Damned as anti-Semite, Geo Marshall predicted that Israel would become US tarbaby

US Politics
on 91 Comments

Mark Perry is doing great work. The man who broke the Petraeus story now publishes "Petraeus wasn’t the first," in which he defends the reputation of former Army chief of staff and Sec’y of State George Marshall, who warned that Partition would create endless trouble for the U.S. This cost Marshall in the reputation mills, even though he’d won WW2 for us. A publisher in NY told Perry that Marshall was an anti-Semite, and Richard Holbrooke wrote as much in print, Perry says, but the charge is unfair. Marshall was merely "prescient". And who can argue with that based on this data:

In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman [May 12, 1948], the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled "Force Requirements for Palestine." In that paper, the JCS predicted that "the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives." The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of "Eretz Israel" into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria.This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that "A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East" to the point that "United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force." That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with [watch out, here comes a shocking statement] the security of Israel- but with the security of American lives.

Perry’s work shows that the US is finally recovering a realist/Arabist discourse, in large part because of our fatal occupation of Iraq because of the "widening and deepening" issue that Marshall identified years ago. About time.

91 Responses

  1. Citizen
    April 2, 2010, 9:44 am

    Truman, the zionist hat salesman, blew off Marshall and the whole State Department. He was flattered into thinking he was Cyrus The Great–and he needed money for his whistle stop campaign. No Lincoln was he.

    • Les
      April 2, 2010, 11:56 am

      Truman was an opportunist. His support for Zionism was just that. Remember his affectionate term for New York City was “kike town.”

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 8:48 am

        LOL. Remember Jesse Jackson’s “hymie town?”

      • Les
        April 3, 2010, 2:38 pm

        It’s no accident that the media endlessly us of Jesse Jackson. How much more difficult it would be to explain that an anti-Semite like Harry Truman is a friend of Israel.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:17 pm

        Er, was Truman an anti-semite? His best buddy, the Jew, Eddie he let in, and otherwise the Zionist rabbi leader would not have got his way–straight into the Oval Office, especially after pounding on Truman’s desk top. I’d like to hear some Jews on this subject. The fact is, Truman legitimized Israel. OTH, simultaneously he voiced in his diary (at the Truman libary archives available on line) that the
        Jews were viscious activists very willing to make others the victims once they became uberdogs. It seems the same old story, in public USA leaders always support the Jews, but in private, they think they stink. Obviously as a whole, as organized, not, e.g., as with Truman, where he was true to his friend, the Jew who was his partner in his hat shop business.

  2. DICKERSON3870
    April 2, 2010, 9:44 am

    RE: A publisher in NY told Perry that Marshall was an anti-Semite, and Richard Holbrooke wrote as much in print, Perry says, but the charge is unfair. Marshall was merely “prescient”.
    MY COMMENT: Abe Foxman will be the judge of that!

  3. DICKERSON3870
    April 2, 2010, 9:53 am

    RE: ” Geo Marshall predicted that Israel would become US tarbaby” – Weiss

    FROM WIKIPEDIA: Tar baby
    The Tar-Baby was a doll made of tar and turpentine, used to entrap Br’er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br’er Rabbit fought the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he became. In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “sticky situation” that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.[1]…
    …Although the term’s provenance arose in African folklore (e.g., the gum doll Anansi created to trap Mmoatia, the dwarf), some Americans now consider “tar baby” to have negative connotations revolving around negative images of African-Americans.[2] In recent years, several politicians who have publicly used the term have encountered some controversy, mocking, and censure from African-American civil rights leaders, members of the popular daily media, and other politicians.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]…
    …Variations on the tar baby legend are spread among the folklores of more than one culture. In the Journal of American Folklore, Aurelio M. Espinosa examined 267 versions of the tar baby story.[11] The mythical West African hero Anansi is recorded as once being similarly trapped. [1] In a Spanish language version told in the mountainous parts of Colombia, an unnamed rabbit is trapped by the “Muñeco de Brea” (tar doll). A Buddhist myth tells of Prince Five-weapons (the Future Buddha) who encounters the ogre, Sticky Hair, in a forest.[12]
    The Tar Baby theme is present in the lores in various tribes of Meso-America and of South America : it is to be found such stories[13] as the Nahuatl (of Mexico) “Lazy Boy and Little Rabbit” (González Casanova 1946, pp. 55–67), Pipil (of El Salvador) “Rabbit and Little Fox” (Schultes 1977, pp. 113–116), and Palenquero (of Colombia) “Rabbit, Toad, and Tiger” (Patiño Rosselli 1983, pp. 224–229).
    According to James Mooney in “Myths of the Cherokee”,[14] the tar baby story may have been influenced in America by the Cherokee “Tar Wolf” story, which is unlikely to have been derived from similar African stories: “Some of these animal stories are common to widely separated [Native American] tribes among whom there can be no suspicion of [African] influences. Thus the famous “tar baby” story has variants, not only among the Cherokee, but also in New Mexico, Washington [State], and southern Alaska—wherever, in fact, the pine supplies enough gum to be molded into a ball for [Native American] uses…”. In the Tar Wolf story, the animals were thirsty during a dry spell, and agreed to dig a well. The lazy rabbit refused to help dig…..
    WikiLink – link to en.wikipedia.org

  4. sherbrsi
    April 2, 2010, 9:54 am

    Thanks for this article.

    That Marshall was deemed anti-Semitic on what appears to be purely anti-Zionist stance, especially an American-centric one, comes across as very surprising considering his stature and achievements for the American people. Just how many people and institutions have succumbed to the terms of the Israel lobby? The Americans should view this as nothing less than the subversion of their democratic system.

    • potsherd
      April 2, 2010, 10:47 am

      It’s a good sign that someone is speaking the truth when the Foxmans of the world start pointing the anti-semite finger

      • Chaos4700
        April 2, 2010, 11:49 am

        But its several decades too late. I think people forget that the sort of post-war reconstruction that Europe and Japan enjoyed, thanks to Marshall, was denied to Americans by commie-crazed conservatives. And look where we are now because of the demonization of the notion that government needs to actually provide services and care for people who pay taxes.

        This alliance between racist Zionists and corporate barons runs deep.

  5. bob
    April 2, 2010, 9:57 am

    Perry: The transparent dodge to win a few votes would not, in fact,achieve this purpose. …sacrificing American security for American votes.

    Perry could expand this coverage from just “votes” to talk about the strong organization, powerful position, and the role of campaign contributions and how these interests clashed with US strategic goals in the region. Other scholars, like E Watkins, are much more forthright about the role “Jewish campaign contributions,” the “legendary Jewish lobby,” and “an electorally small but highly organized and well-placed body,” placed on US politicians and how these pressures contradictory and in opposition to US goals regarding Arab oil. They are competing interests that are even freely discussed by AIPAC founder, Si Kenen

  6. annie
    April 2, 2010, 10:08 am

    Clifford facedMarshall: the U.S.had made a moral commitment to the world’s Jews that dated from Britain’s 1919 Balfour Declaration

    this sounds familiar. i forget that guys name but he made the infamous speech @ some hotel, claimed we entered WW1 after making this commitment. what were we getting in exchange for our commitment? i can’t remember.

    • Sumud
      April 2, 2010, 10:44 am

      Benjamin H. Freedman.

      I have been meaning to ask on this site for some informed opinion(s) on this guy?

      • bob
        April 2, 2010, 10:54 am

        I’m looking at this too. I’m skeptical, but wholly unaware of this outside of some 2 minutes of cursory googling. I don’t know if this is conspiratorial claptrap or not. Maybe someone can weigh in here.

        I’m running into works by:
        E. Malynski. La Démocratie victorieuse. 1929
        S. Landman Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine
        Count Leon de Poncins State Secrets. 1977

      • MHughes976
        April 2, 2010, 11:25 am

        I’d recommend Margaret Macmillan’s ‘Peacemakers’ (2001).

      • annie
        April 2, 2010, 11:38 am

        bob, i think it is safe to assume the speech was made and is very real. the truth of the information is another question. here is the text. he is not very fond of jews and the speech is certainly conspiratorial but that doesn’t mean it is completely false either, people have been known to conspire.

      • Chu
        April 2, 2010, 3:21 pm

        When Freedman made that speech at the Willard hotel, despite the poor recording, it almost sounded like he could have made that speech prior to the Iraq Invasion of 2003.
        He goes on to tell the audience, not to send their boys to war for these zionists who want to control all of Palestine.
        He was a zionist defector, who may have inflated some things, but on the whole, it coincides with all the stories posted on this blog.
        Search his name for reference and it’s completely baron of facts. Maybe it was blacklisting.

    • Sumud
      April 2, 2010, 10:53 am

      ..the Perry article incorrectly dates Balfour to 1919 when it was in fact made in 1917 – before the Ottomans had even capitulated.

    • Psychopathic god
      April 2, 2010, 11:00 am

      my understanding of Balfour (1917, as pointed out elsewhere) was that it was more like a commercial exchange: Weizman’s method of producing gunpowder goes to the British in exchange for British mandate land in Palestine to Baron Rothschild, the addressee of Balfour doc.

      Jewish influence was, in effect, on the auction block. Some states declined to bid, wary of follow-on entanglements. Brits made the highest bid.

  7. Mooser
    April 2, 2010, 10:14 am

    According to Zionists, if someone has the unmitigated temerity to suggest that Zionists will act as other people have acted in the same situation, they are an anti-semite.

    That’s good for the Jews?

    • Mooser
      April 2, 2010, 10:15 am

      Which, of course, is sort of odd, because Zionists keep on asserting that Zionism is what will make Jews just like all the other peoples!

      Oh, No.4!

      • Citizen
        April 2, 2010, 12:53 pm

        How many American ethnics got a land of their on a place “without people,” a land that was not the USA? Not really a case of No 4? If so, what’s another such case other than
        diaspora Jews and Israel?

      • dalybean
        April 2, 2010, 3:51 pm

        Not only that, they have a place to escape to if they are caught committing a crime and Israel has no extradition treaty with the US. I don’t know if anyone recalls a case from 1997 where a 17 year old escaped from Silver Spring, MD to Israel after he killed and dismembered a friend of his and Israel would not give him up. They tried him in Israel and gave him 15 years and I doubt he served that. Then there are the Agriprocessor people from Iowa who escaped and are wanted by us for human trafficking and Israel tells us they can’t find them.

        The ability to escape to Israel without being subject to extradition for committing all manner of crimes gives new meaning to the term “insurance policy.”

  8. Citizen
    April 2, 2010, 10:26 am

    Hey, Marshall, Chas Freeman? Nothing changes.

  9. Psychopathic god
    April 2, 2010, 10:55 am

    George Patton was no friend of Jews.
    But it’s interesting that he applied his animus to “Khazars” .

    In the US, earliest Jewish populations were European — the good Jews. Later Jewish immigrants to US were from Russia and East Europe; settled Jews in the US despised these later arrivals.
    And ardent zionists get really upset when Khazars are identified as Jews.

    I understand their agita. My Italian ancestors were most likely Etruscans, the proud, noble, smart, creative Italians, not those Sicilian pissants who gave to the world only Mafia and anchovies on pizza.

    • Citizen
      April 2, 2010, 12:58 pm

      Of related interest, the German Jews despised their newly immigrated cousins from
      the East, back during the Weimar Republic–if you read Mein Kampf, dear Adolph
      gives you his gut reaction to those new Jewd from the East. He paints a portrait of them, and asks, “Are these people really Germans?” OTH, he was fond of his mother’s German Jewish physician as young lad. Interesting his comments, when as a young
      man of 19 he went off from rural Austria to make his mark in the cosmopolitan city of Vienna.

      • Mooser
        April 2, 2010, 6:34 pm

        “Of related interest, the German Jews despised their newly immigrated cousins from
        the East,”

        Some of them despised them, some of them worked amongst them, in settlement houses and various other liberal efforts to try and help them assimilate.

        Look, Citizen, I’m really sorry we can’t be more consistent, that Jews refuse to be all bad or all good, but we’ll try to do better.
        I’m not in the mood to suffer fools today. I’d better go.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 8:55 am

        OK, Mooser, I will give you that. I have read plenty about the German Jews who despised their new cousins from the East in Weimar Germany/Austria, both in literary and history texts, but I have never read anything about those German Jews who worked among the new Jewish transplants from the East. I was not alive during Weimar Germany/Austria. Please, do recommend some reading to enlightment me–I am sure you are right that some German Jews must have worked to help assimilate their cousins.

    • munro
      April 2, 2010, 3:41 pm

      off topic but I just spent 6 months in southern Sicily – Modica, Ragusa Agrigento, Siracusa, Caltagirone, Scicli– and met many, mostly, very refined and cultivated people. Amazing art, architecture, history, food, nature preserves and some of the best bookstores in Europe.

      • Psychopathic god
        April 2, 2010, 3:56 pm

        shhh, don’t tell the Sicilians that I slandered just a bit ago: anchovy pizza is about the best…

        and I am soooo jealous of your extended stay in Sicily. Please, tell us more — were your working? studying?

      • munro
        April 3, 2010, 10:35 am

        Psychopathic God, on vacation, based in Modica link to en.wikipedia.org
        Really just no words (or photos) capture it at all. Side trip to Malta was unforgettable too. Mind-boggling. I had no idea. Go!

    • Mooser
      April 2, 2010, 6:29 pm

      I understand their agita. My Italian ancestors were most likely Etruscans, the proud, noble, smart, creative Italians, not those Sicilian pissants who gave to the world only Mafia and anchovies on pizza.

      Good to know that studying the sins of the Zionists gave you a broad, enlightened and compassionate outlook on your own tribel history. Glad we could help.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:23 pm

        At least the lower Italians gave us good pizza.

  10. javs
    April 2, 2010, 11:49 am

    does anyone have a current number of each ( zionist khazars ) vs good non zionist jews ? and the relationship in numbers within all groups of lobby and our levels of government throughout all the u.s. areas ?
    Can all religons be pulled as exempt and made to fend for themselves through supporters only….with no media coverages ! the media should too hold a non bias standard of editorial review on the uses of words that are ment to change the facts through repetition in the media through out, which numb the public to the entire issue and points on the agression that has been going on too long. Take gaza..the recent publicized icident is only one of so very many that are just as bad and also against human rights laws, seeing there is not any legit form of court system of international jurisdiction willing to take on these for so long just skirting the issues at hand every time. The proof is there but while the propaganda and control is in full swing youll have a better chance of hitting the lottery a few times in a year.

  11. Leper Colonialist
    April 2, 2010, 12:20 pm

    Folks who think 4 stars will be sufficient to protect Patreaus from the Dershowitz-Foxman Ceberus are sadly mistaken,and ought to take note.

    Marshall has 5 stars, and just look.

    • sherbrsi
      April 2, 2010, 12:35 pm

      Ex-presidents, presidential hopefuls, political campaigners, congress people, think-tanks, UN representatives (fired for not being “sufficiently pro-Israel”), Secretary of State and highly decorated and regarded army men no less, are some of the claims of the predatory and malicious Israel lobby.

      Can anyone name me any other nationalistic lobby in America that can claim even a fraction of influence the Israel lobby has? Isn’t it time that the knowledgeable Americans started framing this not as some outgrowth of domestic political activity, but a foreign operative that has rooted itself in American affairs through and through?

      • Citizen
        April 2, 2010, 1:03 pm

        Most Americans have no interest at all; they never will–and they have access to the internet, where they like to pull up sports scores, google girlies, and hunks, and play that virtual farm game, Farmsville whereby they pretend to be farmers. Maybe the impending war with Iran will wake them up? OTH, they might see that as a job opportunity at last.

      • sherbrsi
        April 2, 2010, 1:32 pm

        You are right Citizen, but I’ve read some polls which indicate that Americans are far more balanced on the issue than what the MSM would have us believe, which was an eye-opener considering how the media never tires of being the PR rep of Israel.

        As far the Israel lobby is concerned, I think it’s more productive to examine its power from its achievements in favor of Israeli policy, more-so than the influence of its constituent groups. Alas, those in the know are fighting an uphill battle even exposing the existence of the lobby, let alone it’s workings from the lowest levels of American politics to the highest office of government.

        When I see how deeply the Zionist movement has planted itself within American affairs, I can’t help but wonder just how passive the American public and more importantly its political institutions and establishment can afford to be. No matter how much the lobby stresses of there being no daylight between Israel and America, and no mater how much we sympathize with that narrative, the very existence of a foreign entity so deeply entrenched in American politics, finance and media should be a cause for alarm. I suppose, at this stage, it would far more appropriate to just deem the Zionist infiltration of American governance as a corruption of the entire system rather than a coups d’état.

      • Citizen
        April 2, 2010, 2:27 pm

        So,what’s the practical difference?

      • sherbrsi
        April 2, 2010, 2:55 pm

        To sum it up in one word, complicity.

        Zionists have not only asserted their policy on the Americans, but have actively converted the Congress, the media and political actors into adopting their ideology of Israel First (in speech and recognition, if not in belief alone). The Zionists did not do this at gunpoint, as most political takeovers are of violent nature, but it was the result of their conditioning and purchasing of loyalties and support for their cause from the American political establishment. It is the most perfect exploitation of the loopholes democratic systems allow for granting disproportionate power. I remember when during the Lawfare conference, one attending neo-con speaker actually called on Obama to became Israel’s brand ambassador to the world and proclaim himself to be a Zionist in international appearances. Then we have Biden making it clear that anyone can enjoy the piece of the Israel First pie by becoming Zionists, and that being Jewish is not necessary for doing so. It’s a more entangled mess than any of its observers can conceive, because separating the foreign agents from the domestic players becomes impossible in face of such massive indoctrination of the American people, who are ready to be, like Weiss has said, more Catholic than the Pope himself on the issue of Israel.

      • potsherd
        April 2, 2010, 3:23 pm

        $10/gal gasoline will stir them.

      • potsherd
        April 2, 2010, 3:25 pm

        The potential is there. Look at the teabaggers. Populist America is full of rage and all it needs is to be directed.

      • Psychopathic god
        April 2, 2010, 4:19 pm

        for good or ill, C Span is my barometer of what the sheeple think.

        C Span is increasingly beholden to zionist narrative: review the morning news brief each morning on Wash Journ: the days that do NOT feature an item showing Iran in an unfavorable light are very few; moderators almost reflexively terminate or challenge callers who are critical of Israel; Israel is never, ever discussed in anything other than a positive light.

        Each day I think, this is the last straw. Today was the last straw: the topic was, do sports fans more closely correlate with Democrats or Republicans? Loads of enthusiastic callers: “Hey, what about Indy race car fans, don’t forget about us….” “Go Red Sox” “Ya, hockey’s the game…”

        In the beginning chapters of St. Augustine’s “City of God” (iirc) Augustine discusses the corrupting influence of the “games,” that his addiction to the games had imperiled his spiritual and ethical balance, and that he determined to break the habit. Perhaps its a malady that afflicts human nature, the need to find a vicarious form of violent amusement. Maybe we still need to act out, or shake out, our animal hunting impulses.

        I don’t think there are tales of hunting in the Hebrew OT.
        American Indians, of course, have an extensive hunting tradition, and a consonant profound respect for animals and the act of killing.
        A professor of Hindu religion once remarked that only the Abrahamic religions had fundamentalists that killed each other.
        I wonder how all these random thoughts are related. The Abrahamic tradition, originating with the Hebrew tradition, is centered on the WORD, which is amorphous, can be shaped to fit one’s preferred narrative, does not necessarily reflect reality or truth. On the other hand, hunting and killing an animal in order to ensure one’s own survival is a concrete act; the blood is real; the reality that at one moment the animal was, like its killer, vital and alive and, after the killer’s act upon it, is no longer so, forces a confrontation with profound realities.
        Today — this weekend, is a very turbulent time in the histo-religious sphere: Jews celebrate killing Egyptians in order to ensure the liberation of the Jewish people. Iranians celebrate the rebirth of nature and the re-beginning of the cycle of life. Christians celebrate the death & resurrection of Jesus to effect the redemption and rebirth of the human soul. Nature (in this hemisphere, anyway) is itself showing signs of rebirth. Which of these traditions is life affirming? Which of these is most closely allied to American values?

      • Citizen
        April 2, 2010, 4:42 pm

        I remember the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970’s–nobody lined up at the pumps had a clue they were there due to our Marshal Plan for Israel back then.
        They didn’t even know there was the Yom Kipper war going on. Maybe next time, due to the internet, it will be different–when Iran is attacked?

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:05 am

        I don’t think there is an American holiday that celebrates per se any American military victory, let alone one depicting erasure of the enemy by a God on the American side.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:26 pm

        I don’t see any tea bagging protest signs on TV objecting to $ to Israel or campaign finance reform. Their signs don’t even demonize Goldman Sachs!

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:49 pm

        Well, a half year ago CSPAN allowed a lot of callers into Washington Journal to express their views opposing hasbara status quo; but I have noticed more recently this is no longer allowed.

  12. Keith
    April 2, 2010, 3:43 pm

    In evaluating George Marshall’s opinions, we must keep in mind that he was speaking back in 1945 through 1948. At that time Israel was not a powerful state, certainly not a strategic asset. That began to change, and in the 1950s the military recognized that Israel had become a powerful state worthy of U.S. patronage. Things changed dramatically in 1967 when Israel smashed pan-Arabism in six days, an outcome both Israel and the U.S. strongly desired. This is when Israel became America’s number one strategic asset in the Middle-East. Coincidentally, it is also when Israel became the darling of the American left in general, and the Jewish left in particular.

    Things appear to be changing once again as the U.S. seeks to adapt to a changing reality. Had the U.S. not got bogged down in Iraq, and had Israel not been thwarted in Lebanon in 2006, who knows what might be transpiring? But alas, Israeli ambitions seem to be going well beyond what the U.S. desires from its Middle-East pit-bull. Hence, there is a power struggle amongst the principals of Empire. An Empire, I might add, that is in transition from a U.S. Empire to a transnational corporate/financial Empire. These are interesting times. These are perilous times. The Israel lobby is powerful, yet it is but one aspect of the big picture in the global struggle for power.

    • dalybean
      April 2, 2010, 4:12 pm

      I honestly think that the reason that Israel is suddenly being so aggressive and demanding of a war on Iran is to “get it while they can” before the US wakes up and reevaluates the relationship and/or the US loses its ability to impose its will on the world. There is every indication that they intend to drag the US into World War III in the Middle East. This makes them the most dangerous country on the planet.

      Just today Caroline Glick published an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post basically saying eff Obama, let’s go wild on settlements, attacking Iran, etc. link to jpost.com. An Yedeoth Ahronoth published an OpEd advising that Israel attack Iran with nukes in view of Obama’s betrayal. link to ynetnews.com

      This has got to stop.

      • Psychopathic god
        April 2, 2010, 4:49 pm

        holy cow.
        shouldn’t the bar association yank Goldberg’s license to practice in California — he’s advocating treason — advocating nuclear blackmail of the US.

      • sherbrsi
        April 2, 2010, 6:10 pm

        I honestly think that the reason that Israel is suddenly being so aggressive and demanding of a war on Iran is to “get it while they can” before the US wakes up and reevaluates the relationship and/or the US loses its ability to impose its will on the world.

        But the US has no interest in war against Iran, or enabling an Israeli attack on it. There is plenty of hard proof of that, and it’s not like Israel has not been forthcoming for its desire for war (they even got the Congress to sign for a blockade against Iran, which was ultimately rejected). Obama was smart to drive a rift between Israel-American relations, because Israel is now isolated even more than before. Which is why they are now advocating such dramatic and baseless actions; like a child throwing a tantrum when it is denied what it wants. If they want to attack Iran, they can go ahead. If they had the capability or cover to do so, they wouldn’t be pressuring America to do it for them. But if it ever comes down to them going on this campaign alone, they can kiss the only thing keeping the entire Zionist project of occupation and ethnic cleansing alive goodbye, because America won’t be rushing to protect this spoiled brat: not in the war, not in the UN.

      • dalybean
        April 3, 2010, 1:23 am

        I very much agree that the US has no interest in war against Iran or enabling an Israeli attack. But I firmly believe that Israel would drag the US into such a war by hook or by crook if they can. Phony evidence, false flag events, etc. Israel wants Iran smashed and broken just like Iraq. Sanctions will never satisfy them.

        I would imagine that our military and intelligence services are working overtime on preventing Israel from “getting it while they can.” I imagine our allies are doing the same.

        This is a very dangerous situation. I have a feeling that is why Hillary Clinton said she felt like she was dealing with another Bay of Pigs.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:28 pm

        I agree, the Zionists here and in Israel are working overtime to get us enmeshed in a war with Iran.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:09 am

        I think you are correct, dalybean–Turkey is bccoming a problem for Israel, and so is the USA and Europe, so Israel is now desperately trying to find a new special friend, e.g., in China and India, the rising economic stars. Israel goes whre the money is. Maybe the USA should also start looking after its interests in the same way?

      • dalybean
        April 3, 2010, 9:33 am

        Now that the neocons are not in charge of our foreign policy, I have some scant hope that we might be starting to do that. That may be part of why the UK cancelled their own “special relationship” with us as well. It leaves Israel standing alone as a special case to be examined realistically.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:29 pm

        I hope you are right.

    • Les
      April 2, 2010, 4:18 pm

      Some things had changed before 1967 in Israel’s favor. President Johnson called back the planes sent to follow up an SOS from the USS Liberty which Israel had attempted to sink during its 1967 attack on Egypt which gave Israel control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. While he may have referred to it as the Jewish Lobby in the language of the day, Johnson called back the planes because he was afraid of what we now call the Israel Lobby. The power of the Lobby, real or presumed, did not come into being overnight in 1967. As Commander-in-Chief, President Johnson’s fear of the Lobby overruled his obligation to his sailors under fire. His was not an act of a patriot.

      • Psychopathic god
        April 2, 2010, 4:28 pm

        H Bradley Westerfield, Dick Cheney’s favorite prof at Yale, wrote about the power of the Jewish people (don’t think he called it ‘lobby’) back in the early 1950s — I think his book is copyright 1953. Westerfield even devoted a chapter to the oppression of the Palestinian people, back in 1953.

        interesting — Westerfield’s financial angel — supporter for the sabbatical during which Westerfield wrote — was a Jewish businessman from New Orleans.

      • bob
        April 2, 2010, 6:16 pm

        Les: While he may have referred to it as the Jewish Lobby in the language of the day

        They called it what it is, the Israeli lobby.

        1969 U. S. Deplores Israeli Acts in Jerusalem: Ambassador Charles W. Yost, chief of the United States delegation to the United Nations, today expressed regret at changes Israel is making in the occupied Arab sector of old Jerusalem

        also 1970: Yost a Victim of the Pro-Israeli Lobby

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:12 am

        For that matter, neither was Truman an American patriot–at core, they both acted for their own individual political interest–just like every congress person today. Only Ike and Kennedy tried to act in the USA’s and world interests as a top priority. The rest of the US presidents were all whores since 1945.

    • eGuard
      April 2, 2010, 5:13 pm

      Keith, Things changed dramatically in 1967 when Israel smashed pan-Arabism in six days, an outcome both Israel and the U.S. strongly desired. This is when Israel became America’s number one strategic asset in the Middle-East.
      What was at any time the strategic value of this land? Never a base, never fighting side-by-side, never part of the geo-surrounding of the USSR, never useful in helping securing US oil interests. Stimulating pan-Arab unity against a Western country is not helpful either. US interest were served by Turkey (vs USSR), the Shah’s Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, even Iraq now.

      • Keith
        April 2, 2010, 8:21 pm

        eGuard- The strategic value of Israel lies in its ability to attack and demolish Arab countries which oppose U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The purpose is the CONTROL of the oil, not access to the oil, James Petras type arguments notwithstanding. A review of the documentary record by people such as Noam Chomsky leaves little room for doubt. I reference a long quote from Chomsky followed by a brief quote from Shlomo Gazit to make the point.

        “Despite the remarkable level of U.S. support for Israel, it would be an error to assume that Israel represents the major U.S. interest in the Middle East. Rather, the major interest lies in the energy reserves of the region, primarily in the Arabian peninsula. A State Department analysis of 1945 described Saudi Arabia as ‘…a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.’ …. Since World War II, it has been virtually an axiom of U.S. foreign policy that these energy reserves should remain under U.S. control.” (Noam Chomsky)

        “From the late 1950s, however, the U.S. government increasingly came to accept the Israeli thesis that a powerful Israel is a ‘strategic asset’ for the United States, serving as a barrier against indigenous radical nationalist threats to American interests, which might gain support from the USSR. A recently declassified National Security Council memorandum of 1958 noted that a ‘logical corollary’ of opposition to radical Arab nationalism ‘would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East.’ Meanwhile, Israel concluded a secret pact with Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia. According to David Ben-Gurion’s biographer, this ‘periphery pact’ was encouraged by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and was ‘long lasting.’ Through the 1960s, American intelligence regarded Israel as a barrier to Nasserite pressure on the Gulf oil-producing states, a serious matter at the time, and to Russian influence. This conclusion was reinforced by Israel’s smashing victory in 1967.…” (Noam Chomsky)

        After the collapse of the Soviet Union, how did Israel see its role in the Middle East? “Israel’s main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance. Its location at the center of the Arab Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be the guardian of stability in all the countries surrounding it. Its (role) is to protect the existing regimes….” (Shlomo Gazit, former head of Israeli intelligence)

        To deny Israel’s role as a U.S. strategic asset is to claim that U.S. and Israeli strategic planners are totally out of touch with reality, a curious interpretation of the documentary record.

      • bob
        April 2, 2010, 9:17 pm

        Hey Keith.

        Hope everything is well with you. I would like to start to mention that I would be happy to see the oil premise properly worked through – to beyond the 1950’s when there was argument over the contradictory goals of a US-Arab and US-Israeli policy. The work on the Israeli lobby wen’t through a profound amount of criticism and scrutiny. I would be happy to see more angles go through the same amount of work and scholarship. Unfortunately, there isn’t a similar group of people emotionally invested in scrutinizing the “strategic oil” topic like there is for the “pro-Israeli lobby,” nor are there people ready to be offended for implications of a conspiratorial nature, requiring an extremely thorough and specific study to withstand charges of bias. In other words, someone can make a loose assumption about a hidden “oil plan;” you can get fired and renounced for making a similarly loose assumption about a hidden “Jewish plan.” I say I agree with raising the standards for information for both to eliminate the speculation.

        To add to our last conversation on “control” and how the fungible oil markets doesn’t allow for such control, I’d like to add the following take on the Arab oil embargo:

        First, let’s dispel the notion that we need to worry about an oil embargo directed at the United States. Once oil is in a tanker or refinery, there is no controlling its destination. During the 1973 embargo on the United States and the Netherlands, for instance, oil that was exported to Europe was simply resold to the United States or ended up displacing non-OPEC oil that was diverted to the U.S. market. Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo “did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States … the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else.”

        Fast forward to the 1970s, when, despite the early ‘70s Arab oil embargo (Iran, as a non-Arab country did not participate) placed on the United States, America imported every bit as much oil during the embargo as before the embargo. Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani admitted after 1973 that the embargo “did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States … the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else.”

        Countries can impose all manner of selling restrictions on the items they export, but once those goods leave the port, there’s no accounting for where they end up. If every OPEC country were to place an embargo on the United States, the U.S. would still buy their oil, only from those they’d not embargoed.

        This form of “strategic control” is not possible under the current fungible oil market. The markets, of course, saw changes to promote fungibility to further nullify the effects of a selective embargo.

        Of course, it is unfortunate that there is such an amazing difference in pressure when discussing these two topics. Its quite easy to use documents from 1950’s and speculate that there is a hidden agenda of oil control that is unseen. You can lose your job and see a tremendous amount of backlash if someone were to be as careless in making a statement about “Jewish control” from policy documents from the 1950’s and extend those into the future. I would be elated to see someone focus this work, and to arrive at a conclusion based on concomitant evidence. In other words, if a statement is to be made about 1980 or 2010, let there be evidence from that time for confirmation. Then, we can properly assess how that evidence would fit into the heavily scrutinized work regarding those with pro-Israeli proclivities.

        My very best to you.

      • Keith
        April 2, 2010, 11:45 pm

        BOB- Always nice to discuss issues with someone who is concerned with facts and who eschews name calling. I’m not sure what I can add to my previous comments other than to emphasize two points. First, if the overall consensus of strategic planners is that control of the Middle East hydrocarbon reserves is of strategic importance, it is difficult to say that these guys are total morons and that all of our military bases are haphazard and/or geo-strategic mistakes. Second, and more significant, is that I think you have become hooked on a bogus notion that oil is fungible. Its not. Money is fungible, oil is a commodity. If oil is fungible, then soybeans are fungible, corn is fungible, diamonds are fungible, everything is fungible. Nonsense. The fact that a ship can be diverted simply means that a ship can be diverted. Let me assure you that should the U.S. decide to cut off Japan’s oil supply, our military is quite capable of doing so. The Japanese are fully aware of this. Don’t be seduced by the mystique of the “market.” It’s all bullshit. It’s not for nothing that the U.S. spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined.

      • bob
        April 3, 2010, 8:03 am

        No problem Keith. You seem like a really friendly person, so I want to make sure that this comes off without emnity.

        If possible, could you post some information saying oil is not fungible? At the moment, it is highly fungible. Are you saying in the future it will no longer be fungible?

      • eGuard
        April 3, 2010, 8:12 am

        Keith,
        A different line than bob’s, from me. I understand the control of oil as the strategic US-interest (as I learned from Chomsky too, back in 1991). But crushing arab states like Jordan and Syria is not essential. Even blocking Nasser’s Egypt is not essential: what would be the problem with Egypt occupying Jordan and Syria? These are not the oilstates. Worst case: Egypt takes over Iraq – and still would have to sell the oil. Meanwhile US paved other ways to control: befriending Saudi Arabia and the Shah’s Iran (ultimately this worked for Egypt too, since Jimmy Carter). And also occupying Iraq is part of that.

        Israels secret pact with Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia must have been good for Israel, but has no relevance for the US. If Turkey and Iran can make a secret pact with Israel, why then not with US directly? And what was the content? Israel sending weapons to Iran? Makes little sense to US, I think. The strategic presence of the US was in Turkey, Iran, and is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia.

        Your final paragraph To deny Israel’s role as a U.S. strategic asset is to claim that U.S. and Israeli strategic planners are totally out of touch with reality … I read as a good faith misrepresentation. I did not use the “totally out of touch”. I am testing the question “I can see it’s good for Israel. What is good for the US? Would the US by itself have chosen this eccentric country as a strategic ally?”.

        “Israel’s main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance. Its location at the center of the Arab Muslim Middle East [...]” (Shlomo Gazit, former head of Israeli intelligence) This is an Israeli saying how important Isreal is – not very convincing. Also, “at the center” is bs.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:40 am

        If you drove a car in the early 1970’s you knew that the Arab oil embargo made you wait in line at the pumps for gas at a suddenly highly inflated price. Whether oil is fungible or a mere commodity, nothing changed that fact. Another fact is that the US interfered in Iranian democratic domestic politics and supported the Shah back in the 1950’s–a key reason for this violation of Iranian sovereignty
        was that the US feared putting Iran’s oil production and sales into the hands of the Iranian people–and, how many times have we done similar things in S America, and for similar reasons?

        Thanks to Chaney, nobody knows US oil policy.
        The fact that it is so concealed speaks volumes.
        If memory serves W & M pointed out that Big Oil prefers a non-chaotic Middle East, and they deduced Big Oil was not really happy about Shrub’s invasion of Iraq, let alone a future invasion of Iran.

        So, given those things, please tell me, is Israel really something Big Oil is
        happy to support in an Israel First manner as our US Congress does?

      • Keith
        April 3, 2010, 11:50 am

        BOB- We seem to be going in circles around the definition of “fungible,” which is normally used to describe that money can be used for multiple purposes and is interchangeable with other money. Oil is a commodity and I don’t see how it can be considered fungible in the true meaning of the word. You seem to be implying that oil goes into a huge pool from a multiplicity of sources, and is subsequently withdrawn by multiple purchasers, hence, there is no direct link between the producer and the consumer. I’m not that knowledgeable on the oil business, but my sense is that instead of one huge cartel, you have discreet companies (Exxon-Mobil, etc) that enter into contracts with oil producing nations to acquire oil to be transported in identifiable, discreet ships, or via pipeline. I don’t think that the system is nearly as flexible as you seem to feel. Additionally, I feel that the current system provides numerous opportunities for coercion and interdiction. I think that the documentary record clearly indicates that the planners feel that bases and troops and power projection provide geo-strategic advantage. You or I may disagree with their assessment, but their view, not ours, is what is of operational significance. How else to explain 750 bases world-wide, heavily concentrated near hydrocarbon reserves and transit corridors?

      • Keith
        April 3, 2010, 12:29 pm

        eGuard- Sorry to offend you. I was not quoting you, I was saying that, in effect, to assert that Israel has little if any geo-strategic significance, in view of the opinion of the U.S. military and high level planners that it does, is to imply that these guys are incompetent. In which case, the U.S. has inexplicably bumbled into being the sole uncontested Empire that it is.

        As for the various scenarios you mention, I have no idea how valid they are. My whole point is that we must be aware of the significant consequences of Imperial geo-strategy, just as we must be aware of Israel’s influence on U.S. Middle East policy. My personal opinion is that Israel has played, and continues to play, an important role in smashing attempts at pan-Arab unity (Nasser, etc). I think that this is consistent with the documentary record, personal opinions of the current efficacy of this strategy notwithstanding. My personal preference would be for the demise of the U.S. Empire, the dismemberment of the transnational corporate empire-in-the-making, Israel to become a state of all of its citizens, nuclear weapons to be eliminated, etc. In other words, U.S. geo-strategy is something that I am opposed to.

      • bob
        April 3, 2010, 2:29 pm

        ….I’m not that knowledgeable on the oil business, but my sense is…..as you seem to feel.

        Keith. Make no mistake, its not a “feeling” I have. Oil is regarded as highly fungible. The scenario you’ve posted above isn’t that far off of a description of the oil market.

        I suggest that you should stop to read about the oil markets themselves and be knowledgeable in how the actual system operates before making a blanket assertion on the secret nature of its operation. Remember, keep the standards as high as what was required for people exposing the lobby from the ardent pro-Israeli defenders who would apply extreme pressure on someone for not having a perfectly constructed argument.

      • bob
        April 3, 2010, 2:30 pm

        Humorous picture that fits the discussion.

        link to i287.photobucket.com

      • Keith
        April 3, 2010, 4:16 pm

        BOB- I’ve already spent too much time on this, but what the heck, I’ll give it one more try. First, I have no intention of doing a lot of research on the oil industry as I’m not all that interested. Besides, I firmly believe that one doesn’t have to be an expert to form a reasonable opinion. I did, however, review you previous comments more closely, and I think I now understand where you are coming from.

        Let us begin by noting that the article you reference refers to Iran or Saudi Arabia initiating a selective embargo, which, as the article indicates, is unlikely to succeed for a variety of reasons. Agreed. Further, the article mentions that the U.S. obtained plenty of oil during the oil embargo. True. I think that the Saudi oil minister’s comment about the world as one big market therefore there was nothing Saudi Arabia could do is somewhat disingenuous, as he is trying to explain away the fact that Saudi Arabia is extremely unlikely to cross the U.S. on oil policy. We support their horrid regime which would likely have been overthrown long ago if not for the U.S.

        Getting back to control and all of those bases and troops. Control has two aspects, closing the spigot (either selectively or across the board) and keeping the spigot open. Both are important. If the Arab oil producing nations ever considered dramatically reducing oil production, or dramatically increasing the price of oil, do you think that their decision might be influenced by all of those bases and troops in the area and ready to act? Conversely, if the U.S. suddenly decided that Japan was “supporting terrorism,” do you doubt that the U.S. has the power to impact their oil supplies? Once the tanker leaves the dock, there may be nothing that Saudi Arabia can do about it (or even dare to if they could), but I am confident that American power would permit successful interdiction. Transnational corporations can defy Saudi Arabia with U.S. support, but they dare not defy Empire. It could be as simple as freezing the assets of whichever shipping company defied the embargo, or banning it from U.S. business.

        In other words, markets are effective to the degree that those with power want them to be effective. The U.S. can use the soft power of the market to achieve its objectives, or it can use the hard power of coercion to overrule the market. That’s it, I’m done with this.

      • bob
        April 3, 2010, 5:26 pm

        keith: First, I have no intention of doing a lot of research on the oil industry as I’m not all that interested.

        This is a crucial first step if there is to be a blanket assertion on the secret workings of the oil system.

        Give me a few hours to review the rest of your post. thanks. Super busy here.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 5:40 pm

        Yes, and a major strategic point is that the USA can can effectively block oil, refined or otherwise, going to Europe.

      • eGuard
        April 3, 2010, 6:27 pm

        OK, and I read it as good faith anyway. So Israel was used by the US to keep Nasser and his USSR advisors out of the oil region. That’s a sound strategy to me. While Israel had sort of same goal for a different reason, so didn’t mind being used. I get it. My personal opinion would make things unclear, so I keep them in the basket next to my armchair.
        Of course, the US military planners are smart. And we should be able to understand some of their thinking from outside, there must be logic in it. What I’m puzzling with is, has the military (& policy) chosen the ally freely on their own, or was it pushed on their table and did they make the best of it? The pushers being like a lobby or foreign diplomats. To simplify matters: how is that since the collapse of the USSR.

      • eGuard
        April 3, 2010, 6:44 pm

        Oops, this reply was to Keith April 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm.

      • bob
        April 4, 2010, 8:10 am

        Conversely, if the U.S. suddenly decided that Japan was “supporting terrorism,” do you doubt that the U.S. has the power to impact their oil supplies?/i>

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Keith. I see quite a bit of “thinks, and could be” above. Given the highly speculative nature of these ideas, and how it needs to be reconciled with things like a deeper understanding of the global oil markets, I would like it if they were processed through a higher standard. in other words, please raise the standards for proof to what I described above. i think it would be helpful to bring some information to the table from this angle, but it needs a greater level of rigor.

        Hope everything is well with you. I would like to start to mention that I would be happy to see the oil premise properly worked through – to beyond the 1950’s when there was argument over the contradictory goals of a US-Arab and US-Israeli policy. The work on the Israeli lobby wen’t through a profound amount of criticism and scrutiny. I would be happy to see more angles go through the same amount of work and scholarship. Unfortunately, there isn’t a similar group of people emotionally invested in scrutinizing the “strategic oil” topic like there is for the “pro-Israeli lobby,” nor are there people ready to be offended for implications of a conspiratorial nature, requiring an extremely thorough and specific study to withstand charges of bias. In other words, someone can make a loose assumption about a hidden “oil plan;” you can get fired and renounced for making a similarly loose assumption about a hidden “Jewish plan.” I say I agree with raising the standards for information for both to eliminate the speculation.

        Of course, it is unfortunate that there is such an amazing difference in pressure when discussing these two topics. Its quite easy to use documents from 1950’s and speculate that there is a hidden agenda of oil control that is unseen. You can lose your job and see a tremendous amount of backlash if someone were to be as careless in making a statement about “Jewish control” from policy documents from the 1950’s and extend those into the future. I would be elated to see someone focus this work, and to arrive at a conclusion based on concomitant evidence. In other words, if a statement is to be made about 1980 or 2010, let there be evidence from that time for confirmation. Then, we can properly assess how that evidence would fit into the heavily scrutinized work regarding those with pro-Israeli proclivities.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:21 am

        eGuard, it was more not so much that Israel was important geo-politically, but that
        the USSR was aiding and abetting enemies of Israel–the US saved Israel’s ass during the Yom Kipper war of the early 1970s, and Americans stood in line at the gas pumps due to the retailatory Arab Oil Embargo–we saved Israel with the biggest airlift of
        military supplies to counter the USSR’s supplying the Arabs–it remains the biggest US supportive airlift since the Berlin airlift. We gave Israel immense amount of
        ammo, tanks, fighter jets. Since the fall of the USSR, there’s been no real strategic
        reason to support Israel at all; Israel has been an albatross around Uncle Sam’s neck, and it is increasingly so, not to mention, the US, by rubber-stamping and endlessly funding Israel with no strings attached, has ruined its good reputation and drained the American people–all for a foreign state that gives us the bronx cheer.

      • eGuard
        April 3, 2010, 6:34 pm

        I get the logic. We should add explicitly that helping Israel was for a US interest, to prevent the USSR(-friends) entering the oil countries.

  13. bob
    April 2, 2010, 3:53 pm

    In addition to the neoconservative and lobby information provided here, we also have to note the threat of Israel’s nuclear arms as a means to pressure the US.

    Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel’s conventional weapons edge over its foes.

    • Psychopathic god
      April 2, 2010, 4:38 pm

      in deed. Israel has used its nuclear arsenal to blackmail the US since at least the 1960s.

      Israel has also used financial stealth to blackmail the US since at least the time of the BCC scandal. I wish I could recover the research done on that situation that stated that US congressmen who were involved in attempting to sort out resolution of the banking crisis were terrified of the implications of the chicanery that had taken place, and felt that the only course of action they could pursue was to KEEP IT QUIET.

      That scenario was not far from mind when, on the eve of Yom Kippur last year, Barney Frank led the Congress IN OPPOSITION TO the emails and phone calls of tens of thousands of US citizens, to shovel US tax dollars into the coffers of private banking and insurance agencies. Was this more blackmail?

      (In addition to having a place for criminals to run to, Israel provides banking shelter for Jewish Israelis. And, the US federal reserve opens its credit window to Israel. So Israelis can borrow money from US fed at <1% interest, and sock it away in Israeli banks, which are doing better than are US banks. Can you do that, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer?)

      • Citizen
        April 2, 2010, 4:48 pm

        Just look at the people in Goldman Sachs; their musical chairs in the Fed Reserve–GS was the #1 campaign contributor to both Obama and McCain.

      • Les
        April 2, 2010, 5:17 pm

        One time chairman of the board Jon Corzine, later Governor of New Jersey, was a member of the United Church of Christ. Not Jewish.

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 9:50 am

        There’s always an exception to the rule; I encourage readers here to look into the background of GS leaders, and then again, ditto the Federal Reserve.

      • syvanen
        April 2, 2010, 5:42 pm

        PG US federal reserve opens its credit window to Israel

        I am skeptical. References?

      • Citizen
        April 3, 2010, 10:07 am

        Well, perhaps you coud start here since it’s really hard to pin down proof of what the Federal Reserve allow Israel:

    • Keith
      April 2, 2010, 11:23 pm

      BOB- You bring up an interesting point, not often discussed, namely, Israel’s use of its nuclear arsenal to pressure the U.S. Most folks probably are unaware that in the 1973 Arab/Israeli war, when things initially looked bleak for Israel, Moshe Dayan recommended the use of unconventional (read nuclear) weapons to salvage the day. He was overruled by Golda Meir after she received assurances from the U.S. that we would supply Israel with whatever military equipment was required to prevail. Israel’s potential to initiate a world-wide nuclear conflagration is a significant factor in how the U.S. and other nations deal with Israel. Taking this one step further, while it should be obvious that all of humankind would be much better off without nuclear weapons, the two nations most opposed to such a scenario are the U.S. and Israel.

    • Citizen
      April 3, 2010, 9:47 am

      Hi bob. I haven’t read your referenced url yet, but off the top of my head I remember
      that Nixon and Kissinger were worred about Israel “going nuclear” during the 1973 Yom Kipper war. As you likely know, for this reason we supplied Israel with tons
      of ammo, tanks, and fighter jets (all totally free for Israel) with the biggest airlift since the Berlin airlift, which saved Israel’s ass. And the US people stalled in line at the gas pumps as a result, desperate to pay the ever higher price there.

      • bob
        April 3, 2010, 2:31 pm

        Keith and Citizen, this was also an issue for both gulf wars as well.

  14. Citizen
    April 3, 2010, 10:16 am

    Check out if it’s true that ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, EVERY SINGLE CHAIRMAN of the Fed, without exception, has been Jewish. Certainly the appointment by former President Dubya of Ben Shalom Bernanke as successor to Alan Greenspan makes it appear so, and is Obama changing this tradition? Again check it out.

  15. Caleb
    April 4, 2010, 3:59 pm

    Yep, Gen. Marshall predicted American support for partition of Palestine in an Arab and a Jewish state would harm our relations with the Arabs. What a prophet!
    Only 62 years after creation of the State of Israel, it’s happening. Or is it? Half the Arab states are aligned with Israel, and not very secretly, on the Hamas issue. If Israel took out Iran’s nuclear sites, their protests would be very **sotto voce**.
    Harry Truman, the embodiment of the common man, had no use for the “striped-pants boys” at the State Department or for Big Oil which had George Marshall in its pocket in 1948 and now apparently has purchased Gen. Petraeus.

Leave a Reply