Earlier this year, Jacob Heilbrunn twice used the word “cabal” in his book They Knew They Were Right, to describe the neocons at the Pentagon and in the university (I charted his cabalism here). Last year Glenn Kessler, Washington Post diplomatic correspondent, used the word “cabal” to describe neocons at the Pentagon, in his book The Confidante:
On one early call, [assistant secretary of state Christopher] Hill had to listen to a cabal of core conservative criticize his proposals–[deputy national security adviser J.D.] Crouch, Pentagon under secretary Douglas Feith, State nonproliferation chief Robert Joseph, and vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Now in this interview by Peter Voskamp in the Block Island Times, former R.I. Senator Lincoln Chafee describes greater-Israel neocons and Christian right as making up a “cabal” in foreign policy that envisioned a democratic domino theory in the Middle East:
Chafee said that Wolfowitz, arguably the war’s chief architect, “painted a compelling scenario” where “dual victories” were possible — defeating terror through liberating Iraq while simultaneously forging a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. However, according to Chafee, there exists a “cabal” of rightwing Christians and Jews in the country who will “never give up land for peace,” as they consider the West Bank and Gaza “part of the promised land in the Old Testament.”
Chafee suggested that was the reason Wolfowitz was ushered out of the Pentagon and to the World Bank.
Why are all these straight people using the word “cabal”? The main characteristic of a cabal is that it is unstraightforward about its true intentions. As I have argued ad nauseum lately, Douglas Feith is not straightforward. In fact, Stephen Sniegoski is about to publish The Transparent Cabal, saying the neocons are a cabal, but you can actually figure out what they believe because they’ve left so many traces. Seems like an accurate description.
Related posts:
{ 16 comments }
"Chafee suggested that was the reason Wolfowitz was ushered out of the Pentagon and to the World Bank."
Wow, so, Wolfowitz comes across as a realist next to those others? Were they also upset by his Arab girlfriend, maybe?
I'm looking forward to Sniegoski's book. He was one of the brave pioneers talking about the Israeli origins of the war way back when we still could have stopped it.
Here's one of his early articles–
THE WAR ON IRAQ: CONCEIVED IN ISRAEL
February 10, 2003
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm
All that we know today about the preoccupations of the neocons, and their tight interconnectedness, was known back then. The media could have told us had they wanted to.
Iran Contra: The Marriage of Friedmanism and Neoconservatism
The Iran Contra operation, which involved Neocons and Friedmanites in close collaboration, represented the marriage or total integration of aggressive Neocon ideas for transforming the Middle East with free market aggression against non-capitalist Latin American states. By the end of the Reagan administration both the World Bank and also the IMF were transformed into aggressive mechanisms of Friedmanite intimidation and control not so much for the USA but for US corporate and banking interests that during the Reagan administration had become even more Jewish and Zionist thanks in good measure to Israeli governmental manipulation of the US economy with the new funding and investment orientation that resulted from the Camp David Accords. No longer would Judonia (the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland) simply have one settler colony, but it would also develop new purely revenue generating virtual colonies through the acquisition of formerly state-owned corporations of developing countries whose markets were forced open to Western and in a steadily increasing number of cases to Judonian investment. Paul Wolfowitz' desire to lead the World Bank after architecting policy to disintegrate Iraq with the Second Iraq War makes perfect sense as a way for Judonia to maintain total control over one of the most important Arab counties.
joachim,
what you say in your article about aid to israel defense industry and how it gets recycled is very interesting and i have heard it before. i would like a more detailed explanation of what your thesis is about friedmanite economics. it is obvious to me that style of analysis has "won" , or is the most prevalent now. i fail to be convinced that it is a jewish plot. free market economics is a philosophy. one could say it has benefited a lot of jewish entrepreneurs , or rather, they have taken advantage of the market conditions created by friedmanite economics. but so have others. obviously there are a lot of jewish names among the billionaires and no doubt they have their own 'old boy' network. isn't that the way of the world? sometimes i wonder about their ethics, but that isn't a jewish problem, witness the chinese. i am open to more argument. so far, it seems like a stretch.
Even though Friedman's early backers included many wealthy non-Jews in the banking industry, his economics belongs very much to the epistemic culture of Yiddish economics and Zionist politics.
I discuss the connections from Jabotinskians and the Partition Proposal through and including The Failure of Friedmanism and Bernanke’s Panic.
While I am concerned that ethnic Ashkenazim and other Eastern Europeans brought an Eastern European approach to economic activity to the USA and have for all intents and purposes overwhelmed the original more Western European-oriented practices, since the 1950s Zionist Jewish American Oligarchs (Members of Judonia) and the State of Israel have engaged in economic political activities that involve massive tax fraud, securities fraud and restraint of trade.
In 19th and early 20th century Germany and Austria similar charges were leveled against the (almost entirely Jewish) entrepreneurial class of Eastern European origin (but some Polish magnates of Catholic and Muslim origin did their bit for corrupt and criminal business dealing).
The record indicates that the accusations were mostly true. The situation has worsened now in the 21st century because this E. European business culture has persisted among ethnic Ashkenazim, and the ethnic Ashkenazi business networks use the State of Israel to put business dealings out of the reach of US investigators while the State of Israel as a sovereign power to get away with a lot that mere corporations or wealthy individuals could not.
In some cases, government investigators are unwilling to risk the accusation of anti-Semitism to check out possible serious tax code violations by the organized Jewish community and wealthy Jewish philantropists.
I include examples in my document The Israel Lobby and American Society, and I would love to do the research to make the analysis really tight either to prove or to disprove my hypotheses. Unfortunately, because it is an expensive endeavor, I have put up a contribution button on my blog for this project, which if funded would probably take about a 1-1.5 years (I have the necessary background in forensic accounting and statistics). Otherwise, I will probably finish the project over 5-10 years in the context of some new projects that I am undertaking in the finance industry.
'All that we know today about the preoccupations of the neocons, and their tight interconnectedness, was known back then.'
I knew it all back then, armed with a dial-up DOS-box in sunny Sydney, and I'd never heard of Sniegowski. Point being, there were millions of us who knew what was going on – I can remember at times in 2002 being stunned at how the seemingly distant scenarios I had read about in Orwell and histories of the thirties were happening to me, in my life! The idea was astonishing, that the sober talking heads I saw on the TV and the venerable columnists I read with growing incredulousness, were pouring war propaganda all over me, expecting me to lap it all up just like the internet-deprived citizens of the past.
Much of that huge march in mid Feb 03 was generated by a massively-shared feeling of 'how fucking dare you lie to us' or perhaps more accurately, 'how fucking dare you KEEP lying to us after we've told you what's going on'. For the first time I felt real doubts about the depth and security of the democratic underpinnings of the freedom I took for granted. And I knew the threats came, in the main, from your country.
'The media could have told us had they wanted to.'
No they couldn't. They were part of the story. The neocons interconnectedness didn't stop at government service; the Lobby's media component were every bit as important, maybe more so.
See Video: Neocons Pushed Us into War with Iraq and Now with Iran!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbxD55LnlGg&feature=PlayList&p=71316451BEDD9F8F&index=0&playnext=1
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/5johhg
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/neocons-pushed-us-into-war-with-iraq.html
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/5aspp5
joachim,
i would like some quotes or something. or at least what you think makes friedman's economics zionist/jewish. and not just jewish but pro-zion, destructive to the u.s. i read your articles.
i'm not a hostile questioner . i think you have done some amazing work.
Joachim, what exactly started your "Judonia" project?
And what would be your answer to the impression that at the core of your enterprise there seems to be a mirror image of Bush's good and evil approach to politics.
Is it correct, that you basically assume that the Ashkenazi only reaped what they sowed? And your research is looking for evidence for that assumption?
One of your last notes sounded as if your meta desire was to rehabilitate Hitler.
Joachim, every time I follow some of your links, I am puzzled. What is the core of the anger that started this enterprise?
e.g.:
Illuminating the dark side of Yiddish
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/arun-gandhi-and-sholem-aleichem.html
What draws your attention here is a features, I would expect in any vernacular, or idiom, devoted to–as we call it in German–"little people", the humbly born. …
To cite a passage you marked in bold and red:
"The Dark Side of Shalom Aleichem's Laughter" is not a comic hero at all. Miron's fascinating analysis shows Tevye as a person who has destructive urges, for whom the character of the popular fool is just a masquerade."
What are your destructive urges?
"are features" of course.
I agree with Glenn. Anybody with open eyes could have seen that at least part of the tre rationale for the war was transforming the Middle East. And it's not that the media did not cover it either. Here is Tom Friedman, writing back in March 2003:
"And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country wants to see Iraq dealt with without a war. But President Bush is a man on a mission. He has been convinced by a tiny group of advisers that throwing ''The Long Bomb'' — attempting to transform the most dangerous Arab state — is a geopolitical game-changer. It could help nudge the whole Arab-Muslim world onto a more progressive track, something that coaxing simply will not do anymore." (emphasis mine)
We need to examine our brains too, I guess. In the Feb 03 anti-war demonstration in NYC I saw a lot of posters "No War For Oil" but none "No War For Israel" (though there were a lot of "Free Palestine" posters and such). Why is that?
Because the war was for the oil supply chain, and the dominant role of American corporations in it.
Its an historical revision to paint it as "for Israel".
Phils story is on antiwar.com this morning.
if this one single fact doesnt make it clear that the lobby rules then nothing will…
"the AIPAC conference is a media no man's land."
"The second big surprise was that apart from coverage of the headline speakers, the AIPAC conference is a media no man’s land. It would be hard to imagine a more naked exhibition of political power: a convention of 7,000 mostly rich people, with more than half the Congress in attendance, as well as all the major presidential candidates, the prime minister of Israel, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the speaker of the House. Yet there is precious little journalism about the spectacle in full. The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence. They would have to take on an unpleasant informative task that they have instead left to two international relations scholars in their 50s—Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of last year’s book The Israel Lobby."
Richard, I recommend you read Jim Lobe's last two articles. Would we see these actions if there wasn't an enormous push from Israel?
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/
Mr. Weiss, I just read your new piece on AIPAC's annual convention in the American Conservative. Excellent.
Thank you very much.
Comments on this entry are closed.