Jeff Blankfort at Counterpunch shows that the Council on Foreign Relations’ elite knows what’s going on in Israel/Palestine to a degree that the American public does not. It is further evidence of the media’s failure to inform the public what so many are saying behind closed doors:
What can be concluded from the answers to questions that dealt with the Israel-Palestine conflict is that the general public forms its opinions from what it hears and reads in the mainstream media which are largely biased towards Israel while CFR members have greater access to as well as interest in obtaining more accurate information and are less susceptible to pro-Israel propaganda. That apparently not a single US newspaper saw fit to report on the opinions of CFR members, under those circumstances, is not surprising.
The evidence…That on a list of countries that will be the "more important as America’s allies and partners" in the future, just 4 per cent included Israel which placed it in a tie with South Korea and far behinf China, 58 per cent, India, 55 per cent, Brazil, 37 per cent, the EU, 19 per cent, Russia, 17 per cent, Japan, 16 per cent, the UK and Turkey, 10 per cent, Germany, 9 per cent, Mexico, 8 per cent, Canada, Indonesia, Australia and France at 5 per cent. CFR voters were allowed to make up to seven selections…..
What was particularly revealing is that "in the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians," only 26 per cent of the CFR sided with Israel, compared with 51 per cent of 2000 members of the general public who were polled over the same period. While but 16 per cent of CFR members sided with the Palestinians compared to 12 per cent of the public, 41 per cent of the CFRers sided with "both equally" as opposed to 4 per cent of the public. Supporting neither was 12 per cent of the CFR and 14 per cent of the public…
That the CFR has not had a major hand in making US Israel-Palestine policy nor is it in agreement with those who did is strikingly revealed by the response of its members when asked their opinion of US Middle East policies. The problem, according to 67 per cent of CFR members (as compared to 30 per cent of the public) is that the US favored Israeli too much, while only 2 per cent (as opposed to 15 per cent of the public) believed that US policy overly favored the Palestinians.. Twenty-four percent of the CFR believed US policy "struck the right balance" as did 29 per cent of the public.
This is why the Zionists are so assiduous about controlling the MSM and the message that gets out, because they know the facts contradict their narrative. I keep recalling the interview posted here with an unnamed Congressman, who repeats, “I didn’t know” so many times.
Sites like this one are so important because they expose the facts to light, where they have a chance to grow and propagate.
Imagine what the CFR elite really think of our Fourth Estate–the word “traitors” comes to mind. Also, I wonder what a timely poll of the CFR members would have revealed about Shrub’s attacking Iraq? Looks like they are worried about loose Paki nukes…
The Pew poll that Blankfort’s using here also finds that the American ‘general public’ is growing increasingly isolationist –a move that can only be interpreted as a rejection our recent Zionist inspired overt adventures.
So I think the greater point is: even though we commoners might not be as informed as the CFR regarding the details of the nature of our foreign policy, the people still have some understanding of its impact and they do not like it.
The dominant narrative about the Jewish people is that they have been “persecuted for 2000 years/3000 years/4000 years.”
Starting with Joseph in Egypt and working through Jews in Baghdad, Khazar Jews, Jews in the golden age in Andalusia, in Amsterdam, Jews in Poland, in Germany, all the while with a beachhead in the Levant, have Jews ever come to a comfortable relationship with countries to which they migrated that did not end in disaster — ie. expulsion or war or elimination — for either the Jews or the host country?
I don’t know of an instance — seeking knowledge and understanding: if no such situation exists where Jews remained comfortable in the place to which they migrated, then WHY? What behaviors emerged that prevented Jews long-term residency in those places? Only God is an uncaused cause; antisemitism must have causal factors.
Have other peoples similarly migrated and been expelled repeatedly?
Is there a pattern, and if so, what does that pattern portend for the USofA?
You just need to go to the ADL web site; you will see the pattern is exclusively caused
by a mental affliction known as “anti-semitism.” This is not in the latest edition of
the clinical Mental Health bible, but anti-semitism is like pornography; we know it when we see it. We shrinks are looking into why it only erupted in the Palestinian people in the last 130 years or so.
Its good news to hear. For those engage in direct activism, keep doing that. For those fighting the war with facts and truth, keep doing that. For those funding the other two, keep doing that (of couse that doesn’t mean that each ‘position’ is mutually exclusive…I do hope everyone tries to do a combination). Change can and will happen – We don’t need Obama to do it ;)
Btw…how does our isolationism help anything? It may help us pull out of wars, but I can’t see it change the $$ and political protection that we give every single Israeli Government. That has been going on for 30+ years.
To say nothing of the question of how much of the American economy is no longer owned by Americans, but by Israelis, Europeans, Saudi Arabians, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
“Btw…how does our isolationism help anything? It may help us pull out of wars, but I can’t see it change the $$ and political protection that we give every single Israeli Government. That has been going on for 30+ years.”
Wouldn’t an end/severe reduction of foreign aid fall under isolationism? And would there be much of an I/P problem without US aid to Israel? Hell, I doubt there would be an Af/Pak problem without US aid to Israel.
Obamacare will cost the USA (those who actually pay taxes) 1 trillion over the next 10 years, the same price tag as is on his recently announced surge in Afghanistan, which I don’t think Obama agreed to except for political reasons, that is, he needs to anticipate being charged with weakness on defense, so the can get a second term–the cost to the USA taxpayers, and to the USA especially expendibles–mostly just farm boys and their families–is worth it, in his opinion. OTH, a giant would get up and use the bully pulpit to directly address the American people, telling them: ” I am getting out of Afghanistan; if it was so important Bush Jr would not have ignored it for his years in office; we will use the money not spent there to give our own people national health care–excluding illegals; we will install a method to
ID them.”
PS: Ron Paul is the one who ties reduction of our military plants and enterprise around the world
to a reduction in our foreign aid. I don’t think even Kucinich has done that as explicitly, let alone Obama.
even CFR is admitting to reality? … maybe we have passed through the Looking Glass … but I think israel will have done the damage by the time we finally muster the will to stop them …
The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) is the most powerful Israeli think tank. Its president Richard Haass and most of its ‘associates’ and ‘experts’ are either Zionist Jews or the opportunist ‘intellectuals’ and ‘experts’. Basically, CFR, is an arm of Israel Hasbara (propaganda) empire. According to some sources, there are as much as 400 members of CFR holding sensitive posts in Obama administration including Hilary Clinton, Gates, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Anthony Lake, Richard Clarke, etc. Henry Kissinger and Medeline Albright were also CFR members.
How CFR influences America’s foreign policy – can be judged from my following post.
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Rehmat, the CFR is NOT a think tank, it is a membership organization of the establishment elite that has within it a small think tank which is decidedly Zionist with such neoconmen as Eliot Abrams and Dan Senor in leadership roles. . What is apparent from this poll is that the Zionist element does not represent the majority of its members who when privately polled were willing to express opinions critical of US foreign policy with regard to Israel and that is what is important. The CFR think tank is not as influential as WINEP and the American Enterprise Inst. but with the Hudson Inst. and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Foreign Policy Initiative (the successor to PNAC), they have a corner on Washington and on the Sunday talk shows.
some nonzionists:
Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann, are to be commended for their courage in speaking out thoughtfully and intelligently on US foreign policy issues.
link to raceforiran.com
John Tirman at MIT speaks with an American, not zionist, voice. link to wilsoncenter.org
With respect to Iran, the usual suspect/neocons had already packaged the theme of “game changing” by the time Obama took office; it was a strategy with failure built in to the formula. While Obama is stuck trying to work the zionist game-changing tactic, Turkey’s prime minister is emerging as a genuine game changer; Leverett and Mann do some fine analysis of his strategy.
Ergodan was the one world leader who was courageous enough to stand up for Palestinians and walk out on Shimon Peres after Peres did a Full Zionist Monty at Davos, defending Israel’s brutality against Gaza. link to c-spanvideo.org
For what it’s worth, back in the 1990s I became acquainted with a number of CFR members, all denizens of the refined North Shore burbs in Chicago. We were all lawyers in the legal publishing business….they were all very liberal, very progressive, except when it came to discussing Israeli policy. They would meet most parameters for being classy people, and humanistic, and stylish–but I never joined the CFR although it would have advanced my career. In fact my not joining hurt my career.