have know it, it will start the last and final holocuast of a sorts for the Jews.
Already for a long time time now, other countries have acknowledged that US zionist are running the US policy, overseas papers are not shy about linking the ME chaos to the influence of zionist in the US. World opinion on the jews, because of the zionist among them has long been at the boiling point for the populations in many countries.
In a war with Iran Israel will also be destroyed in the end..where will the jews go then?
If I were they I would back off. For all the acceptence, avenues to the good life and protection the jews have received especially in the US you would think the zionist would have the good sense to back off and consider themselves well off with the status quo…but I don't think they are smart enough to do that. They seem to have a genetic quirk that leads them to have illusions of granduer that always turn out to be fatalistic and self destructive.
Oil got the US into wars in the Middle East, not Israel.
i like that. witty as jamming device. really clever and true. which gets me to the myriads of rationalizations for israel and its policies and our policies that support it. i don't believe that it is only fear, fear of speaking out, that's keeps our mostly jewish press silent. i think there is a mental fog , a knee jerk response of rationalization, that keeps most jews from grappling with the truth. this fog is very effective. it has kept americans from thinking about israel in any real way. certainly it did me. it took years of things adding up slowly for me to take a look, investigate, and see the truth of israel. (plus i saw the settlements). and i'm gentile and have no stake in it, emotional or religious. so imagine if you do have an emotional stake as a jew. this fog keeps smart people with highly trained minds in a kind of highly complex stupidity. and those who aren't in the fog of stupidity are diaabolically intelligent at taking and keeping power. i find it a psychologically interesting phenomenon. i wish phil would write about it. of course, it is tragic for america, even as it is good for the jews. there has been a coup of a very effective kind. no one even knew it was happening.
i like that. witty as jamming device. really clever and true. which gets me to the myriads of rationalizations for israel and its policies and our policies that support it. i don't believe that it is only fear, fear of speaking out, that's keeps our mostly jewish press silent. i think there is a mental fog , a knee jerk response of rationalization, that keeps most jews from grappling with the truth. this fog is very effective. it has kept americans from thinking about israel in any real way. certainly it did me. it took years of things adding up slowly for me to take a look, investigate, and see the truth of israel. (plus i saw the settlements). and i'm gentile and have no stake in it, emotional or religious. so imagine if you do have an emotional stake as a jew. this fog keeps smart people with highly trained minds in a kind of highly complex stupidity. and those who aren't in the fog of stupidity are diaabolically intelligent at taking and keeping power. i find it a psychologically interesting phenomenon. i wish phil would write about it. of course, it is tragic for america, even as it is good for the jews. there has been a coup of a very effective kind. no one even knew it was happening.
There are rationalizations that people adopt to justify their support of various Israeli policies.
Who knows which you accept vs criticize vs condemn? It would be a wonderful clarification for ALL that dissent to take the time to do, and candidly.
There are also REASONS that underlie the complexes of Israeli policies. For one, Israel is a democratic state that must negotiate the will of its voters. Its not so simple as what even a single administration thinks is right. Even Netanyahu cannot cavalierly break Israeli law (a positive) though also opportunists use the democracy to enhance their own specific ends.
The one area of consensus there, and among any that respect ANY state, is the requirement to protect civilians within Israel from violence resulting from war and terror.
FEW regard the shelling of Sderot and Ashkelon by Hamas and others as acceptable in any form.
And Few regard Hamas and others to enter into long-term hudna or actual peace.
So, unless you are advocating for the dissolution of Israel or establishment of a single-state (somehow not in civil war), you MUST then address the question of "what to do with Hamas?"
rw wrote:
"To hold AIPAC responsible for the Iraq war, but NOT Bush/Cheney, is idiotic in my view, or intentionally malevolent."
This is typically dishonest. It is not an either/or question. Yes we will point out the Israel lobby's responsibility without ignoring that there were multiple factors that led us to war in Iraq.
.
Well ~Peters~ i'll tell you how my 'jewish' mind was fogged. When i came here around 8 moths ago i already saw israel and zionism pretty clearly but i questioned whether it was proper to discuss it in public. after a few comments to that effect i saw the absurdity of my position and got over it.
.
~American~ says 'It strikes me that if the zionist are successful in getting the US into more ME wars, that aside from it destroying the US as we have know it, it will start the last and final holocuast of a sorts for the Jews'.
Well hardly the last and final. Even if Israelis are destroyed there will be plenty of jews left, with even more justifications to get themselves in hot water.
But it is highly unlikely that any Muslim nuclear state would nuke israel, since they would have to destroy so many of their brothers in the process. What is likely to happen is the obliteration of the 'Jewish' zionist state, at which the rest of the world will breath a sigh of releif.
Re Phil's statement, "Congress is about to approve what Dailykos calls "Iran war" legislation, that Kos's reporter says is being pushed by AIPAC…"
Daily Kos was started mostly by Markos Moulitsas – "Kos." He posts there almost daily. Those who post at Daily Kos are called "diarists," not "reporters." The hundreds – or thousands – who write diaries there are from all over the left part of the spectrum. Some diarists are ardent Zionists, some are anti-Zionists. As long as your diaries follow some fairly straighforward rules, you're allowed to stay. But in the past, some liberal, ardent Israel supporters have tried to intimidate diarists less favorable to Israel into leaving. That seems to be happening less.
I write there occasionally, but almost entirely about Alaska politics.
The fact that Tom J's diary got almost 1,000 comments in just over 24 hours and that the comments were as civil as they appear to be, is evidence of progress on the subject of more open dialogue at that fascinating and important site when it comes to the influence of AIPAC.
Philip Munger
I didn't know of the structure of Daily Kos. Thanks for the info.