Antiwar.com has a piece called "America's Israeli-occupied media," by Philip Giraldi, a writer for the American Conservative. This strikes me as a milestone: because this kind of statement has now lost its incendiary lunatic-fringe tonalities, it is a commonplace.
Joe Klein's remarkable confession that Jewish neoconservatives with divided loyalties had fomented the Iraq war and were now moving on to Iran has opened the floodgates to this sort of journalism. Abe Foxman might as well get a barrel, we're all going over the falls on this one.
Giraldi cites the fact that the Times ran Benny Morris's shocking bomb-'em-now piece, that Tzipi Livni's father was an Irgunist who helped detonate the King David Hotel in 46, and that Wolf Blitzer worked for AIPAC. This is not a conspiracy theory; it's an exploration of affinities. Let us remember that anti-Zionist rabbis said this day would come; they warned that with the Law of Return, any American Jew would be susceptible to questioning on where his true allegiance lies. And some of that questioning is surely fair. For instance, an anti-Zionist website asserts that Judith Miller, the water-carrier for war lies at the Times who now serves at the neoconnish Manhattan Institute, is a Zionist. I don't know. I'd like to know. Just as I like to know about the religious agendas of people who oppose stem-cell research.
I think we are due for good journalism on this issue before long. And I have a suggestion. Joe Klein should name some of his sources, the neoconservatives who told him about the benign domino theory that would bring democracy to the Middle East. He says the conversations were off the record, but there must be a couple of these smart guys he can name. And Tom Friedman should name his sources: the 25 neoconservative intellectuals he told Haaretz about, that "elite" within a mile or so of his office, who conceived the great war. "It's not that 25 people hijacked America," Friedman says. No, but they sure helped. Who were these dreamers? Where is the accountability?
As a role model, here is the nonagenarian Louis Auchincloss, diming out his social cohort on an earlier disaster:
Bill Scranton, Ted Beale, both Bundys, Bill and McGeorge – they all got
behind that war in Vietnam and they pushed it as far as they could. And
we lost a quarter of a million men. They were all idealistic, good,
virtuous,” says Auchincloss, “the finest men you could find. It was the
most disillusioning thing that happened in my life.”
Auchincloss
has struggled to understand just how their shared patrician background
could have produced this disconnect. And the answer would appear to be
that wars are lost, if not always made, on the playing fields of New
England. “Bill Bundy and I shared a study at Groton…"
Richard Witty has said that I'm vindictive when I do posts like this. I don't want to kill these guys, I want an audit, I want them exposed and (further) marginalized. Open discussion is the sunlight of a democracy, and of Jewish tradition too.
You're repititious. Its been reported, and long before Walt/Mearsheimer.
And, you focus on condemning the people (but use generalizations to do so), rather than the ideas, rather than the actions, and direct all of your attention at advisors INSTEAD of executives.
For example, its only a very jaundiced view that concludes from the note that some individuals had concerns about Israel as prominent in their foreign policy concerns, that "the Iraq War was for Israel".
Walt/Mearsheimer implied as much in writing, and more strikingly in interview (though in other interviews they claim moderation).
Its the difference between a study and a propaganda, between fixation and examination.
You use terms like "purge" to describe appopriate political response.
Do you get the irony of Cy Vance condemned above, but considered laudably serving under Carter (whom you praise)? Or, of Brezhenski described as a "realist", again considered a war-mongerer and primary trilaterialist during the Carter administration, but now somehow prescient about Iraq.
A lot of us were prescient about Iraq.
An additional data point on your fine effort to shine a light on Zionist and Neocon leanings of journalists, and that other group more directly connected to power, politicians. When the recent joint resolutions concerning Iran were apparently nearing another quiet "rubber stamp" vote implementing the Neocon agenda, this one demanding a naval blockade of Iran, the antiwar crowd stimulated a massive email campaign, and I, too, wrote my Congressperson and two senators strongly urging them to eliminate the naval blockade or other acts of war from the resolution. Since I live in California, my two senators, Boxer and Feinstein, are Jewish. I have always voted for Feinstein, and Boxer over some of the rightwingers presented by the Republicans, and have generally been pleased with their representation (Feinstein more than Boxer). However, the idea that people are railroading Congress into actions that amount to war crimes, pursuing an agenda that is not only wrong-headed but highly destructive of Israel's and the United States's interests, and the public never even hears an intelligent debate, is too much. In my emails to Boxer and Feinstein, I therefore included a request that they each start a conversation on the subject by disclosing how their own positions with respect to Iran might be influenced by their personal views on Zionism, asking if they stood with Norman Podhoretz, Phil Weiss, or somewhere in between. I got form answers from both, strongly advocating diplomacy on Iran, but not immediately, so I am hopeful my specific request got some attention, even if they declined to the issue of their own religious views.
But why shouldn't our elected representatives who are Jewish disclose their personal views on Zionism? Why shouldn't they all disclose to everyone exactly what they have assured AIPAC on the subject of the settlements? Why shouldn't their constituents insist they share these important views, and expose them to rigorous debate (and thereby test and improve them). There will certainly be Anti-Semites who will use the occasion to spew their bile, but sunshine and the First Amendment have a curious way of working out for the best, after all is said and done. Neocon desire to prevent debate so as to enhance their own power is not a reasonable position, and I hope is no longer viable.
Doppler
RE: "And, you (Phil) focus on condemning the people (but use generalizations to do so), rather than the ideas, rather than the actions, and direct all of your attention at advisors INSTEAD of executives."–Witty
Nothing like having Witty jump on Phil's back with spurs, taking full advantage of the fact Phil's been trying to see truth despite the booted army standing on nake sunshine.
It must be fun to play Mr. Reason without ever having to look down on whom you stand on.
Towel snap at Witty in the men's locker room.
nake=naked
I mean literally look down–Witty never looks down on anyone in his own mind. He's like Levin in Anna Karina.
Witty: "you focus on condemning the people (but use generalizations to do so), rather than the ideas, rather than the actions, and direct all of your attention at advisors INSTEAD of executives."
What ideas, actions and agenda do both the advisors and executives have in common? Imperialism and Zionism, which have become interchangeable. Like it or not, Witty, as a Zionist, you are on the imperial team. Either leave Zionism (which has been integrated into Judaism) or accept your responsibility and fate as a money and bigotry motivated thief and murderer.
It's like, who gave Shub the "intellectual" cover for his stupidiy?
Chaney,yes–& his Jewish partners.
The only thing we know for sure is that they were never enlisted in the US miitary as they had higher priorities…
forgive my usal typos–I'm just really hating the usual closed views, and it comes out in my keyboarding…
Debate? Reveal? Their attachments to israel or Zionism?
What's to Reveal? You can read where their loyalty lies in any old interview they give on AIPAC or Israel or in the Israelis papers or in their speeches to jewish groups.
What's to debate? That if most Americans outside of the lunatic asylum of Orwellington DC were exposed to the truth of the matter they would rightly call them traitors, to this country, to their office?
No they don't want to "debate" it, they don't want it mentioned, because they know how your ordinary American would view it if they ever got a chance to hear the Cantors and Lieberman's and Hoyers hold forth on how their first duty in their office is to protect abd aid Israel. At least that's Cantor told the JP last year. That's what Hoyer told the "freshmen" congressmen according to his speech at AIPAC.
Jews and zionist alike probably don't fully appreciate what goes through the private minds of non zionist, non jewish Americans when they hear their US presidential candidates vow to use their office to protect Israel no matter what Israel does and to spend American blood and treasure to do it. In campaign speechs it is but a blip, it provokes an uneasy feeling among the listeners but then audience moves on to listening to their most major personal domestic concerns being addressed. But if the issue was ever on the stage alone…well then.
I saw someone the other day describe their discovery of the Israeli fetish in our government as finding out your wife or husband has not only has been involved in a long standing affair, but knew their lover was actually a serial killer all along and helped covered for him/her crimes.
Interesting analogy, American. Especially since there's so much lipstick on the collars of nearly all our politicians.