Foxman's comments were more on the mark than yours.

'Why always this angry defensiveness? We're a powerful community. Where's the introspection, the honesty, the responsibility?'

Eloquent, clear, accurate. You think your pathetic foot-stomps put the heat on Phil, when it's his insistent honesty and common sense that has put the burners under your blinkered and fearful ethno-religious solidarity. Hence the high-pitched squealing that seems to be all that emanates from your quarter nowadays.

It wasn't only the Israel-firsters, and a focus that ignores the MI complex (indeed, the US's reliance nowadays on what Chris Floyd calls 'war, or the rumour of war' as the basis of an economy that no longer produces anything useful) is wrong, but it's no more wrong than pretending there is no Israel-first footprint all over the war.

My problem with Richard is that he does not distinguish. Everybody asking questions to him can have only one mindset. Everybody curious about the course of recent US history and a president celebrated like a king in neoconservative circles can have only one mindset: She is an antisemite and probably believes in an early 20th century forgery. He only wants to blame it on Israel and/or Jews.

What question are you asking about?

We both opposed the Iraq War, but for apparently different reasons (probably some in common, but the inference that the war was fought for Israel is our divide).

I am pretty sure, we have been here before. One last time: You are wrong. I never thought that the Iraq war was fought for Israel. Could we say you are generalizing? Somehow like: Phil and everybody reading his blog–with very, very few exceptions–thinks that the war was fought for Israel, thus you must think so too.

Phil used the term "Israel-first" which is false. A coalition that was much wider than only "Israel-first" advocates, formed the executive decision to enter the Iraq war and the Congressional authorization to do so.

The thesis of preemptive military intervention was NOT historically new, or unique to neo-conservatives.

We had hoped that with the demise of the cold war, that the military posturing would have been dashed permanently, but the proponents of increased military were the defense industry, the pentagon, the 'patriots' here, the conservatives in general (with a couple exceptions).

I'm sorry that you folks have ingested this jaded tripe. I'm far more sorry that Phil has.

Not exactly.

Phil states that "John Hostettler's book Nothing for the Nation … blames Israel firsters for pushing the Iraq war."

I think even Foxman would agree with him here.

This is getting absurd.

Not exactly.

Phil states that "John Hostettler's book Nothing for the Nation … blames Israel firsters for pushing the Iraq war."

I think even Foxman would agree with him here.

This is getting absurd.

Propaganda right?

Phil was taking a low blow shot at Foxman, a convenient target.

If the reality is that there is diversity within the Jewish community, within the Jewish moneyed community, within AIPAC even, then the thesis of monolith is false.

The weight of the thesis IS important. If Phil is saying, "a couple individuals added concerns about Israel to the mix of concerns and propaganda to conceive and promote the war", that is agreed.

It is NOT the gist. The gist of W/M and Phil's comment, is that Israel was the reason that the US got into the war.

Its a lie. If Phil wants to clarify that that is not his gist, then 1/80th of his posts would be on that topic, and rest on other issues.

Its not. Its his cul-de-sac now. His orbit.

Thankfully he is talking about energy a little.

What do WE do that contributes to the geo-political power struggle? What do I do?

30 ideas does not address the goal nor politics involved in it, but its a start.