Writes a friend:
"Cognitive dissonance" isn't the same for the Israel loyalists as it is for most
other Americans. They see Israel as part of America, and America as a member of
Israel's family. Nothing anyone does for Israel while in America, using
American offices, methods, manipulation–no matter how treacherous or
mendacious–can be seen as anything but a patriotic act for the good of both
countries. That is why the pressure for the release of Jonathan Pollard won't
altogether let up ever. And why a man indicted for espionage in the U.S. like
Steven J. Rosen can pick up a megaphone to denounce Freeman; as if he, Rosen,
were the finer American of the two.
Look at the Middle East Forum announcement
of the ascent of Rosen to a fellowship there, and how it blazons his
influence-frankly saying out loud everything a prudent journalist
at the NY Times would tremble to say:
That announcement quotes the New Yorker profile of Rosen; did we forget whom the New Yorker entrusted with its story on the Rosen-Franklin-Weissman case?
Even a halfway reasonable observer like Jacob Heilbrunn in an item (oddly) reprinted at antiwar.com from The National Interest today goes after Stephen Walt for his sarcasm about Jeffrey Goldberg.
A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of 'public service’ was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that’s chutzpah.
Heilbrunn :
No, it’s not. Walt’s attack on Jeffrey Goldberg for having enlisted in the Israeli army is unfortunate. Is this act of idealism really to be condemned? Is Walt suggesting that it was un-American or that it should prevent Goldberg from voicing an opinion on Freeman?
How hoggish of Walt! Not to realize that enlisting in the IDF is a
perfectly ordinary patriotic act for an American…
Related posts:
- Michael Scheuer loses ‘position and income’ for saying Israel relationship threatens our national interest
- Was Jeffrey Goldberg ‘idealistic’ in moving to Israel and serving in its army?
- Must-read: Greenwald on Goldberg
- Alleged spy for Israel tries to get MJ Rosenberg fired for supporting Ambassador Freeman
- O Happy Day-ay!!! ‘The guy who will be running the White House is essentially an Israeli’
{ 50 comments }
Americans enlisted in the British and Canadian armed forces in WWII before the U.S. entered the war. Were they being unpatriotic by helping out U.S. allies?
No, of course not. Oh, except the Jews who enlisted in the British or Canadian armed forces.
Phil seems to take the position that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and that Jews are all conspiring to undermine the security of the fatherland. Now where have I heard those theories before…
Nothing anyone does for Israel while in America, using American offices, methods, manipulation–no matter how treacherous or mendacious–can be seen as anything but a patriotic act for the good of both countries.
Ah but the T&M descriptors are value laden. Further, treachery, as derived from treason, requires aid and comfort to an enemy. Mere espionage doesn't and friends spy on friends all the time. Is Israel a friend, enemy?
"Phil seems to take the position that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and that Jews are all conspiring to undermine the security of the fatherland. Now where have I heard those theories before…"
Being applied to Muslims on your favourite hasbara websites, I should imagine.
"Writes a friend"
Enlisting in IDF is an honorable thing for an individual to do, if so moved.
And, it itself says NOTHING about "dual loyalty".
Your angers are on your sleeve, and it is not endearing.
It used to be that leftists were internationalists that thought going over to fight in the Spanish Civil War was the best thing one could do. I'm glad some are wising up.
Friends spy on friends, but we don't tolerate government officials that act as their accomplices.
Phil is a Palestinian firster. He has devoted his whole life to the Palestinians. He is consumed with the Palestinians. Is this normal behavior for an American?
Enlisting in any army that has occupied another people for 42 years is a disgrace.
The IDF is a disgrace. Israel is a disgrace. A blight unto the nations.
I think it was stupid for Americans to fight for Britain and entangle the nation in British affairs because of ancestral ties, just as I believe that it is stupid for American Jews to do the same in regards to Israel. BUT let's not confuse Israel with the British Empire! And let's not forget that when Americans were gravitating towards Britain, America was still largely made up of people who were of British stock–still stupid, but somewhat understandable. Jews, on the other hand, are still a very small minority in the U.S. and Israel is of little importance. You can always say that there was at least an upside to fighting with the British in the case of victory. We just fight Israel's wars for her, and get nothing good in return.
LD,
So I assume that you regard enlisting in the US army as a disgrace.
Is that accurate?
The US is militarily active in the middle east to secure the flow of oil, and for no other significant reason.
The US is militarily active in the middle east to secure the flow of oil, and for no other significant reason.
The "war for oil" meme has been debunked so many times it's pointless to even bring it up anymore. Please come up with something more convincing.
Of course I do Witty.
But Israel is like a caricature of the United States.
We were born in sin. Genocide/Ethnic cleansing. Slavery, discrimination/etc.
We had to deal with these deep internal problems ourselves. It was a battle.
And we overcame it.
The Zionists – like all other colonial entities – have to demonize the indigenous population and portray themselves as victims.
The Euro-American settlers were no different. If this is an example of Western 'values' than the US and Israel are not so different.
However, we in the US have a legacy of freedom and struggle for equality.
Israel is inherently a racist State due to the guiding ideology. An ideology that has only gotten stronger since it's inception.
Manifest Destiny deteriorated over time in the West. Which is not to say racism is non-existent but there is no comparison between Israel and the US in terms of values and principles of fairness and equality within the domestic sector.
We are a melting pot. Israel is a fascist, Jewish State.
And as to our army? Yea, I think it's disgraceful that we destroyed Iraq when they were not responsible for 9/11 and posed no thread. I mean, what right do we have to wage war like that? Does anyone?
It's a disgrace to occupy another people.
Only the reactionary jingoists and ethnocentric communities like the Jewish community believe this is ok – not only ok, but ordained by God.
Going on and on about Islamo-whatever is a joke. The Arab world is fragmented and pan-Arab nationalism is long dead. Islam is a religion that has 2 billion followers. Compared to a religion of 13 million – Judaism. And the disproportionate amount of power is not w/ the Muslims. It's Jews.
When you couple that disproportion with this exploitation of Jewish suffering as a rallying point to support a State that is exterminating/ethnically cleansing the original inhabitants of the land – it's quite easy to see WHO the source of the troubles are.
Not Muslims – who are marginalized in the US and in their OWN COUNTRIES due to the geopolitics and history of the region, but Jews – who enjoy the highest degree of prosperity among any minority in the US and account for the richest population of the whole.
Our foreign policy and Jewish interests also collude.
So with a combination of that collusion and the tribalism/economic power of the Jewish entity, the people in the driver seat are quite easy to discern.
Only rabid Zionists and the ignorant will divert attention away from their own influence and insist a bunch of middle aged men in caves are going to take over the world.
"And we overcame it."
Of course we didn't. "We" elected George Bush twice and a negligent republican Congress for more than a decade.
"like the Jewish community". You are so careless and either ignorant or overtly lying about the sentiments and actions of the Jewish community. The Jewish community was the only polled group that consistently opposed the Iraq war.
If you want to site more specific members or slivers of the Jewish community for your criticism, that would be more accurate, and not encourage or harbor bigotry.
US policy are US responsibility. To even infer a conspiracy as an out to thorough alternative proposal and discussion, is petty and frankly cowardly.
I think Phil's journalism (when he does journalism rather than propaganda) on the subject is important. But, I see much more propaganda and rage frankly, than sober witness and description.
Dan Kelly,
The Iraq war was primarily fought to secure the supply chain for oil. "For Israel" is a side-show.
Even Walt/Mearsheimer in discussing what is US interest, include the supply chain for oil in their analysis, and only question alliance with Israel as the means to accomplish that, not that oil was not the nucleus of motivation.
Zionist values and policies are completely inimical and hostile to American interests and Western values. If not for the powerful Israel lobby, this would be obvious to most Americans by now. The fact that the Israel lobby has been able to paper over Zionist incompatibility with American values and interests, been able to spin Israel as an "ally" and buy off American politicians to regard it as such, in no way changes the objective fact of Israel and Zionism as hostile and alien to American interests and values.
Bought off, corrupt American politicians and Zionists do not and cannot re-define American interests and values out of whole cloth. They can continue to spin and lie, but they can't change the nature of Zionism, and they can't retroactively rewrite American values to match Zionist values.
This isn't the Soviet Union, where the truth was whatever the presiding corrupt regime said it was, as much as Zionists hope to turn America into a Soviet-like state built to sustain and advance Zionist interests.
"We just fight Israel's wars for her, and get nothing good in return."
You really are very naive. It's all about money and power. you should read Chomsky.
"And why a man indicted for espionage in the U.S. like Steven J. Rosen can pick up a megaphone to denounce Freeman; as if he, Rosen, were the finer American of the two.'
Indicted is not convicted. Inocent until proven guilty. I would love to place a bet on how this bogus case will turn out.
You're too much of a Palestinian firster to look at things logically.
It's simple. Look to Himmler, and his message to the troops, this is chris berel et al. And they want USA taxpayers 2 pay 4 it all.
Witty, what did I say about the Jewish community and Iraq? Nothing.
I was referring to the Jewish community and ISRAEL. Where is the Jewish liberalism when it comes to Israel? It's virtually non-existent.
That was the point I was implicating with all my other comments.
Furthermore, when I spoke of us 'overcoming' our problems, I was referring to – explicitly – slavery/civil discrimination/etc.
I was making the case that whatever freedoms and quality of life we have now were won through constant and slow struggle over time.
That we have an ethnically diverse society and have had to continually accomodate those various groups to maintain our integrity as a nation due to our Enlightenment values. I didn't say that last part before though.
With Israel, my point is that it's guiding ideology is built around an ethno-cratic State. A Jewish democracy in a region that is not predominantly Jewish.
We can say the same about Manifest Destiny. Anglo-Saxon Christian in a non-christian Anglo Saxon land.
No one is promoting the acceptance of the Palestinian people. No one is proposing a one-state solution which is the only likely choice at this point due to the extent of the fragmentation of the W. Bank. No viable Palestinian state exists.
Those settlments aren't going away. And none of those settlers will be governed by Palestinians.
This is the reality of Zionism. There is no check on it's power. No check on it's power from the international community or it's OWN community – both American Jewry or Israeli Jews.
Hence, unlike the US which changed overtime due to grassroots activism which means there was some form of meaningful dissidence and check on power – Israel will continue to seek this ethnocracy. This inherently racist enterprise – the Zionist project.
That is my point and my comments on American Jewry is accurate. It only SEEMS bigoted because – again – of the Holocaust and the history of Jewish suffering. That does not discount the fact that Jews enjoy an unprecedented level of prosperity in this country.
I am not even trying to deligitimize that success. This country facilitates identity politics. So naturally, a community as close-knit (tribal) as the Jewish community would succeed. Much to their credit, and not to ours. As there is collusion – as I said – between Jewish interests and our own percieved interests in the world.
We are promoting colonialism / imperialism /discrimination in ME. There is no check on the power of Zionism. Wheras Manifest Destiny withered away.
Richard,
Invading and occupying countries to control resources was abandoned decades ago. It's not necessary, in fact is more often than not counterproductive to the aims. That's why nobody from the oil majors supports wars in the Middle East, and why leading representatives of the Israel Lobby have admitted that they don't encounter oil lobby executives in their domain anymore, and haven't for decades – the oil lobby concentrates on domestic concerns.
Origins of the Recent Wars of Choice—and Their Impact on U.S. Global Markets
A most widely-cited factor behind the Bush administration’s drive to war is said to be oil. “No Blood for Oil” has been a rallying cry for most of the opponents of the war. Yet, such claims cannot be supported by facts. Major oil companies have come (in recent years and decades) to prefer peace, stability, and predictability in global markets to war and instability. It is true that big oil, like the arms industry, has handsomely benefited form the heightened tempo of war and militarism. There is no hard evidence, however, that major oil interests encouraged or embraced the Bush administrations drive to war and militarism. On the contrary, evidence shows that for the last quarter century or so oil interests have not favored war and turbulence in the Middle East, including the current invasion of Iraq. Major oil companies, along with many other non-military transnational corporations, have lobbied both the Clinton and Bush administrations in support of changing the aggressive, militaristic U.S. policy toward countries like Iran, Iraq and Libya in favor of establishing normal, non-confrontational business and diplomatic relations.
It is true that for a long time, from the beginning of Middle Eastern oil exploration and discovery in the early twentieth century until the mid-1970s, colonial and/or imperial powers controlled oil either directly or through control of oil producing countries—at times, even by military force. But that pattern of imperialist exploitation of global markets and resources has changed now. Most of the current theories of imperialism and hegemony that continue invoking that old pattern of big oil behavior tend to suffer from an ahistorical perspective. Today, even physically occupying and controlling another country’s oil fields will not necessarily be beneficial to oil interests. Not only will military adventures place the operations of current energy projects at jeopardy, but they will also make the future plans precarious and unpredictable. Big oil interests, of course,know this; and that’s why they did not countenance the war on Iraq: "The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war," says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, an energy consultancy firm based in Washington D.C. that advises petroleum firms. "Corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region," adds Mohamedi.
Origins of the Recent Wars of Choice—and Their Impact on U.S. Global Markets
David F, Dan Kelly, Witty’s Anonymous Critic, and Suzanne, I responded to your criticisms of me about the Israeli tow truck owner here, which I would like you to read: http://tw1.us/aP
LD,
I responded to your contention about Iraq, because that is what you mentioned. If you meant something different, then I can only tell by your writing.
"And as to our army? Yea, I think it's disgraceful that we destroyed Iraq when they were not responsible for 9/11 and posed no thread. I mean, what right do we have to wage war like that? Does anyone?
It's a disgrace to occupy another people.
Only the reactionary jingoists and ethnocentric communities like the Jewish community believe this is ok – not only ok, but ordained by God."
Sorry that you didn't read your own post.
I disagree with you about the legitimacy of Zionism and of the significance of the holocaust in its formation. I get the sense from your posts that you consider the holocaust as only of propagandistic relevance to the formation and defense of Israel. I would suggest that it was of substantive merit (not propaganda) and remains so, though differently than in 1947.
Following WW2 (12 years of very brutal suppression of Jews, not a short period, and with ACTUAL genocide of European Jews undertaken), Jews were refugees in most of Europe. There were a few locales where Jews could return without harrassment (Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden), but in most of Europe where Jews had resided previously (Poland, Hungary, Rumania, France, Germany, Russia), others had occupied formerly Jewish homes and blamed Jews for the war, and instituted harrassment and murders of returning Jews.
My mother-in-law attempted to return to her home town in rural Hungary, but her home was occupied by a Hungarian family and the police chased her and her family from the town. They went to Budapest, which was more cosmopolitan and they could survive, but still at risk. They opted to migrate to Israel at the first opportunity (early 1949).
The US and Great Britain still had enforced quotas on the number of Eastern Europeans (no distinction for Jews) that were allowed to immigrate. There were exceptions, but they were not the norm. There was no "open hand" extended.
Israel was the ONLY haven. Israel's formation was an act of survival, and relative to the similar hatred of the residents as occurred in Eastern, Central and Western Europe, they defended and offended (sometimes necessarily, sometimes unnecessarily and sometimes brutally).
Israel was SUBSTANTIVELY relevant, just, and still it took arm-twisting to gain recognition.
Now that there are 9 million Jews living in Israel (including 475,000 outside of the green line), Israel IS a sovereign state, whose law is predominately civil law, comparable to enlightened European standards, exceeding those standards in some cases, disappointing in others.
The primary abuse is of bureaucratic corruption, which hits those without money most (as they are unable to bribe bureaucrats), and the Arab community and Sephardic community are most restricted by that corruption.
Israel is a Jewish (ethnic) state, that is NOT ethnically cleansed. It has a large Arab minority, that live there and remain by choice, even if not of great options.
Palestine is similarly proposed as an ethnic state, but if one adopts the militant formula, a completely ethnically cleansed state, denying rights of property, profession, etc even to families that have had property in the land for thousands of years, longer than is claimed for most Palestinian families.
The single-state, democratic and civil sounds good, but in practise it is a very long way off, as the majorities in both societies prefer a national and ethnic orientation (Hebraic vs Arabic) and do NOT consent to a civil.
That the left has neglected to emphasize the civil values of each society and communities, and in their negative based dissent defend a segregating nationalist orientation, hinders the PRACTICAL adoption of civil democracy anywhere.
Dan,
Clearly, the signficance of the Persian Gulf is OIL. Don't be oblique. The oil companies benefit from all conditions. They historically have been Arabist in a pandering to oil money for oil rights.
There are coalitions of Arab states that has changed since Iraq was invaded. Prior Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE were allied, and favored the secure state model firmed by stable Egypt and Jordan. They regarded Iraq AND Iran as threats.
The realist analysis is that Israel was formerly a diplomatic and logistical link for the US to exert its pressure on the middle east to secure the oil supply chain, but that that MIGHT have shifted, or at least could be explored.
The conflation of "the war was for Israel" is either their careless application of their own theory, or your exageration based on some prejudice of your own.
Witty, please reread what you quoted me saying.
"It's a disgrace to occupy another people."
Then I stated how the Jewish community have no problem with this – which is true.
Zionists have been occupying Palestine for 42 years. They know how it works.
HENCE, my point is that the Jewish community is familiar with and approves of, occupation.
I was not stating that the Jewish community approved of the Iraq War.
This is a matter of semantics. I've read some posts here where people debate whether the Jewish community was outspoken enough on the war. I think Phil did a piece on it awhile back too.
But as far as my original post goes, I did not say the Jewish community approved of the Iraq War. Only occupation – mostly in general, since they have a lot of experience with it intimately.
I didn't say the Holocaust itself is a propaganda tool. I said the exploitation of the Holocaust is a propaganda tool. That's the difference.
Saying the Holocaust is propaganda is way different.
And I do believe that the exploitation of the suffering of Jews during WW2 and the antisemitism-card are regularly used as ideological weapons in the larger debate.
These exist as overt and subtle pressures that influence people's decisions. Then there is the economic pressure.
Israel may have been a safe haven for Jews after WW2. But that doesn't excuse the events that transpired since then. Didn't the Euro-American colonists flee religious persecution as well?
The destruction of Palestinian was in-built to Zionism. Racism and discrimination against Palestinians was institutionalized due to Zionism.
Consistent public opinion polling convey just how Israeli society feels about Palestinians.
I see no difference from how the Euro-American settlers felt about the 'savages' of North America.
Richard,
You didn't respond to any of the points raised in the paper. Did you even read what I posted? I could post many similar pieces.
It's apparent you aren't interested in LEARNING, rather only in defending Israel at all costs, including the cost of opening your mind to anything that interferes with your preconceived notions.
That is a sorry state of affairs to live in, but a comfortable one, I imagine.
Julian: "Indicted is not convicted. Innocent until proven guilty."
The expression "innocent till proven guilty" only means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a court of law. It doesn't mean that the rest of us can't have an opinion till the courts have announced a verdict. And my opinion of Rosen (and most Americans who have followed the case) is that he is a traitor to America.
Will Rosen ever be convicted? Apparently not, but I think that's more a function of the power of the Israel lobby than a true reflection of the facts in the case.
Witty: "Enlisting in IDF is an honorable thing for an individual to do, if so moved."
America was at war. Loyal Americans don't go enlist in the army of another country at the very moment their own country is in peril.
It used to be that leftists were internationalists that thought going over to fight in the Spanish Civil War was the best thing one could do. I'm glad some are wising up. Friends spy on friends, but we don't tolerate government officials that act as their accomplices.
Posted by: TGGP | March 06, 2009 at 03:17 PM
– TGGP, Phil is not a 'leftist', even though he frequently claims to be one. He is a liberal with 'progressive' aspirations.
You're right Dan.
I didn't read the paper.
I read it now. It didn't say much.
Have you read Michael Klare? Read him.
He's a professor at Hampshire College.
HOW ISRAEL IS WRAPPED UP IN IRAQ
By Joe Klein
Thom: "Americans enlisted in the British and Canadian armed forces in WWII before the U.S. entered the war. Were they being unpatriotic by helping out U.S. allies?"
Two points. The US had not yet been attacked when Americans enlisted in the British or Canadian armed forces. Once we were in the war as a result of Pearl Harbor people couldn't volunteer for America fast enough. Today, America is currently engaged in two wars. Anyone who would volunteer to fight for Israel over America in such times strikes me as having unresolved dual loyalty issues.
Point Two. I don't think it struck anyone as unpatriotic that Americans might want to fight for Britain and Canada before Pearl Harbor. They both were friendly countries with whom the United States had enjoyed peaceful relations for well over 100 years. We had common traditions, a similar religious and ethnic heritage and common legal values, none of which is true with Israel.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, neither of those countries in the preeceeding three decades had shown so little respect for the United States that they would deliberately attack a US ship, kill 34 sailors and then proceed to lie about it to the present day.
How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons
By John Dizard
Salon.com
The hawks who launched the Iraq war believed the deal-making exile when he promised to build a secular democracy with close ties to Israel. Now the Israel deal is dead, he's cozying up to Iran — and his patrons look like they're on the way out. A Salon exclusive.
Looks like Witty and Chris's Stools have left the room. Feels very American here now.
Close the italics.
Better than either an Israel or oil-centric story of the Iraq war I think Michel Neumann gets it the most accurately in his Counterpunch article Victory and Recruitment. People just got really stupid for a while. Never attribute snafus to foresight when you can choose ignorance.
And for all you populists, you IGNORE the significance of oil CASH wealth in the new world economy.
During recessions/depressions it is OLD MONEY in cash that has the opportunity to buy up a disproportionate share of the distressed assets that are on the market.
Fortunes are made during recessions/depressions.
Its a VERY BIG failing of the analysis of modern right/left populism in its distraction of "Israel caused it".
The class conflict is not capital vs labor, or the Jews vs "the people", but of old money vs new money vs working people.
Populism has always been a manipulated abuse of working people by old money, in ranting against new money. New money is at least meritocratic (if partially corrupt). Old money is aristocratic, a MUCH MORE PROFOUND version of privilege than any implication about Jewish attitude.
That's a very debatable view, Richard. What is so 'meritocratic' about 'new money'? Do you really imagine that the 'captains of industry,' who in the USA were also known by some as the 'great pirates,' attained their positions by virtue of some sort of 'merit'? What 'merit'? Don't just respond with a cliche like ' the merit of free enterprise,' it says nothing at all. This is your liberal individualist mythology again, that's all.
Richard, no sane person would argue that oil played no role in the Iraq war or in Near-east conflicts in general. OBVIOUSLY it plays a GIGANTIC role. But everyone understands this part–it's right out in the open. The role of zionism–especially zio-centric neoconservatism–is HIDDEN from the general public and that's a problem in a supposedly democratic country with a supposedly free press.
During recessions/depressions it is OLD MONEY in cash that has the opportunity to buy up a disproportionate share of the distressed assets that are on the market.
Fortunes are made during recessions/depressions.
Richard, I TOTALLY agree with this. But I don't understand at all the distinction between the role of old money and new. Are you saying that new money does not exploit the 'fire sale' buying opportunities of recessions/depressions? And is 'old money' WASP money and 'new money' Jewish money? Is Rothschild/Schiff/Warburg money 'old' or 'new'?
Populism has always been a manipulated abuse of working people by old money, in ranting against new money. New money is at least meritocratic (if partially corrupt). Old money is aristocratic, a MUCH MORE PROFOUND version of privilege than any implication about Jewish attitude.
***
I rather like aristocracy myself. Aristocracy cannot claim that it "deserves" its status, so it has a vested interest in showing its legitimacy through a sense of duty or *noblesse oblige*. Consider the tradition of the older aristocratic classes entering the military. Meritocrats or "new money," by believing that they "earned" their power over others, feel no such obligation.
Many cultural critics, including both Christopher Lasch and Paul Gottfried, have pointed out the our elites today are hardly able to conceal their contempt for the people in "flyover country" whose sons they so eagerly send to war.
Interesting Witty is addressing populists. Says they ignore the importance of oil. Not. The point Witty doesn't get is the one hasbarablaster made: "The role of zionism–especially zio-centric neoconservatism–is HIDDEN from the general public and that's a problem in a supposedly democratic country with a supposedly free press.
Of course those with ready cash take advantage and buy distressed assets–whether with old money or new money–again, hasbarablaster makes the point. The Chinese and Saudis are running around the USA right now, buying up distressed properties. Everybody else with spare cash is too.
Working people are those who have no spare cash to invest. That's most Americans. Pretty simple.
It's also the masses in every nation these days.
Really, Witty, do you think anyone posting comments here is not aware of how various interests groups and their bought politicians exploit "we the people" of values of old, tried and true, to get their snout
ever in the trough? All the lobby groups do it. But it's only the Israel lobby and its fake name suppliers
who hit the working class masses both ways, as a lobby like any other, e.g., NRA, and as a lobby ethnically loyal. This lobby is also the only one who has so many loyalists in the MSM, constantly
picturing their version of reality–the only one available except for those few citizens who actually
see the long term affects of foreign policy. Most people watch NASCAR, not C-SPAN. Same around the world, even in Israel–see the IDF vets talking about this, those from Break The Silence, on youtube.
Citizen still tries to play the ignorance trump card. Only he is smart enough to see throught he smoke and mirrors. What a retard. His card is a worthless joker.
The beauty of America has historically been that massive fortunes could be made quickly, hence rendering somewhat irrelevant the tendentious influence of entrenched Old Money. Also, look at Forbes' lists of the wealthiest Americans over the decades; there is significant turnover. So called Old Money often disappears entirely, as many of the screw-up offspring fritter it away, or collapse into drug addiction and alcoholism due to not having to work, and vigorous new blood replaces them with its own hard-earned (or quick made) fortune. This turnover is healthy.
The problem with disproportionate Jewish presence within the categories of both Old Money and New Money is that the diaspora Jews don’t seem to have ever subscribed to the *noblesse oblige* (towards gentiles) that David F referred to. Their *noblesse oblige* is towards Israel, and before Israel, its Jewish community equivalent. Diaspora Jews are indoctrinated see themselves more as outsiders pit against the system than as part of the system itself, hence they are far more willing to game the system, undermine it, erode it, and ultimately destroy it on behalf of squirreling away wealth in anticipation of the day the gentiles turn on them again. And of course, this mentality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On top of that, their own tendentious influence and mentality is virally transmitted to others. If certain Jewish claques as getting rich gaming the stock markets, for example, why shouldn't other people as well? Pretty soon the elite across the board loses all respect for the rules and regulations (many of which, let's face it, are on the honor code, particularly at upper levels), everyone starts cheating, and the entire foundations of society begin to crumble, as we are seeing today.
Perhaps the scion GW Bush being tendentiously influenced by the Jewish Neocons to lie America into the Iraq war (per their "duty" of *noblesse oblige* towards Israel) is the ultimate example of this.
And when the elite lose respect for the rules of fair play, and drop all honor codes, so eventually does the entire society itself. Today we are a disgraced and dishonorable society because we have a disgraceful and dishonorable “elite.”
Ed, you pretty much summed up the what and why of today, here in the USA. Kudos!
You have summed up the reason for your antisemitism. You are upset with weathy Jews who refuse to give you money. Tough shit.
Old money is still very prominent.
I like that the prior estate tax law encouraged a meritocracy over an aristocracy. And also that the prior tax law encouraged entrepreneurship over speculation.
If you look on the list of Forbes top 1000 wealthiest in the world, it is NOT comprised of predominately Jews in the slightest. The professional world that contributes (and exacts) intellectual work largely, includes many Jews in the States, less so in Europe and nearly none in Asia (where the majority of wealthiest now reside per the Forbes lists).
I like the parallel statements of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates that they feel obliged to educate and fund initial entrepreneurial efforts of their children (if they desire), but NOT to pass on more than $10 million in an estate to any individual.
Instead to "give it back" to society, in the form of charity, AND support of reasonable/parity taxation on estates, dividends, gains.
Buffett stated that he regarded it as a CRIME that his secretary has a higher marginal tax rate than he does.
I agree with Witty on the tax issues he brings up here–except I hold my opinion of his characterization of the Forbes top
wealthiest, which I will check out.
Is Joseph interpreting Egypt's Dream in the USA today? Look at who your leaders are, not the upfront tokens, all bought and paid, but the real machers: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/miketz/hyman.html
No question the biblical story is applicable today in the USA, bailouts, stimulus packages, et seq. This does not spell well for the future of the N Americans.
Yes it is a fact that Jews are disproportionally successful in business. We Jews only make up 0.2 percent of the world population (yes less than half of one percent) but we make up more than ten percent of the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in the world. Also forty six percent of Jews in the United States make over 100k a year while only fifteen percent of the rest of the population make that amount. These are facts not stereotypes. Why? Suggestions welcome.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/05/Oligarchs_130504.html
How Jews get rich, recent example.
On the bellweather state:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/22/cities-jews-blacks-oped-cx_jk_1124kotkin.html
Comments on this entry are closed.