I have said that Walt and Mearsheimer's assertions will seem more and more like commonplaces in the years to come, as we realize, That ain't the half of it. One of their assertions was that Israel pushed for the Iraq war once that became the neocon agenda. Well maybe the truth is worse?
The other day I met a very political person who will go nameless. Someone who is well-connected in the Jewish community; and as I got out my hurdy-gurdy, that it's necessary for the Jewish community to examine its leadership's particular responsibility for the Iraq war, s/he repeatedly asked me, "Why did they support it?" When the Jewish community was overwhelmingly against the war. I realized that her/his questions were Socratic. S/he knew the answer, or an answer, and was pointing me to this belief: that Israel pushed this war among the neocons and the Jewish leadership. That Israelis talked to Malcolm Hoenlein, that kind of thing. That Dore Gold, the secret $96,000 a year "scholar" in Jerusalem for the American Enterprise Institute, pushed it in Bush's braintrust... And when I said that my own sibling's Jewish newspaper had pushed the war, my interlocutor said, Why did they support it? Very conspiratorial. Suggesting that Israel had given them the word.
I offer this in the dark of morning, as mere suggestion about how things might have worked. It goes to the central issue here: There's a ton of journalism to be done on the causes of the Iraq War that is not being done. Walt and Mearsheimer were attacked for saying the Israel lobby wanted the war, a patent fact, though W&M are coming back inside. And some day, when Israel feels safer, this s**t may start coming out.
Another datum. Haaretz interviews Brzezinski (Haaretz is so far ahead of our newspapers it isn't funny) who says: "One [piece of] advice that I would give the Israeli government is not to engage in this campaign for an
American attack on Iran, because I don't think America is going to
attack Iran, and if it did, and the consequences would be disastrous."
"It wouldn't be particularly good for American-Israeli relations,
and there will be a lot of resentment against [Israel]," he said.
"There already has been some after the war in Iraq."
If the traditional media is collapsing for being dishonest, self-serving and financially irresponsible, what's next.
Dr. Brzezinski's warning, along with Admiral Mullen's, leads me to hope that more people in our traditional establishment are willing to publicly stick their necks out. The next few years will be fascinating. How long will lobby leadership continue its forlorn efforts to 'plug every leak in the dam'? Will they change tactics in time, getting out a surfboard to ride the oncoming deluge to their best advantage? Or will they stalwartly wait to the end, fingers in as many holes as possible desperately watching the cracks spread from those unplugged, when the breaches conflate into a raging torrent and they are swept away into impotence and contemptible shame? Mayhap they will (:GASP: is it even possible!?) actually engage in a genuine dialogue with gentile leaders to find some common ground on setting American ME policy. Feeble attempt at ill-mannered humor aside, I am betting on the latter. I think lobby leadership will fracture as an increasing number of lobby leaders refuse to pay obeisance to a party line they know is doomed to fail. The time of reaping draws near, but it is not yet too late to sow a different crop.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13288
link to noworldsystem.com
/>
link to presstv.ir
This is a Mondo quote of Walt and Mearsheimer:
From:
link to philipweiss.org
/>
As to AIPAC executing on orders from Israel, you might check out Grant Smith, "Foreign Agents: AIPAC from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal." It feels a little Anti-Semitic, and is not a joy to read, but it is chock full of transcripts from the 60s and other extensive original materials exploring/documenting this very issue.
Dr. Brzezinski's warning, along with Admiral Mullen's, leads me to hope that more people in our traditional establishment are willing to publicly stick their necks out. The next few years will be fascinating.
Years? The public is waaaay ahead on this one. It's already happened. The MSM can follow or not. It's a dead medium anyway.
As soon as the occupation and apartheid are twittered daily by Israeli activists, it's over.
'"Why did they support it?" When the Jewish community was overwhelmingly against the war.'
Phil, the neocons had their own agenda, of which Israel is only a part. Their crusade to "spread global democracy" is fundamentally internationalist. Israel is ideologically essential as a "bulwark against terror," "model of Democracy," and a bridgehead for the "spread of freedom."
Despite their ethnic attachments to Israel, I do not think the idea of a small, peaceful Israeli nation appeals to them at all. Neoconservativism is a revolutionary ideology–it must always expand and find new enemies to fight.
"it must always expand and find new enemies to fight."
Yup, sounds like Israel alright.