The continuing power of Walt & Mearsheimer

US Politics
on 216 Comments

Ezra Klein has an interesting note about Walt and Mearsheimer. He reports that Jon Chait of the New Republic started writing about Israel because of Walt and Mearsheimer, he was so angry about them; and Klein says he also was drawn into the topic by Walt and Mearsheimer, the Chait-ian reaction against them, which he regarded as "fearful tribalism." Talk about the power of ideas.

I’m in Klein’s camp. I started writing this blog in March 2006 just before W&M published their incredible paper. I’d finally decided to write about Israel (after avoiding the topic all my life) because of a comment a relative made to me in 2003: "What do you think about this war [Iraq]? I demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel." I was shocked and disturbed by the comment. But it was Walt and Mearsheimer who gave me courage. Their bombshell paper echoed the political truth of my relative’s statement. Walt and Mearsheimer said that the neocons, the braintrust for George Bush’s disastrous war, were motivated by Zionism. I remember the day Scott McConnell emailed the paper to me, he had gotten it from Mike Desch that morning, in Texas. The shock of recognition went round the world.

The reaction was vicious. "In Dark Times Blame the Jews," the Forward wrote at the time, a disgraceful headline. Yivo Institute held a panel to denounce the authors as anti-Semites. 

Chait was defensive but Klein is not defensive. And Klein will win. Some day there will be an open conversation inside the Jewish community about the Jewish role in the Iraq war, specifically, ultra-Zionists’ role in selling a policy of permanent war in the Arab world as an American interest. Peter Beinart just further opened the door to this conversation by making it clear that his politics are fueled by Zionism, Beinart who pushed the Iraq war as "the good fight"–a book in whose index the words Israel and Palestine did not appear.

Agree with them or not, Walt and Mearsheimer’s book changed the discourse. They blew the bridge. They opened up a space where no one said you could go. Two realists, they spoke feelingly about the Nakba and the humiliations of the occupation–which all the liberals like Beinart and Ken Pollack and Lawrence Kaplan and Paul Berman had dismissed out of hand.

When their book came out in 2007, I compared it to Silent Spring and Unsafe at Any Speed, and Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. I think that was an understatement.

216 Responses

  1. James
    May 21, 2010, 12:04 am

    thanks for this post phil which also highlights your own personal pathway.. w&m certainly opened a door that wasn’t opened before in a major way and i am grateful to them for that… say what one wants about what they wrote about, they got a conversation going that was sorely needed… thanks for your continuation in the process…

  2. Homer
    May 21, 2010, 12:36 am

    Chait, Beinart and the others illustrate my thesis: There is no such thing as a liberal Zionist – not any more. You can be a liberal or you can be a Zionist, but there is no logical space remaining where you can be both. To deny that or to attempt to evade its implications is simply to undermine one’s own moral integrity.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 6:15 am

      It appears Dick Witty has no problem with that, Homer.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 7:18 am

        Witty doesn’t see a problem with that. But then he’s in denial about a lot of things.

  3. radii
    May 21, 2010, 1:03 am

    W&M + I/P = Functional Peace Deal?

    We can hope that the new transparency leads to good decisions and realist outcomes … it’s never good to ignore an elephant in the living room, particularly when it’s made a shit-pile (zionist influence upon US policy) so big everyone in the room can hardly breathe

  4. MRW
    May 21, 2010, 1:10 am

    I remember M&W on AmericaBlog in 2005 when one of them announced that he was writing a piece on the Israel Lobby under contract to The Atlantic Monthly. We had a lively discussion. Of course, I was writing under a completely different handle then.

    • Homer
      May 21, 2010, 3:32 am

      I wonder if they got paid anything for it, in spite of The Atlantic reneging on the deal.

  5. Richard Witty
    May 21, 2010, 4:47 am

    I think you exagerate its importance.

    And, I really dislike your use of the term “Jews” to equate in any implied way with “neo-conservatives”.

    There are limited truths in the thesis, unless you are adopting the “the Jews control ….” theme.

    • Richard Witty
      May 21, 2010, 4:53 am

      My point on the last sentence is that the significance of Silent Spring, and The Jungle were to open uncharted territory of content of which patterns applied in many applications.

      Do you sincerely believe that Walt/Mearsheimer’s work applies to a parallel of product/process/labor relations that the Jungle described (and that Sinclair was castigated for writing simplistic fiction on.) Or, Silent Spring, that actually did open up the non-fiction inquiry into direct ecological concerns, as well as introducing ecological methodologies.

      I produced an audiobook of The Jungle. One associated experience was of landing a prominent film actor to do the narration, later for the actor to pull out for the propagandistic character of the novel.

      And, still it changed the world. Hundreds of thousands became consumer advocates from reading The Jungle. Tens of thousands became Marxists. Thousands became polemic novelists.

      Do you really believe that Walt/Mearsheimer has that long-term importance?

      Where?

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 6:05 am

        Here’s why Walt & Mearsheimer’s book is so important:

        George Washington said in 1796 in his FAREWELL ADDRESS:
        ….a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification….
        Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

      • MarkF
        May 21, 2010, 10:37 am

        Obviously we won’t know whether W/M will have long-term inportance for a few years, but I believe it’s a pretty important book. I wanted to respond to a previous post of yours about W/M.

        W/M’s thesis is that the Pro-Israel Lobby exerts influence on American foreign policy that is not in the best interests of the U.S. They took painstaking steps to explain that this is perfectly legal, and in their own words, “As American as apple pie”. They laid out their arguement using hiostory and countless instances to support their thesis. What seems like a flogging are just repeated examples, Powell’s visits, Rice’s visits, etc. to support their thesis.

        What parts do you take exception with?

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 4:40 pm

        “Hundreds of thousands became consumer advocates from reading The Jungle. Tens of thousands became Marxists. Thousands became polemic novelists”

        Shows what you know, you dummy. Only 956 people became polemic novelists because of “The Jungle”. I don’t know where you got your figures, but they are inaccurate. Got a link?

    • Dan Kelly
      May 21, 2010, 4:58 am

      And, I really dislike your use of the term “Jews” to equate in any implied way with “neo-conservatives”.

      The only time the word “Jews” was used in the post was when Phil referenced the Forward’s headline.

      Was that a mistake on your part Richard, or are you engaged in intentional obfuscation?

      • Richard Witty
        May 21, 2010, 5:11 am

        “Some day there will be an open conversation inside the Jewish community about the Jewish role in the Iraq war”

      • Julian
        May 21, 2010, 5:54 am

        The Jews brainwashed Bush and Cheney who were actually very much against the war and forced them to attack Iraq for Israel. The reports that Israel warned Bush several times he was going after the wrong enemy are completely untrue. Scott McConnell says so and we all know how unbiased he is.

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 6:13 am

        According to the book Intellectuals and the American Presidency by Tevi Troy, during the early 1970s, both Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney, came under the sway of leading Strauss protégé and Ph.D. student later Professor, Robert Goldwin. Goldwin became director of the Public Affairs Conference Center in Chicago, a Straussian institution. Rumsfeld attended a seminar there. In 1973, Goldwin became Rumsfeld’s deputy when the Congressman accepted Richard Nixon’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO. When Gerald Ford became President, Rumsfeld, and his protégé, Dick Cheney, came to the White House as chief of staff and deputy. Goldwin also came to the White House as special consultant to the President. Goldwin’s first assignment was to organize a small White House seminar for Ford and senior staff. The guest scholar for the kickoff seminar was Irving Kristol.

      • MRW
        May 21, 2010, 8:20 am

        Witty and Julian,

        For the 3rd time here:
        White man’s burden
        By Ari Shavit [April 4, 2003]
        link to haaretz.com

        In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. […] Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don’t think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you’re scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

        War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser
        By Emad Mekay, March 24, 2004
        link to ipsnews.net

        WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) – IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.[…]”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

        “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 10:11 am

        Julian, Cheney was ready to give out no-bid contacts to his friends and was an AEI member (as was his wife).
        But, who knows what was going through George’s mind?
        I think he was on such a high from winning the election, coupled with his own reborn religious spirit. He was on top of the world, and thought anything was possible.

        He later he came crashing to earth, as polling made it apparent he was disliked by a majority of Americans. The Social Security swindle did him in, as he blew all of his ‘political capitol’ he was intending to spend. Too bad, I would’ve liked to have a beer with him – he’s gotta know
        how to chug.

        Added: can you imagine if Wall Street got to gamble with the Social Security money after this crash? Wow, the ‘anti-incumbent’ mood would have been more than palpable today.

      • Psychopathic god
        May 22, 2010, 3:21 am

        buelah the buzzard time, Jules baby.

        Abe Foxman, video, “the Jewish community tried to convince Bush Iraq was the wrong enemy, he should attack Iran. … When he went to war against Iraq, we supported him… The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 5:45 am

      For any interested reader here, here’s a thumbnail sketch of the spreading influence of Jewish neocons in the upper channel of our government–yes, it’s true Cheney and Rumsfeld are not Jews, but otherwise check out the identities of top neocons:
      link to zionismexplained.org

      I really dislike Witty’s feigned ignorance regarding the heavily disproportionate Zionist influence in the top level of our government, especially during Bush Jr’s 8 years.

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 6:00 am

        Even a cursory study of who promoted the war on Iraq in government, think tanks and media shows an overwhelming percentage of pro-Israel Jews, Christian Zionists and, in much smaller numbers, former or current lobbyists for specific corporations that ended up benefiting from the war.

      • Julian
        May 21, 2010, 3:00 pm

        Your link explains how Cheney came under the influence of Zionists. How they brainwashed him. Made him into the Manchurian Vice President. He never would have had those political views otherwise. No chance that Cheney who was a very successful businessman and politician might have hired people who felt like he did.

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 2:41 pm

        “Your link explains how Cheney came under the influence of Zionists. How they brainwashed him. Made him into the Manchurian Vice President. He never would have had those political views otherwise. No chance that Cheney who was a very successful businessman and politician might have hired people who felt like he did.”

        Julian, I’m sure Cheney can think this up for himself when the time comes. You don’t have to provide it to him. “Blame the Jews” is an old game, and I’m sure all the Gentiles who mix with Zionists are aware of its advantages. Cheney will be, too.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 7:09 am

      “One cannot avoid the fact that these accusations of Jewish
      “dual loyalty” point not to traitorous behavior but to something
      else—a conflation of America’s and Israel’s interests. After all, it
      is quite true that while not all neoconservatives are Jews, the ma-
      jority of neoconservatives were, and are, Jewish; it is also true
      that they tend to propose foreign policy goals that support and
      favor Israel. The fact that they argue, and sincerely believe, that
      Israeli and American interests are closely aligned only makes
      them look more “ideological” in the eyes of their critics.”–They Knew They Were Right–The Rise Of The Neocons (2008), at p. 10.

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 7:10 am

        Author is Jacob Heilbrunn.

      • Colin Murray
        May 21, 2010, 9:33 am

        I disagree. While I doubt that neocons ever deliberately harmed America just for the sake of doing so, I don’t believe for a second that they didn’t notice conflicts of interest when a particular pro-Israel policy or war acted against American interests. Any tendency towards ‘genuine’ conflation of interests in their minds is IMO a psychological defense mechanism to avoid having to face the death and suffering they have caused.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 9:54 am

        Even more bizarre during this period, was that if you only watched television news and read the NY Times, you would hardly know that Neoconservatives were in large part Jewish Americans.

        Added, PNAC was way off the radar for news broadcasters. (Although, I suppose it’s verboten for the media poodles to actually cover a series of documents that were the backbone for the middle East war plan to come.) One of PNAC’s first document’s was the letter to Clinton, asking him to take serious action against Saddam [Nearly 3/4 of the signatures were Jewish].
        Isn’t this idea of revolution is core to Jewish professional revolutionaries? It’s a take-over in a sense that is exciting for them, I can see that being on the outside for centuries is a great challenge to capture the flag. But this time, the American Jewish revolution just veered off into dark waters, for Israel’s behalf. They got a bit too thirsty for Uncles Sam’s war chest.
        Years later, Fukuyama was one one the few to denounce Neocon policy.

        link to newamericancentury.org
        clinton letter from Neocons that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding

    • MRW
      May 21, 2010, 8:00 am

      And, I really dislike your use of the term “Jews” to equate in any implied way with “neo-conservatives”.

      Tough.

      White man’s burden
      By Ari Shavit
      link to haaretz.com

      In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 10:55 am

        MRW,
        In The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, you said it was re-written with Abe Foxman, and Foxman had bought all copies of the original 1984 publication. Is the new version worth the read?

      • MRW
        May 21, 2010, 11:42 am

        Chu, it was actually revised a couple of times. The 1990s edition had an editor by the name of Carol-Something-Or-Other. Then there was the Foxman imprimatur.

        About five pages of text were removed from the original. I haven’t made an effort to compare where.

        You really want the book for the bibliography.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 11:53 am

        Ok. I will check out the bibliography. I see a copy of the book with afterword by Foxman. ~25th Anniversary edition.

    • Psychopathic god
      May 21, 2010, 6:38 pm

      “I really dislike your use of the term “Jews” to equate…..

      wa wa wa wa wa

      I dislike that 15 Jews extorted $205 million from my government to supply Israel with more killing machines.

      If one is a dedicated, liberal, humanistic person, which ‘dislike’ has greater moral weight?

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 10:02 pm

        No liberal, humanistic person speaks like you do.

    • traintosiberia
      May 21, 2010, 7:45 pm

      One thing that struck me as an overt attempt by Zionist to make us forget or have any doubt about Isareli role and Jewsih role in Iraq war was their refernce to the fact that majority of US Jews had not supported the war. There is a pervesion in this claim . The Jews were agaisnt the war ( post of March 2003 ) in many polls. But prior to the actual war, the overwhelming majority of Jews like rest of American were for the war.Most of the relevant American Jewish religious organizations were for this war while a good number of catholic and Protestants organizations voiced their opposition to this war.
      The job is done and it is prudent now to claim ( since also it went horribly wrong for US militray and plitical objectives but Israeli purpose already met and no further gain to be met ) that the war was a mistake and should not have been undertaken.
      If Jews community were sincere, they would have come out strongly against anti -Iranian war rhetoric now and not at a future date after the job is done .

      • Psychopathic god
        May 21, 2010, 8:07 pm

        Beinart’s article, acclaimed as earthshaking, STILL recites the Credo in unum Deo of contemporary zionist thought:

        Of course, the Holocaust is immeasurably worse than anything Israel has done or ever will do.

        and

        Yes, Israel faces threats from Hezbollah and Hamas. Yes, Israelis understandably worry about a nuclear Iran.

        wake me when Israelis (dassn’t say Jews) acknowledge that Hezbollah and Hamas ‘threaten’ Israel because Israel is oppressing, humiliating, dispossessing, killing, stealing from Palestinians. And when Israelis stop lying to themselves about Iran posing a nuclear threat.

  6. MHughes976
    May 21, 2010, 5:58 am

    The noun ‘Jew’ is one I flinch from using, since I find it so contaminated by the horrible antisemitism ‘the Jew X’ and by the worrying usage of some early 20th century intellectuals who made the lower-case ‘jew’ mean ‘international capitalist’. The adjective ‘Jewish’ is less contaminated. I notice that Ezra Klein in the article cited says ‘I’m Jewish’, not ‘I’m a Jew.’
    There’s a whole series of phrases like ‘the necon contribution to the Iraq war’, ‘the Zionist contribution’, ‘the Jewish contribution’, ‘the Christian contribution’. None of these refer to quite the same thing but the things they refer to are all interrelated.
    The Zionist belief that Israel is a democracy subject to the unjust hostility of the Arab states and the post-Cold War neocon belief that democracies never go to war with each other combine logically (George Bush was not illogical in this respect) to say that the key to long-term peace in the ME is the democratisation of Araby, if necessary by short-term war in which ‘allied’ armies would be essentially welcome, even if ‘pelted with flowers’ was a bit of excessive hope. This was in turn related closely to the expectation that Palestinian ‘moderates’ would, after a few natural difficulties, put things right for us.
    M and W trace the political power of a lobby with a bottomless pit of money but they are also tracing the power of an idea which fitted beautifully with the mood of the times. The reaction has come about because the idea was discredited in Iraq and the discredit then spread from Iraq to Palestine.

    • RoHa
      May 21, 2010, 6:04 am

      Jew or Jewish?

      In New York I was once accosted by a Guy in a black coat and hat who asked me “Are you Jewish?”

      “Only slightly, ” I replied, and used his confusion to make my escape.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 21, 2010, 7:15 am

        Funny you’re mentioning that RoHa. The same thing happened to me in Paris. One guy holding pamphlets approaches me and asks “Are you a young Jew? (Etes vous un jeune juif ? ) .I replied no and walked away but later I kept thinking why he asked me if I’m a “young Jew” and not simply ‘are you a Jew’. I realised then that this would have been too blunt a question, and somehow young made it less in your face.
        I find Jewish to be much more to the point as there are nothing of the connotations one apprehends when using the word “Jew”.

      • Shmuel
        May 21, 2010, 7:40 am

        Lubavitchers, God love ‘em, out collecting the sparks of holiness from the husks of impurity (see Luria, Isaac: Breaking of the Vessels). Get a lost Jew to perform his religious obligations, hasten the coming of the Messiah. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. I always come up with smart-ass answers after such encounters, but never have the heart to insult these earnest young men to their faces.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 11:00 am

        Me too. I keep quiet, since they’re just kiddies. I don’t look Jewish, so it’s strange that they ask. But I guess they have to canvass the area and report back to the great Winnebago nearby.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 11:10 am

        Wow, those Lubbivitchers are just like Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have heavy requirements regarding public outreach too!

        I tell you, some day that complete set of Watchtower and Awake! I’ve been keeping will be worth more than old Superman comics.
        They will be cultural icons for the homoerotic implications and sexual subtexts in the in the artwork alone. Of course, I only get them for the articles, I don’t look at the fold-outs.

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 6:48 am

        I don’t look Jewish, so it’s strange that they ask.

        Can you link to an imagine of “visual Jewishness”? Somebody that looks typically Jewish?

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 6:49 am

        I meant “image” of course.

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 12:41 pm

        Some guy comes to my home every couple of months. He gives me a few Awakes, chats briefly, and then he’s on his way. This has been going on for a few years now. He’s middle aged, nice, polite, and doesn’t preach. I originally let him in as I was over-working myself on a writing project, and I need a few moments respite. He even gave me one of their bibles. But I’m just a hopeless agnostic by default–not even on principle. I guess that is because every word ever written was written by a human being. It doesn’t do much for me when someone says something written was inspired by God. Or by, say L Ron Hubbard.

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 12:58 pm

        Well, in my experience living and working among Jewish people, and it is considerable, they do not look typically Scandinavian, for example. OTH, for example, that Blumenthal politico guy who lied four times about being a Vietnam War veteran–in the USA news lately–looks like Reynhard Heydrich with a pan face rather than an oblong face.

    • Shmuel
      May 21, 2010, 6:39 am

      In the end, it’s mostly a matter of grammar. Jew as an adjective (“Jew lawyer”) or a verb (goes without saying) is very bad, as is Jew in a collective sense, preceded by a definite article. I have no problem referring to myself as “a Jew” or “Jewish”, depending perhaps on the context.

      In Italian things get a little more complicated. The word “israelita” or “israelitico” is simply archaic; “giudio” is archaic and offensive (but acceptable among Jews); “ebreo” is the accepted noun and “ebraico” the accepted adjective; “israeliano” (Israeli – noun and adjective) for “Jew” is a common misunderstanding, which I often find myself correcting.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 1:59 pm

        I have always been taught it’s really bad form to ask a person’s religion, unless there is a valid reason to do so, and there hardly ever is.
        I usually answer the question, when asked with “I’m a Jew, you got a fucking problem with that?” And then we go downhill from there.

        And nobody, anywhere, ever, asks you what your religion is for a constructive reason. The question itself is a good reason to give anybody who asks in a wide berth, or the complete miss-in-baulk.

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:04 pm

        I sort of agree with Mooser here. I’m old and I’ve rarely asked or been asked about religion. It’s different if I find myself talking philosophy or religion with others outside the public arena–this sometimes happens also when morality comes into play while discussing some political issue of the day, or history–again, usually outside the public arena, e.g., at some bar, or restaurant, etc.

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:05 pm

        I mean, as public arena, a bar or restaurant, etc.

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 6:52 am

        the German equivalent for “ebreo” “ebraico” was used in administrative registers in Germany, which ultimately would lead us back to the origins of race in 19th century linguistic studies.

    • Psychopathic god
      May 21, 2010, 8:12 pm

      why waste your energy, MHughes?
      Why should anyone have to walk on eggshells around Jews or ANYONE who involves other people’s children in illegal wars? Too fragile to be called Jew but not too fragile to lie a nation into war, to kill thousands, millions? gimme a break.

      where I come from people EARN respect and deference.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2010, 2:30 am

        Where I come from, respect and deference are given to all, unless they have shown themselves unworthy – on an individual basis. MHughes seems to come from the same place.

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:05 pm

        I come from this place too.

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 5:32 am

        No one here demands to “walk on eggshells around Jews.” Besides what exactly does it mean?

        Too fragile to be called Jew but not too fragile to lie a nation into war, to kill thousands, millions?

        “Phenomenologically” I can’t think of a better word, I somehow agree that a specific group of Jewish/Israeli/American people, neocons and others were highly perceptible in supporting “WWIII/IV”. Yaron Brook, e.g. denies to be a neocon, but he too demanded to nuke the Arabs into surrender. But I was also highly focused on the subject, so they had to stick out for me.

        Even a few well-known German Jews suddenly surfaced supporting the war and George Bush ardently. The larger context was more irritating, e.g. here in Cologne a prominent German Jew, I used to deeply respect and about whom I am a bit hesitant by now, surfaced as an antagonist against the mainly Turkish German Muslims or the mosque they will build here. But all this was deeply interwoven with larger cultural issues: “The headscarf insults my eyes” I do not feel very comfortable with.

        So yes, it felt that many prominent Jewish citizen were active in propagating the image of the Arab/Muslim foe and George Bush, Junior’s great war of the good versus the evil.

        But what does this tell us about “the Jews” generally speaking? And at what point turns the: “the Jews” lied us into the war, into a convenient scapegoat? What about the American majority that reelected George Bush II. Was this their way to show their non-support for his wars? Why should they get a free path?

        Basically I think. Hadn’t these specific Jewish voices been so perceptible, we wouldn’t be having this debate now. But we have also to ask ourself, why did Susan Sontag’s (a Jewess, to use a word American feminists and some Jews I know are very suspicious about) views concerning the War on Terrorism have no chance to find a larger audience in America at the time? Brzezinski’s, or anybody else’s that was critical of the larger fight for “democracy”?

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 5:34 am

        the late Susan Sontag’s … had no chance to find a larger audience in America at the time?

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:09 pm

        You’re right, LeaNder. The American majority did reelect Shrub; they have their own ignorance to blame.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 10:14 pm

        “the American majority that reelected George Bush II.”

        [Snigger] Sure, the majority re-elected him. You keep telling yourself that.

        [RoHa rubs hands with glee while gloating over his shares in Diebold.]

    • LeaNder
      May 22, 2010, 6:38 am

      The noun ‘Jew’ is one I flinch from using,

      I witnessed both the paradox of avoiding the word, and being attracted to Jewish people. I perceived shared concerns, interests, not only concerning the German past. … Thus I would never a second hesitate to talk about “a Jewish” friend, when this was an important part of what attracted me to the person in the first place, e.g. his specific feelings in walking German post WWII ground and pointing out things to me, I hadn’t paid attention to before.

      The problem I think is we have is that we have two different usages of the word Jew. One is simply a category, like Catholics to leave out the national aspect: the nation among nations, as too complex here. The other usage essentially is an term of abuse. In it’s core it’s similar to other national prejudices, but it also attracted a whole range of scapegoat dynamics over the centuries. …

      The above shared interests , I mentioned would be highly suspicious for an ardent late 19th century antisemite. From his perspective “the Jews” were disliked ever since they left Egypt, they have fixed specific traits are very different from other tribes but more importantly these traits seem to be contagious for society at large in which “the nation among nations” resides. (at the end of the page:)

      Endner also seems to hold that persons of non-Jewish (or non-semitic) “stock” also fall under the category “Jew” … as soon as they display cultural-economic “Jewish characteristics”

      So we have the good German, and the evil Jews with a sort of contagious disease. Like wanting to live a decent live according to his own design not the ideas of some authorities?
      “the Jew”, the abusive term.
      There was a really peculiar story in a East German village or small town a couple of years ago. Much unemployment and only one well off business man in town. This guy seems to have sponsored alcohol for mass entertainments. The core of these entertainments consisted of choosing one “Jew” among the crowd and humiliate him. This ended with one such “non-Jew” as “the Jew”, a young guy, dead. I don’t remember the story too well by now. But I think he had been an outsider before and he didn’t like the rise of the right in the East.

  7. RoHa
    May 21, 2010, 6:06 am

    “Walt and Mearsheimer’s book changed the discourse. They blew the bridge. They opened up a space where no one said you could go”

    In America, maybe. The Jewish Lobby was no secret to the rest of the world.

    • Richard Witty
      May 21, 2010, 6:52 am

      “The Jewish Lobby was no secret to the rest of the world. ”

      Don’t prove Chait’s point.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 7:19 am

        You prove Homer’s point on a daily basis. Physician heal thyself.

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 7:21 am

        Chait says he endorses Peter Beinart’s disgust with the Israeli right and the complacency of the U.S. Jewish leadership. What Chait point are you talking about, Richard Witty?

      • Citizen
        May 21, 2010, 7:24 am

        That one cannot be a liberal and be a Zionist?

  8. DavidSiden
    May 21, 2010, 7:52 am

    link to americanthinker.com
    The lies of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
    Mearsheimer and Walt will probably say Shamir and the Israeli lobby was behind this article.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 8:09 am

      DavidSiden, name one lie in M & W’s The Israel Lobby.

    • Shafiq
      May 21, 2010, 8:42 am

      Do you deny that an Israel lobby exists?
      Do you deny that said lobby is extremely influential in the US?
      Do you deny that this Israel lobby enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, which was the biggest mistake in recent US Foreign Policy history?

    • MarkF
      May 21, 2010, 12:44 pm

      No, just two guys who are debating W/M’s points.

      One point about 1991 Gulf War. W/M argues Israel was a liability as an ally. Israel was asked not to get into the war because it would break the coalition. So even though the U.S. provides weaons and aid, the U.S. could not rely on help from Israel, and the U.S. had to expend even more money to privide missle defense for Israel.

      That’s just looking at this particular situation objectively, isn’t it?

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:25 pm

        Well, that depends. Why would Israel break the coalition? Because the Arab states would prefer to have Kuwait overrun than be part of a coalition to protect it that include Israel. Seems to me the weak link here is the Arab states, not Israel. So, yes, if you favor a skin-deep analysis that comes from an ultra-realist POV, I suppose you could argue that Israel is a liability. Hey, if we abandon Israel, maybe we can get some more cheap oil. Is that what you support? More cheap oil? Because I can’t see what else the Arabs have to offer, and I don’t think they’re offering even that.

        And by the way, take it in a different direction. Let’s say we were not allied with Israel. Iraq did not attack Kuwait because we were allied with Israel. We still would have had to attack Iraq, Israel or no Israel. The only difference is that Israel, acting in its own best interest, definitely would have attacked as well. Instead, Israel subdued its own best interests to that of the US. The coalition worked just fine, and we won easily.

        What did the coalition get us, by the way? We ended up in Saudi Arabia with big military bases there. This is supposedly one of the major reasons Osama bin Laden and the Muslim world hates us – the military bases we had in Saudi Arabia that we got because of our alliance with them. So where’s M & W’s call for abandoned that relationship, a relationship with the most totalitarian of states who provide nothing for us but cheap oil?

      • MarkF
        May 21, 2010, 2:18 pm

        No, I don’t support abonding Israel for cheap oil. My arguement doesn’t factor in oil. I’m simply(skin-deep I guess) looking at return on investment. In order to put a coalition together to push Iraq out of Kuwait we could not include Israel in any military coalition against Iraq.

        Now I agree with you about the troops on Saudi soil. That’s one of the reasons we were hit on 911.

        M & W does NOT call for abandoning a relationship with Israel. They argue that we treat them the same as any other country that we have good diplomatic relations. They also support coming to Israel’s aid if Israel is in need.

        You ask what the Arabs have to offer – well for one, they actually would BUY arms from us without U.S. taxpayer subsidies. Israel gets arms from us using our tax dollars. Are you implying you would rather provide U.S. tax subsidies to the armament industry?

      • traintosiberia
        May 21, 2010, 10:48 pm

        For you get cheap oil which supports the ‘American way of life” as declared by Sr Bush.
        For Saudi pays for the military ( only outsourcing where US benefits)
        Israel forced US hand in attcking Iraq over Kuwait a did Lantos/Liberman/Pollock/Bolton/and AIPAC who claimed to have played the role.
        Remeber Bush being called “wimp” by Zionist media!After the war it were same nefarious bunch Wolfowitz and Pearle and other who were ” disgusted ” with Bush policy of not removing Saddam .

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:22 pm

        Anybody want to guess what would have happened if the US allowed Israel to join the coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War? I imagine Iraq would have sowed immediate dissent in the Arab part of the coalition by pointing out that Arabs were attacking Arabs with the aid of the Jews. While the members of the Arab coalition–the leaders thereof, were worried if Iraq got away with his plan, they might be next in Iraq’s agenda, they were probably more worried if they were seen as turning Arab against Arab to favor the Jews.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 10:20 pm

        The US had huge military bases in Saudi Arabia long before Iraq invaded Kuwait.

        And it was a US ambasador, April Glaspie, who gave Saddam the green light on invading Kuwait.

        (Iraq did have a case against Kuwait, though not one that justifies war.)

    • MarkF
      May 21, 2010, 12:56 pm

      “The authors argue that AIPAC has been little more than a Likud Party mouthpiece. This charge is also ridiculous, and if either of the authors had ever deigned to attend an AIPAC policy conference, they would be well aware of the vigorous policy debate that always goes on, and the range of views on Middle East policy that are represented within the organization, whether the topic be Iraq, Iran, the peace process or the territories.”

      Actually, this part of A.T.’s article is a blatant lie, What “vigorous debate” on Iran took place during the last AIPAC meeting? Please, it’s so obvious there’s very little to no policy debate, that’s why J Street was formed to counter the Clean Break crowd that dominates AIPAC.

      W/M uses quotes and resources to support their thesis.

    • traintosiberia
      May 21, 2010, 8:05 pm

      I read “Deadliest Lies ” by ADL guy Foxman. It is full of holes Its counter argumnets are collected from sources emanating from Pipes, Pearle,Indyk,Podohoretz,Krystol and Bolton! Those points then are not followed up with available facts that could expose thier dishonesty or distortions.

      One simple question is will Isareli firster acknowledge the facts that they are propelling US for war aginst Iran . In what way is this diferent than the Iraq war preparation?

    • traintosiberia
      May 21, 2010, 10:41 pm

      First Gulf war was funded by Saudi Arab. Period.US did not spend more than 5 billions out of 40 billions.
      US did not need Israel to inflame the situation any further than what it was already without adding any benefit to the overarching goal of the coalition.
      Israel did not object or fuss for its widely reported demand that if US did not attack Iraq , it would attack ( made by its war hungry FM Mr Levy in 1990 ) was met to the letter by US.
      Israel did endure some scud and parade of gas mask which fitted well to its doctrine of victimology.
      One American had a chance to contribute to US effort but he decided to work for IDF.

  9. DavidSiden
    May 21, 2010, 7:54 am

    Citizen says,
    I really dislike Witty’s feigned ignorance regarding the heavily disproportionate Zionist influence in the top level of our government, especially during Bush Jr’s 8 years.

    Citizen you would have been a great writer for Deir Stumer with your garbage.

    • MRW
      May 21, 2010, 8:04 am

      I repeat:

      White man’s burden
      By Ari Shavit
      link to haaretz.com

    • thankgodimatheist
      May 21, 2010, 8:07 am

      You would have been a great writer for massada2000, Davidsiden. Imagine working on the S.H.I.T list. You would have loved the job of smearing your fellow Jews who disagree with you.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 8:14 am

      Readers, compare what DavidSigen says here about me with my comments above in this thread. It’s obvious he can not write in the German language, and I submit, equally obvious he’s not very thoughtful.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 21, 2010, 8:25 am

        Citizen ..Report him as I did..There should be zero tolerance for the slanderers, the fakers, the forgers and co.!

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 21, 2010, 8:51 am

        BTW, I have no doubts DavidS is Shamir. He never answers with the reply button. Like Shamir used to do, he opens a new thread.

      • lareineblanche
        May 21, 2010, 9:00 am

        “DavidSiden” is a senile fool, Citizen. Ignore him.

  10. thankgodimatheist
    May 21, 2010, 8:02 am

    Wall Street Journal: Palestinians make surprisingly large land offer to Israel

    In framework of proximity talks, Palestinian negotiators have reportedly proposed giving up twice the West Bank territory Abbas offered Olmert.
    The Palestinian Authority has offered surprising concessions to Israel regarding borders for a future state, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
    In the framework of proximity peace talks now being mediated by the United States’ special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, Palestinian negotiators have reportedly offered to match and even double the amount of West Bank land territory that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas offered to former prime minister Ehud Olmert during their one-on-one 2008 talks.
    link to haaretz.com

    • thankgodimatheist
      May 21, 2010, 8:20 am

      If peace is to come out of this, there’s a lot to explain by Abbas to the Palestinian people. Doing it because “he wants Mitchel to succeed and not waste his time” as he’s saying, is not going to cut it.

      • MRW
        May 21, 2010, 8:23 am

        Someone’s getting some serious coin.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 21, 2010, 8:30 am

        One should think. But it could also be a clever bluff .l. He may be checking Netanyahu’s seriousness about a peace deal. It could be. Too early to judge but I’m not very hopeful.

      • Julian
        May 21, 2010, 3:23 pm

        The minor land exchanges were never the real issue. The real issue is right of return. No Palestinian leader will ever give that up and Israel will not accept more than a few thousand Arabs into Israel.

      • Shingo
        May 21, 2010, 4:51 pm

        “The real issue is right of return. No Palestinian leader will ever give that up and Israel will not accept more than a few thousand Arabs into Israel. ”

        …along with the status of Jerusalem, the roads that divide teh West Bank into non contiguous cantons, the control fo fresh water, the control of the port port of Gaza, self determinationa and Palestinain sovereignty.

  11. DavidSiden
    May 21, 2010, 8:33 am

    Citizen read the article to see all of their lies.
    link to americanthinker.com

    • Chu
      May 21, 2010, 9:33 am

      W & M were a massive torpedo in the side of the Zionist ship. The article says Walt and Mearsheimer have an axe to grind with Israel, and they are free to do so. The problem for you is that W & M still stand their ground and are winning the battle.
      David, People are allowed to dislike Israel in this country. It’s something you’ll have to accept. The more fascist they become over the next years, the more the US public will realize what we’re supporting is a corrupted enterprise. In time, the US media will look more idiotic defending them as they’ve lost their course. The ship is sinking and you probably could not disagree.
      If Israel were a great democracy and it and actually negotiated the borders, Israel would see American support returning. But the establishment is going insane. They are gonna have to eat crow soon enough.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 11:10 am

      DavidSiden. I read The Israel Lobby, and paid close attention to the myriad of footnote sources, all mainstream, all accurate.

      • Colin Murray
        May 21, 2010, 11:21 am

        They were detailed to the point of tedium. I can understand if someone doesn’t agree with their argument, but anyone was says it was unsupported either hasn’t cracked open the book or is a liar.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 10:42 pm

        That’s they way we do it in academic life. The aim is to bore the reader into submission – agreement – by piling reference upon reference until they scream “No more! I give in!” The trouble is that academics are so well trained in this that they have developed incredibly high levels of tolerance to tedium, and will not crack under even the heaviest burden of footnotes. Other methods have to be used.

        “You expect me to agree, Mr. Dershowitz?”
        “No, Mr. Finkelstein. I expect you to get fired.”

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 11:28 am

      DavidSiden. I read the zionist article you suggested; its contents have been debunked here many times. Further, W & M wrote a point by point definitive response to the various shaky and over-the-top criticisms of their well-researched book–it’s quite long and detailed:
      link to mearsheimer.uchicago.edu.

  12. Nevada Ned
    May 21, 2010, 9:13 am

    The arguments about the Israel Lobby made by Walt and Mearsheimer were not new. What was new is that two card-carrying members of the Establishment made those arguments, in public.
    And what about “the Jews?” Opposition to the war in Iraq was higher among American Jews than it was among American gentiles. The neoconservatives are a minority among American Jews, because the neocons are mostly Republicans, while Jews are mostly Democrats. So I would say that the neoconservatives are mostly Jewish, but most US Jews are liberal democrats.
    I could also add that some of the strongest critics of Israel’s behavior are Jewish.
    (Finkelstein, Chomsky).

    • RoHa
      May 21, 2010, 10:06 am

      And they backed up the argument with solid research.

  13. Colin Murray
    May 21, 2010, 9:46 am

    …because the neocons are mostly Republicans, while Jews are mostly Democrats.

    The voting patterns of American Jews, predominately Democratic as you point out, don’t correlate with the political activity of Zionist extremists. Extremists do not, by definition, move in tandem with whatever group they are considered extreme from.

    Don’t forget Democratic party ‘neoliberals’, e.g. Dennis Ross. They are the same item with a different name. Dems and Repubs alternate power, therefore both must be covered to ensure continuity in Israel-first policy.

    • Colin Murray
      May 21, 2010, 9:48 am

      submit too quickly argg..

      They are the same item with a different name. -> Neoliberals are the same item as neoconservatives, merely with a different name.

  14. hophmi
    May 21, 2010, 10:09 am

    Walt and Mearsheimer’s paper was a load of crap that wouldn’t pass a first-year international relations seminar. But, of course, it was an anti-Zionist wet dream, so anti-Zionists ignored the lack of sourcing, excused the inexcusably broad brush with they painted, and ignored the fact that they were standing up for two ultrarealists who would advocate throwing their grandmothers and yours down a flight of steps if it was in the nation’s “best interests.” You’re standing up for guys who have no problem supporting right-wing dictatorships if it’s the most politically expedient thing to do. That’s what passes for left-wing these days, and that is how utterly obsessed you people are with bashing Israel.

    Phil has long pushed this Buchananite idea that the Jews were responsible for Iraq, ignoring the fact that the country supported the war, Congress voted for it, and the President of the United States was the son of the last guy to go to war with Iraq, a guy who was certainly not known for keeping lots of Zionists around. To him, it’s all a big Zionist plot, even though Israel has always been more worried about Iran than Iraq, and the Iraq War greatly emboldened Iran.

    Jews were active in the civil rights movements. They form 13 percent of the US Senate, and the vast majority are Democrats. They are active across the political spectrum, and that includes some conservative causes. They make up a disproportionate percentage of the intellectual class of this country. But that doesn’t make a policy that some of them support any more a “Jewish policy” than any other policy. Someday, Phil, at this rate, there’s also going to be another discussion, and this one will be about the role of the Jewish anti-Zionists in dismantling the world’s only Jewish state. Can we blame the Jews for that too? They’re overrepresented in the anti-Zionist movement as well. Can we blame them for everything the Soviet Union did wrong because they were overrepresented in the Bolshevik movement? Do you get me now? Stop bashing your own people and stop pushing a transparently antisemitic idea that because Jews are involved in a political cause, it is a Jewish political cause.

    • Cliff
      May 21, 2010, 10:11 am

      Absolutely nothing you said deals w/ the ideas in the book and the first paragraph especially is just pure screed.

      The last paragraph is full of partial and/or superficial truths.

      Whine more, liar. As if you’re nonsense hasn’t been puked all over the net before. Get some new material.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 11:34 am

        I am talking about the paper, not the book. The paper was not especially sophisticated. Phil saw what he wanted to see. People like Chomsky disagree with Phil and say that W & M blamed the Zionists for a problem with American foreign policy as a whole.

        Meirsheimer in particular is one of the most hardcore realists out there. That I describe his position hyperbolically does not change the fact that the guy does not have much credibility to talk about the importance of human rights, because that is just not something he cares much about. The widespread support for his thesis on the left just indicates how obsessed some of you are with this conflict, to the ignorance of much worse ones around the world, and just how much you are willing to get into bed with anyone who criticizes Israel, no matter how disgusting their outlook is.

        My last paragraph makes the point that blaming the Jews for a political policy that some of their co-religionists were involved in creating is an old game that is no less hateful when the policy is right-wing. There’s no more need for Jews to talk about “Jewish” involvement in the Iraq War than there is to talk about Jewish involvement in civil rights, Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution, or Jewish involvement in anything else. Each policy had little to do with Judaism. Just like the vast majority of the supporters and proponents of these policies, people who were not Jewish, the Jewish proponents thought they were acting in the best interests of their societies. To claim that any one of these policies is a “Jewish” policy, as people did with Communism, American intervention in WWII, liberalism in general, and as Pat Buchanan does repeatedly with everything, most recently by asking whether the Supreme Court needed another Jewish justice, is antisemitism of the most basic sort.

        Whine more, liar.

        It’s always nice when people like you make my points for me by acting like jerks. My conscience is clear.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 11:37 am

        As opposed to you?

        That’s what passes for left-wing these days, and that is how utterly obsessed you people are with bashing Israel.

        You’re nothing more than a right-wing hack who was dispatched here to tilt at windmills.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:12 pm

        I’m not right-wing, and nobody dispatched me.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 2:02 pm

        “and nobody dispatched me.”

        Can’t get a break, can we? Well, maybe somebody will.

      • Colin Murray
        May 21, 2010, 3:05 pm

        Ouch. Mooser, that was cruel. :)

    • Chu
      May 21, 2010, 10:44 am

      Hophmi, Jews are in part responsible for Iraq. Not all Jews, but some of the blame should be accredited to them. Richard Pearle tried to cut and run from blame, but he is as guilty as any old prince of darkness. You need to accept that before you say Jews have supported good causes, like civil rights. Does this give provide cover for future misdeeds?

      In the US, we do not have to support Israel blindly. I think that is what this site is about in part, exposing some of the media lies, which is a good thing for even people like yourself, who may not want to accept it. But if you don’t like the story, just don’t read it. (And don’t bring up the Bolsheviks, or Wilhelm Marr.)

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 11:05 am

        “Not all Jews, but some of the blame should be accredited to them.”

        Can you provide a link to Judaism Central.com so I can read the Papalwitz bulls on the issues? I realise that not all Jews, like not all Catholics, follow exactly the proscription of the Holy See, but for those who do, will you please show us the intersection of Judaism and responsibility for the Iraq war?
        Not Israel, or Zionism, pal- you said “Jew”.

        If you can’t tell the difference, you really have no business commenting on the issue, and you consistently can’t.

        By the way, “Jews” did not support the Civil Rights movement either! Nope, Jewish individuals did, and certain mostly Jewish organisations.

        And BTW if “Jews” are partly responsible, how would you mete out punishment? Orthodox, being the most Jewish, get the stiffest penalties, with Reform getting a slap on the wrist?

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 11:41 am

        well maybe the language is vague, but try this on.
        Christians are in part responsible for Iraq. Not all Christians, but some of the blame should be accredited to them.
        Are ‘Zionists’ the right word to apply in this case?

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 11:43 am

        Yes. Sarah Palin is still a Zionist, even if her motivation for getting the Jews into virtual boxcars and sending them off to “rebuild” Israel is only so that Jesus Christ can return and smite them all for being faithless.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:14 pm

        “well maybe the language is vague, but try this on.
        Christians are in part responsible for Iraq. Not all Christians, but some of the blame should be accredited to them.”

        I don’t see anybody saying that, and that is the whole point, even though it is as true and untrue as saying Jews are in part responsible. Mostly it’s untrue because most people who supported Iraq did so because of their political beliefs, not their religious beliefs.

      • Cliff
        May 21, 2010, 1:30 pm

        I agree. I don’t see people saying ‘Christians’ are responsible for Iraq, however, the whole ‘Clash of Civilizations’ paradigm evokes that notion partially. I mean, it may just be a label and you don’t think too much about it because ‘Christian/Liberal/Free’ is ‘us’ and everything else is ‘them’. I’ve only heard the far-right articulate it in full, like Nick Griffin (‘Islam is a religion of the dust and night’ vs. ‘Christianity is a religion of green hills and sunshine’):

        link to youtube.com

        I’ve heard ‘Christian Fascists’ (Chris Hedges). And we’ve heard Islamonazi/Islamofascism/etc. from the far-right Zionists. I wouldn’t put it past Liberal Zionists from saying the same things.

        And ‘Judeonazi’ was coined by an Israeli afaik. I forget the name but he was a well-known academic on the left.

        Anyway – it’s fair to say Zionist Jew. There is a difference between A Zionist Jew and a Christian Zionist.

        And Jewishness in a particular context, does matter. Not the religion in the details, but how Zionist Jews use the religion for political goals. Altho, the political and even religious goals of a Christian Zio is different from a Jewish one. They both need perpetual war in the ME though.

        Zionism is the problem. The destabilizing logic, which causes war after war, apartheid, racism, and the subjugation of an entire people so ‘the Jewish people’ (Europeans) can be ‘safe’.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:46 pm

        Well, I think Islamofascism is a fair term to use to describe Salafist Islam without drawing the Islamophobic charge because its proponents are Muslim religious leaders and its ideology is totalitarian and exclusivist, but I accept that it is politically loaded.

        Judeonazi is far, far more loaded, and frankly highly inaccurate to describe proponents of a state that is democratic with full civil and political rights.

        “Altho, the political and even religious goals of a Christian Zio is different from a Jewish one. They both need perpetual war in the ME though.”

        I think that’s ridiculous. I don’t know any Zionists who want perpetual war in the Middle East.

        “Zionism is the problem. The destabilizing logic, which causes war after war, apartheid, racism, and the subjugation of an entire people so ‘the Jewish people’ (Europeans) can be ’safe’. ”

        The Jewish people are not all “Europeans.” Give me a break. Half the population comes from Arab countries, and the ones descended from “Europeans” are descended from people who were kicked out of every European country. You’d rather we be at the mercy of Nazis and European indifference, please be honest about saying it. Even Edward Said recognized the injustice of your statement.

      • lareineblanche
        May 21, 2010, 2:05 pm

        Judeonazi is far, far more loaded,
        Agreed, and constantly bringing up the Nazis obfuscates crimes that are going on in the present by making a dubious comparison.
        Although it is impossible to defend the idea that there is no discrimination, ethnic cleansing and general racist policies being enacted in Israel and the occupied territories. The term “Nazi” is not warranted, but does that make what’s happening any more justifiable?

        “…and frankly highly inaccurate to describe proponents of a state that is democratic with full civil and political rights. “
        For whom?

      • andrew r
        May 21, 2010, 2:25 pm

        Yeshayahu Leibowitz coined “Judeonazi” to describe the occupation of the remaining 22% of Palestine and Lebanon. He was on the opposite end of the liberal Zionist spectrum from Witty; although he described the nakba as a ‘war of liberation’, he began criticizing the Israeli state for its militant actions from Qibya on.

        I have a collection of his writings and the Judeonazi remark is absent. From reading the foreward the editor obviously respected him more for his religious philosophy than his political views.

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 2:55 pm

        Zionists, is usually the right word. Best to avoid the use of the word “Jews”. I’m just saying this cause it will always work to your advantage (in this debate, IP issues) to use the word Zionist, unless you mean for some specific reason “Jewish” or Jews (Jewish Holidays, for instance).
        Further more, its much more factual. The Zionists were a small number of individuals (yes almost all Jewish) who worked as individuals or with in organisational framework. There is no organisational framework in Judaism (religion and culture) for a project like Zionism. There is even more significantly no framework in Judaism, as it existed then, through which the concept and actions of ZIonism could be debated, and approved or disapproved or moderated in any way.
        Okay? The Zionists did not receive the approval of the “Jewish community” or “the Jews” there is not even a possible way it could have been granted!
        They took it, goddammit! Look, think of any advertising slogan “The Best….” “The New…” and so many others, who validates them? Who substantiates them? Same exact process with Zionism and the Jews. There was simply no mechanism through which “the Jews” could tell the Zionists “No, not in our name”, but the Zonists didn’t let that bother them.
        You can’t lose saying Zionists, or Zionist-supporters, or Israelis, or American supporters of Israel, whichever is appropriate. For an awful lot of reasons “Jews” or “the Jews” is a loser, a locution which sets you back in your argument. Leave those locutions to real anti-semites, there will be plenty of those, and Israel is giving them every advantage.

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 2:56 pm

        And if I wasn’t sincere about this, I would not have used italic and bold at once!

      • seanmcbride
        May 22, 2010, 3:05 pm

        How about “pro-Israel activists.”

      • hophmi
        May 23, 2010, 12:01 am

        In other words, don’t use “Jews” because then it will be clear that you’re an antisemite. Using the term “Zionist” allows you to maintain plausible deniability, say vicious things, and whine about how people are accusing you of Jew-baiting when all you’re doing is criticizing Zionists, whether you’re actually accused of antisemitism or not.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 12:06 pm

        “Hophmi, Jews are in part responsible for Iraq. Not all Jews, but some of the blame should be accredited to them”

        Who is “them?” Catholics are in part responsible for Iraq. Protestants are in part responsible for Iraq. Muslims are in part responsible for Iraq. Do you call for blaming the Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims? George W. Bush is definitely to blame? So is it OK for me to say, “that damn Methodist Protestant Bush” like you say, “that damn Jew, Perle?”

        And all of you completely miss the point when I say the some Jews supported the civil rights movement or that some Jews supported the Communist movement. The point is not that civil rights was a Jewish thing. The point is that just as some Jews supported the Iraq War, some Jews supported civil rights, but it’s not any more accurate to describe the civil rights movement as a “Jewish” movement” than it is to describe the Iraq War as a “Jewish” or “ultra-Zionist” war because some conservative Jews supported it. The point is that Jews are traditionally overrepresented in politically active groups, and that there is long and disreputable pattern of political opponents of those groups insinuating that it was Jewish influence that made that group act as it did or support the policy that it did. Most of time, it’s been a left-wing policy that has been the target of this kind of thing, but the fact that it is a right-wing policy does not make the insinuation any more right or any less antisemitic.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 12:11 pm

        I think I can agree with that — it was ZIONISTS who had a rule in the grand deception that was the war with Iraq, not Jews per se. The war mongering, war profiteering and the assault on the integrity of American political health are all products of Zionism, not Judaism.

        And there are Christian forms of Zionism as well, so.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:10 pm

        You’re using Zionism as a euphemism for Judaism. It is transparent.

        Zionism definitely is a Jewish movement, and the concept of a Jewish state is an idea most Jews do support. To say that it is responsible for “the war mongering, war profiteering and the assault on the integrity of American political health are all products of Zionism, not Judaism” is beyond ridiculous and extreme.

      • Cliff
        May 21, 2010, 1:38 pm

        Wait, are you saying Zionism is Judaism then? Or that he is, and simply using it as a mask?

        Either way, I agree that Zionism is the problem. And I don’t think doubting the loyalty of Jews in the US, is antisemitic. It’s practical.

        If you (not you specifcally) weren’t a Jew yourself, you’d think the same thing.

        You can’t expect most people to think every small detail out. Roughly speaking, I think it’s totally reasonable to doubt that all those Zionists in the media/government always talking about Islamo-blah blah or how Israel is so great and how we’re the ‘same’, really care about America. They realize America can take a lot more hits than small Israel, so they use this country – because this is where it all matters.

        Its like how Chomsky never identifies WHO is responsible for the wars, other than ‘the corporations, the government, etc.’. It’s never in detail.

        So superficially, there is a lot of info out there that can persuade people it’s Israel and Zionist Jews at fault. I don’t know too much about the lead-up to Iraq. I’ve heard bits and pieces though.

        ‘All roads lead to Israel’ is a popular line. If you keep calling every single person a Jew-hater, then I hope you’ve got the details to refute THEIR argument, instead of looking for ‘Jew’ this and ‘Jew’ that.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 1:41 pm

        Bolsheviks were some of the greatest mass murderers, with their Cheko and all, and I don’t see how this supports your case, but I see your point of view clearer, now that you’ve restated it. Where I disagree is that the Iraq war could not have happened without the power of AIPAC, WINEP, AEI, PNAC and other think tanks, which serve in great part to support Israel, through major Jewish donations, and other organizations.

        People that are closely associated to the State of Israel, (not all Jews, and in large majority Jewish Zionists) have an interest in providing support to the Jewish state ( perhaps Christian Zionists also). It’s their dream, their project, their centuries of hope brought to life.

        But if you look back on the last months, why would American interests support an Iranian Strike? This has the humdrum tones of Iraq. Are they a threat to the well being of the United States?

        The lobbying effort by Israel and the many agencies of AIPAC want the US to back Israel in a strike on their nuclear facilities.
        This is ludicrous, but it is still being discussed in the halls of Washington. This is backed by strong lobbyist efforts from AIPAC, and are a force to contend with for the elected representatives in the Congress. (see cole)

        If Israel can return to the 1967 lines and stop pressing on about East Jerusalem, I am sure this blog would not even exist. Just think twice before you call W & M paper “a load of crap’. Their points about the lobbies power are logical to many.

        [Juan Cole]:
        “AIPAC is not all that rich or powerful, but politics in the U.S. is often evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Because many races are very close, any little extra support can help change the outcome. AIPAC can provide that little bit. Moreover, most Americans couldn’t care less about the Middle East or its intractable problems, whereas the staffers at AIPAC are fanatics. If some congressman from southern Indiana knows he can pick up even a few thousand dollars and some good will from AIPAC, he may as well, since his constituents don’t care anyway. That there is no countervailing force to AIPAC allows it to be effective. (That is one reason that pro-Likud American activists often express concern about the rise of the Muslim-American community and the possibility that it may develop an effective lobby.) ”
        link to antiwar.com

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:57 pm

        “Where I disagree is that the Iraq war could not have happened without the power of AIPAC, WINEP, AEI, PNAC and other think tanks, which serve in great part to support Israel, through major Jewish donations, and other organizations.”

        AEI serves in great part to support Israel? It was founded in 1943! You’re just trying to do the same thing – list some organizations with ties to Jewish causes, say the Iraq War couldn’t have happened without them, and tag the war as “Jewish.”

        “People that are closely associated to the State of Israel, (not all Jews, and in large majority Jewish Zionists) have an interest in providing support to the Jewish state”

        That does not mean that they would start a war with Iraq for that purpose.

        “But if you look back on the last months, why would American interests support an Iranian Strike? This has the humdrum tones of Iraq. Are they a threat to the well being of the United States?”

        Why? Because an Iranian nuke could cause a huge Sunni-Shiite conflagration and destabilize the entire region, not to mention Europe, and the President of the country is a nutjob. That’s why President Obama, not known for being all that pro-Israel or “likudnik” is pushing for sanctions. That’s why the Arab states are running scared.

        “The lobbying effort by Israel and the many agencies of AIPAC want the US to back Israel in a strike on their nuclear facilities.”

        OK. What you forget is that just about everybody in Europe, particularly France, is hoping somehow that this problem will go away (and is supportive of sanctions), and will support Israel behind the scenes if they are successful. Maybe, instead of thinking it’s all about Israel, you should consider why that might be so.

        “If Israel can return to the 1967 lines and stop pressing on about East Jerusalem, I am sure this blog would not even exist. Just think twice before you call W & M paper “a load of crap’. Their points about the lobbies power are logical to many.”

        Do you really think Iran and Iraq is about Israel and ’67 lines? I mean, c’mon. You can be pro-Palestinian, but there’s no reason to buy the crap Arab countries turn out.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 2:04 pm

        “their centuries of hope brought to life”

        Ah, so Zionism does have a side-benefit of incredibly long life-span. I did not know that.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 2:42 pm

        AEI serves in great part to support Israel? It was founded in 1943!
        Organizations change amigo.

        What about the others? PNAC, WINEP.

      • Colin Murray
        May 21, 2010, 3:11 pm

        Ziocaine has anti-geriatric properties?!? That changes everything. I want some. :)

      • Dan Kelly
        May 21, 2010, 3:39 pm

        Cole is wrong. Obviously AIPAC itself isn’t rich. It’s an organization. But the power that it has to direct money and influence towards Israeli-favored policies and candidates is extraordinary, and it’s just one of many such organizations working toward the same goal, creating perhaps an unprecedented power structure in this country working on behalf of a foreign entity.

        Israel controls the Congress, today more than ever. Frankly, I don’t what the hell Juan Cole is talking about:

        “Because many races are very close, any little extra support can help change the outcome. AIPAC can provide that little bit. ”

        “Any little extra support?” Over half the senate and house, the president, vice president and whoever else wishes to enter and stay afloat in politics pay fealty to AIPAC on a regular basis, and Cole would have us believe that this is for an organization that can chip in a few extra bucks to maybe help swing an election. Ridiculous.

      • Colin Murray
        May 21, 2010, 4:40 pm

        I think the main motive for ‘fealty’ is the threat of being ganged up on, of being cut out of the herd. If you don’t toe the line, then your opponent will seen an extraordinary increase in out-of-state donations. It’s not so much what they get ($), it’s what they don’t get (big $ to opponents).

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 1:45 pm

        Very well stated, Chu.

      • Dan Kelly
        May 22, 2010, 4:49 pm

        Exactly. Big money will go to their opponents, because AIPAC et al will direct it there. Either way, AIPAC exhibits extraordinary power in determining the outcome of elections. It just isn’t correct to say, as Juan Cole did, that “AIPAC is not all that rich or powerful.”

        Aside from its incredible coordination among a vast network of very wealthy individuals, it’s also an agent of a foreign power, Israel, so it no doubt works hand in hand with Israeli intelligence.

    • Chaos4700
      May 21, 2010, 10:46 am

      How come every single Zionist I have ever had the misfortune to encounter has been a loathsome idiot? You know, I’m actually starting to understand how actual anti-Semitism remains alive and well when you people keep stealing the microphone and shouting over the majority of Jewish people who aren’t bat-crap crazy cult worships bowing down to the golden calf that is Israel.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 11:27 am

        “How come every single Zionist I have ever had the misfortune to encounter has been a loathsome idiot? “

        Chaos4700, have you ever had the ineffable privilege of knowing someone who’s personality and character have been completely degraded by long term cocaine and alcohol abuse? You will see the just about the same exact syndromes as in Zionists. Grandiosity alternating with paranoia, pathological narcissism, loss of impulse control, inability to apprehend the ethics or even the criminality of actions due to the sick self-centeredness. Acting in a “blackout” of rage, and a complete amnesia of responsibility. You know the drill.
        That syndrome is what first put me on the trail of ziocaine, the chemical messenger produced in Zionist-supporters, which produces the same symptoms.
        Unfortunately, a disturbing clinical phenomenon is becoming apparent in those “at risk” for ziocaine abuse. Preliminary studies indicate that PEP pills may be a gateway drug for ziocaine.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 12:08 pm

        That syndrome is what first put me on the trail of ziocaine, the chemical messenger produced in Zionist-supporters, which produces the same symptoms.

        Again, always nice when my adversaries help my my points for me. I’ll have to save this one for future use.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 12:13 pm

        Well you can’t accuse Zionists of having an overabundance of creativity or original wit, apparently.

      • lareineblanche
        May 21, 2010, 12:17 pm

        Mooser is being facetious, it’s humor, hophmi.
        But I think he’s on to something as to the alcohol/drug abuse analogy, it’s a pretty good description. Reality, and concern for others kind of fades away, and abusers go into a type of dream world – there’s little perspective or rationality.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 12:45 pm

        Um, I get that he’s being facetious, just like I’m being facetious when I say that M&W are people who would favor throwing their grandmothers down a flight of steps if they thought it served the US interest.

      • Cliff
        May 21, 2010, 1:41 pm

        Funny, I’m pretty sure Ben-Gurion said something along those lines. Oh that pesky boycott.

        Zionists are willing to sacrifice Jews, or kill the ‘bad’ ones too for the ‘greater good’ (interests).

      • lareineblanche
        May 21, 2010, 1:55 pm

        “…just like I’m being facetious when I say that M&W are people who would favor throwing their grandmothers down a flight of steps if they thought it served the US interest.”

        No, that would just be dumb. Mooser’s analogy actually has some substance to it, and an argument. The idea is that people’s perceptions of reality can be altered by long-time substance abuse, and abuse of ideologies can reek the same havoc – it’s called brainwashing.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:01 pm

        I know, the benefit of doubt applies to your friends only.

        Whatever . . .

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 2:07 pm

        “my adversaries”

        Oy, I’m blushing at the unexpected promotion! I have no fucking idea who you are, and no desire to know. And in no way can I approach the level of intellectual sophistication which makes me worthy of being your adversary, so don’t sell your self short, genius.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:13 pm

        Sorry, thought adversary was more polite than “loathsome idiot.” I’ll make sure not to inflate your ego next time.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 4:43 pm

        “I’ll make sure not to inflate your ego next time.”

        Don’t worry pal, you couldn’t possibly.

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 2:39 pm

        “I’ll have to save this one for future use.”

        Please do, and please, I get attribution. Always glad to be of service. No doubt the piece will strike a chord in many people. Spread it far and wide. Send no money, honey, and remember, to err is humiliating, and to forgive, supine.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 10:49 pm

        Throwing granny down the stairs might be a bit excessive (depends on what granny is like and what she is up to) but are you suggesting that U.S. citizens should NOT act to serve US interests?

      • hophmi
        May 22, 2010, 11:54 pm

        My point is that this kind of ultrarealism is not the kind most of the commentators here would subscribe to.

      • Chaos4700
        May 23, 2010, 12:04 am

        “Ultrarealism?” More real than real, huh?

      • Donald
        May 23, 2010, 12:07 am

        “this kind of ultrarealism is not the kind most of the commentators here would subscribe to.”

        On that point I agree– I don’t like the argument about US “interests” very much, because (like Chomsky) I think the word is a mystification. I don’t know to what extent the average American benefits from the sorts of atrocities our country has supported or committed overseas. And if we are benefiting, we shouldn’t be.

        As for the Israel Lobby, I think it has a lot of influence, but it’s not like the US government generally has to be pushed and prodded into supporting human rights violators. I suppose it is politically relevant to wonder if our support for Israeli brutality is based on “interests” as Chomsky and Zunes say or because of the Lobby, though I’d be hard pressed to say how it would change what we should do one way or the other. In either case we should try and change people’s minds.

      • jonah
        May 21, 2010, 2:37 pm

        “I’m actually starting to understand how actual anti-Semitism remains alive and well when you people keep stealing the microphone and shouting over the majority of Jewish people who aren’t bat-crap crazy cult worships bowing down to the golden calf that is Israel. ”

        Oh Chaos, don’t you notice that this is the old argument used by the anti-Semites? Blame the Jews for the persistence of anti-Semitism. Before the birth of the Jewish state of Israel the culprits were the Jewish “well poisoners” or “Jewish capitalists”, or the “Jewish bolshevists”, or simply the “Jewish world cospirators”. Today its the “Zionists”.

        But what if the great majority of the Jewish people adheres to the elementary principles of Zionism, that means supports the establishment and the right of Israel to exist as Jewish state in the ancient homeland? Would then your arbitrary attempt to distinguish between “good Jews” and “bad Jews” not be exposed?

      • potsherd
        May 21, 2010, 4:06 pm

        The difference is, that before the birth of the state of Israel Jews were not going around poisoning wells or baking matzoh out of Christian children’s blood. The accusations of the anti-Semites were false. The Jews were innocent of the charges.

        Today, however, after the birth of the state of Israel, the accusations laid against Zionists are true. They have created a racist, warmongering state and are conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the rightful owners of the land they illegally occupy. The Zionists are guilty of the charges.

        And to the extent that Zionists identify their crimes with the Jewish people, and Jews identify with the Zionist state of Israel, they will inevitably share in that guilt.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 4:12 pm

        Again, thank you for conflating Jews and Zionists. You talk about how the Jews were innocent in your first paragraph, and how the Zionists are guilty in your second.

        “before the birth of the state of Israel Jews were not going around poisoning wells or baking matzoh out of Christian children’s blood.”

        And now, apparently, they are. I also heard that the sky is green and that little messages are being encoded by the Mossad in newspaper headlines. It’s a Zionist plot, beware.

        Jeez, you people are really scary.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 4:51 pm

        Hophmi,

        Man, does your ego need a little boost today or what? You don’t need to come to this site and tell everyone they are scary, stupid and bigoted. I don’t see your resume posted, but your arrogance is quite clear.

        Are all Jews Zionists? He didn’t conflate Zionism with Jews, he was separating the two.

      • yonira
        May 21, 2010, 11:10 pm

        Chaos is an anti-semite, he is just too stupid to realize it.

      • Donald
        May 22, 2010, 9:23 am

        “Again, thank you for conflating Jews and Zionists. You talk about how the Jews were innocent in your first paragraph, and how the Zionists are guilty in your second.”

        I didn’t catch this yesterday–you totally missed the point. He said that the accusations against Jews were false but that the accusations against Zionists are true. He’s not conflating the two–he’s establishing a contrast. You’re the one conflating here, as you did above. And when you accuse him of saying that the old stories of making bread out of blood are now true, again you did the same thing.

        I can’t tell if you’re doing this deliberately or if you’ve been so used to discussions where this kind of bait-and-switch was the norm you really don’t understand what you’re doing. But what is happening is that every time someone says “Zionist”, you read it as “Jew”. Well if you think that way, then yeah, you’re going to think most people around here are anti-semites.

        The truth is, there are some genuinely anti-semitic things said in the comments section, but what you’re doing is exactly what this blog fights against–the false conflation of anti-semitism with criticism of Zionism.

    • Citizen
      May 21, 2010, 11:33 am

      Again, W & M wrote a point by point definitive response to the various shaky and over-the-top criticisms of their well-researched book–it’s quite long and detailed:
      link to mearsheimer.uchicago.edu.

      They didn’t bother with infantile criticisms such as “a load of crap.”

  15. Mooser
    May 21, 2010, 10:54 am

    “Some day there will be an open conversation inside the Jewish community about the Jewish role in the Iraq war, specifically, ultra-Zionists’ role in selling a policy of permanent war in the Arab world as an American interest.”

    You mean we can all sit around and talk about how we led those bovine Gentiles around by the nose, and got them to sacrifice their sons and daughters for our interests? How we got them to start torturing, and how much money we got them to spend? Sure, I bet we will be having an open conversation “inside the Jewish community”. But for God’s sake, don’t let the Gentiles hear it.
    Sometimes I wonder if you understand the proportions of what Zionism has done.

    “I’d finally decided to write about Israel (after avoiding the topic all my life)”

    Yesterday: ““My people…” Isn’t it wonderful that Judaism is so fungible!

  16. seanmcbride
    May 21, 2010, 12:35 pm

    Richard Witty: would you agree with the assertion that the following pro-Israel and pro-Likud activists can all be fairly described as “Jewish neoconservatives”? If not, why not?

    Abram Shulsky, Andrew Rosenthal, Ariel Cohen, Barbara Amiel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bernard Lewis, Bret Stephens, Bruce Kovner, Caroline Glick, Charles Krauthammer, Clifford May, Dan Senor, Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, David Brooks, David Frum, David Horowitz, David Makovsky, David Wurmser, Donald Kagan, Dore Gold, Douglas Feith, Eli Lake, Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Fred Hiatt, Frederick Kagan, Irving Kristol, Irving Moskowitz, Jennifer Rubin, John Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Joshua Muravchik, Ken Adelman, Laurie Mylroie, Lewis Libby, Marc Grossman, Matthew Brooks, Meyrav Wurmser, Michael Goldfarb, Michael Ledeen, Michael Makovsky, Michael Medved, Michael Rubin, Mortimer Zuckerman, Morton Klein, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Peter Rodman, Peter Wehner, Randy Scheunemann, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Sheldon Adelson, William Kristol

    Even Joe Klein of Time magazine has taken to using the term “Jewish neoconservative” — the designation has gone mainstream.

    The lead journal of neoconservatism, Commentary, is drenched in the bombastic rhetoric of Jewish nationalism, and is fond of making grandiose proclamations about “the Jews.” Would you disagree? Browse the Commentary archives before responding to the question.

    It goes without saying that the vast majority of Jews are not neoconservatives, and that most Jews opposed the disastrous Iraq War.

    • hophmi
      May 21, 2010, 1:07 pm

      Again, look at this post. You made a list of people with Jewish names in support of an argument that because this list of people supported a policy, it must be a Jewish policy. Tell me how that is not different from the stuff you see on neo-Nazi websites.

      Paul Wolfowitz is a guy who stood up at a large pro-Israel rally and talked about the suffering of the Palestinians. He’s hardly pro-Likud. Michael Medved is a movie reviewer turned political columnist who really is not known for his high-end foreign policy connections. He’s a garden-variety conservative newspaper columnist, one of many who supported the Iraq War. The same’s true of Krauthammer, who differs in profound ways from neoconservatives on many policy issues. But, of course, these people have Jewish names, so they’re on this list. Several are Israelis virtually unknown here, like Caroline Glick.

      Peter Rodman is anti-settlement (and thus not pro-Likud) and I can’t find any reference to his Jewishness other than hate sites. Same goes for Randy Scheunermann. But this is really beside the point.

      Of course, I could produce a list of non-Jews involved in supported the Iraq War and making it happen starting with President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.

      This is antisemitic thinking, pure and simple.

      • Chaos4700
        May 21, 2010, 1:11 pm

        NEOCONSERVATIVE Jews. As opposed to, you know, mainstream, sensible (and moral) Jews.

        The Foxman act is getting really tiresome.

      • Cliff
        May 21, 2010, 1:45 pm

        everyone is a nazi, everyone hates jews

        israel is perfect, there is no palestine, no palestinians, they hate jews for no reason, israel withdrew from gaza and all they got was rockets, free gaza….from hamas, palestinians need to love their kids more than they hate israel, israel is the sacred eternal homeland of the jewish people, the jewish people were all collectively exiled and have returned after 3000 years

        zionism is judaism so criticism of the Jewish State is antisemitic

        yea, i’ve heard all this stupid shit before. its been 60 goddamn years, you snake. I don’t give a shit about offending anyone. i want the occupation over, i want the Palestinians to be free, and I want the wars to STOP

        go to hell

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 1:58 pm

        “I don’t give a shit about offending anyone.”

        At least you’re honest. Hateful, but honest.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 2:10 pm

        You tell ‘em hophmi-hippety-hoppity! Everyone of his words causes white phosporus to rain down on innocent Jewish children!
        Oy, so hateful! Whereas the Israelis apply actual phosophorus with love, not hate, which makes the burns theraputic!

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:15 pm

        “Whereas the Israelis apply actual phosophorus with love, not hate, which makes the burns theraputic! ”

        Oooh, more “wit” from Mooser. I thought from your previous comments you agreed with me on this particular point that it’s wrong to throw out a list of Jews and say the Iraq War was a Jewish project.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 4:48 pm

        “I thought from your previous comments you agreed with me on this particular point that it’s wrong to throw out a list of Jews and say the Iraq War was a Jewish project”

        Like Anatole, that peerless disher-upper, I can take the smooths with the roughs. Hey pal, I don’t like it either, and it was perfectly predictable (especially to our vaunted Jewish intelligences) and we knew damn well it was gonna happen. But that never seemed to bother the Zionists, or cause them to moderate anything.
        You got a way to stop it, buddy?
        But you gotta admit, taking a little bit of anti-semitism wins out over a faceful of phosphrus, any day. Consider yourself lucky.
        And tell those idiots in Israel to cut it out!

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 2:00 pm

        hophmi: A really weak response.

        Paul Wolfowitz, Peter Rodman, Charles Krauthammer and Randy Scheunemann were ringleaders of the Iraq War and of “the Global War on Terror,” and they have been deeply embedded in the neoconservative cultural and ideological network at Commentary, the Weekly Standard, AEI (American Enterprise Institute), PNAC (Project for the New American Century), JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), CSP (Center for Security Policy), FDD (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), etc. Certainly none of them have lifted a finger to advance the Mideast peace process.

        Michael Medved and Caroline Glick are influential voices in public discussion about Mideast politics, and they are pro-Israel militants.

        Do you have nothing to say about Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes and their comrades? Or about the fact that the lead journal of neoconservatism is openly strident about its obsessive preoccupation with Jewish issues?

        By all means present your list of non-Jewish neocons. I can guarantee you that most (or all) of them are pro-Israel militants with close ties to Likud and its political agenda. James Woolsey, for instance, is a self-avowed Christian Zionist.

        I am not denying the existence of non-Jewish neocons (think Woolsey, William Bennett, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, etc.), but Jewish neoconservatives provided most of the pseudo-intellectual propaganda for the Iraq War, and continue to do so now for the Afpak War and the campaign to ratchet up conflict with Iran. Check out, for instance, the membership list of the FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative), the latest incarnation of the PNAC.

        Like many neocons, you are quick to wield the antisemitism smear on this topic: where precisely are you coming from on Israeli issues? What exactly is your personal stake in Mideast politics?

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:10 pm

        Really man, I’m not feeling the need to debate you on whether it’s a problem to post a list of prominent Jews and ask whether it’s OK to define a secular political ideology by their religion. I know who these people are. Telling me what their roles were does not change the fact that calling out their Jewishness for this purpose is OK. I’m not going to waste my time coming up with a list because it would dignify your antisemitic approach.

        “Michael Medved and Caroline Glick are influential voices in public discussion about Mideast politics, and they are pro-Israel militants.”

        Yeah, so? Tom Friedman and Roger Cohen are influential voices in public discussion about Mideast politics. Both are Jewish. Neither one is a pro-Israel militant. Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are influential voices in public discussion about Mideast politics (way more than Michael Medved and Caroline Glick). Both are pretty pro-Israel. Both were big supporters of the Iraq War. Neither one is Jewish.

        “Jewish neoconservatives provided most of the pseudo-intellectual propaganda for the Iraq War, and continue to do so now for the Afpak War and the campaign to ratchet up conflict with Iran.”

        Now you’re blaming the Jews for the war in Afghanistan?

        OK, man, this is where I get off and stop wasting my time with you. Go back to the neo-Nazi hole you came from. And if you’re not a neo-Nazi, you’re doing a good job impersonating one.

      • Donald
        May 21, 2010, 2:14 pm

        There are such people as “neocons”–I was reading “Commentary” back in the 80’s and you could use who appears in that magazine as one definition of the term and as Sean says, it is very much a conservative Jewish magazine. This pretense that it is anti-semitic to notice a group of people with similar political views who are Jewish and who associate their views with their Jewishness–well, it’s not convincing. Jewish neocons are conservatives who very much identify as Jewish, just as Christian rightwingers identify themselves as Christian. People were using this term and associating it with “Commentary” at least as far back as the 80’s. Only recently have people decided to get the vapors and act like the term is “anti-semitic”.

      • Donald
        May 21, 2010, 2:15 pm

        And yes, there are also Christian neocons–as a rule of thumb anyone who appears in “Commentary” is likely a neocon or they wouldn’t publish him (or her).

      • Donald
        May 21, 2010, 2:18 pm

        By the way, is it “anti-Christian” bigotry to list members of the Christian right with “bad” views? If so, I’ll do it anyway.

        Dubya, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Hagee, Franklin Graham, etc… Of course some of these are rightwing Catholics rather than evangelicals.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:28 pm

        Um, nowhere did I say the term “neoconservative” was antisemitic. Listing a bunch of Jews in service of saying the War in Iraq is a neocon Jewish project is.

        Neoconservatism is basically a theory of foreign policy that favors more robust use of military intervention to promote American interests, which includes democracy and human rights. I don’t say that to show my support for neoconservatism, because I am not a neoconservative. But, again, while a number of Jewish intellectuals may propound neoconservatism as an idea, it is not a “Jewish” idea any more than Communism is, even though Karl Marx was a Jew. Most Jews are not neocons.

        Commentary is in some ways a “Jewish” magazine; it is very loosely affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, though the AJC politically is the polar opposite of the views contained therein.

        But not everybody who writes for it is Jewish. And unlike Christian right-wingers, who often are explicit about articulating how Christianity informs their policy views (and even then I think it’s wrong to identify their ideas as “Christian”, the writers on foreign policy are by and large secular Jews who make no such linkage in their analyses. The only regular religious writer for Commentary that I know of is Meir Soloveitchik, and he writes on social issues, not foreign policy. Norman Podhoretz’s theories of WWIV are not based on Judaism in any way that I know of.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 2:30 pm

        “By the way, is it “anti-Christian” bigotry to list members of the Christian right with “bad” views? If so, I’ll do it anyway.”

        Well, it depends on your reasoning. If the point is to define their ideas as “Christian”, then I’d say it’s a problem.

      • Chu
        May 21, 2010, 2:35 pm

        Thanks for the lesson fruitcake.

        “Neoconservatism is basically a theory of foreign policy that favors more robust use of military intervention to promote American interests, which includes democracy and human rights.”

        Pretty lame when you start to spout. Did you learn this at Vassar?

      • Donald
        May 21, 2010, 2:39 pm

        I’m a Christian and dislike the Christian right, but their ideas do come from their views of Christianity and there’s no point in denying it. Christianity has been used to justify countless atrocities and there’s no point in denying that either.

        I stopped reading “Commentary” years ago, but when I did it was clear that it was a conservative “Jewish” magazine. What does “Jewish” mean in this context? I don’t have a clue. Not being Jewish, I don’t really know the ins and outs of how people identify themselves as Jewish. It’s not so clear with Christians either sometimes.

        I happen to think there are a few anti-semites who appear in the comment section here, but Sean, I think, was just listing the members of a political movement that is generally very “pro-Israel” (though as Chomsky said somewhere, that means favoring policies that will ultimately destroy Israel morally and perhaps literally). And because they are “pro-Israel”, they thought the Iraq War would be a good thing both for Israel and the US. I’m not big on the dual loyalty thing, if only because I think most people have multiple loyalties and to some degree they should. So they probably thought, in their twisted way, that the invasion of Iraq would be good for both the US and Israel and someone like Wolfowitz might have even believed in the democracy ideal. (Though I doubt it–I’ve read a little about him in connection with East Timor.)

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 2:43 pm

        hophmi: You are a seriously befuddled human being. I stated explicitly in my earlier post that a large majority of Jews are NOT neoconservatives and opposed the Iraq War. Now you are resorting to debating straw men. I know that many Jewish leaders are not pro-Israel militants or Likud supporters. But ALL neoconservatives by definition are pro-Israel activists or militants, and the majority of the leaders of the neoconservative movement (based at Commentary) are open and aggressive about touting their Jewishness and preoccupation with Jewish issues. They shout their ethnic nationalism to the rooftops, at the top of their lungs. Do you really think that most people are too stupid not to understand the words that are directly in front of them?

        With regard to the propaganda campaign to expand to the Iraq War to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran (as part of the Global War on Terror, World War IV and the Clash of Civilizations): do any of these names ring a bell? They are members of the FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative): Clifford May, Dan Senor, Danielle Pletka, David Frum, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, Frederick Kagan, John Podhoretz, Joshua Muravchik, Max Boot, Peter Wehner, Randy Scheunemann, Robert Kagan, William Kristol.

        No reply to the question about your personal stake in Israeli and Mideast politics? Is this where you disappear? If you are in fact an ethnic nationalist (or, even worse, an ethno-religious nationalist), the best course is to be honest about your agenda and deal with the consequences.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 3:21 pm

        I’m not trying to teach you a lesson about neoconservatism. I’m trying to teach you a lesson about how not to be a bigot. Clearly, you’re not learning.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 3:24 pm

        “I stopped reading “Commentary” years ago, but when I did it was clear that it was a conservative “Jewish” magazine. What does “Jewish” mean in this context? I don’t have a clue. Not being Jewish, I don’t really know the ins and outs of how people identify themselves as Jewish. It’s not so clear with Christians either sometimes.”

        I’m not going to sit here and deny that Commentary is to some extent a Jewish magazine; it has its roots in a big Jewish organization and to some extent covers some issues related to the Jewish community. But it doesn’t mean that every idea it talks about is a Jewish idea anymore than every idea in Tikkun, also a Jewish magazine, is a Jewish idea. It’s an idea. I don’t why people need to put a religious label on it.

      • MarkF
        May 21, 2010, 3:27 pm

        “Norman Podhoretz’s theories of WWIV are not based on Judaism in any way that I know of. ”

        But I’d argue the Iraq war he pushed for could have been. Podhoretz would write articles lobbying Jews to consider voting republican because of the strong support for Israel. Israel is not Judaism, but as I grew up and went to Hebrew school, much like Norman, I was taught the importance of unconditional support for Israel. The school tied this (modern day) support in with our religious studies.

        The support for the war in my opinion was a convergence of views, but those particular views of NoPod, Pearle, Feith, etc. were certainly of the view that it would be good for Israel. Why else would they publish a paper for Netenyahu sypporting regime change in Iraq? Any chance their upbringing (Hebrew school, etc.) would play a part? If so, then there is a tie with religion, at least on their part. Just as ther is a tie to Christianity(as they interpret it) when a Christian zionist supports what they feel is best for Israel.

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 3:35 pm

        MarkF: Norman Podhoretz, like quite a few other neocons (Elliott Abrams, for instance), is entirely explicit about his linkage of Zionism with Judaism. He is a frank and open religious Zionist. Contemporary Zionism is largely dominated by religious Zionists.

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 3:38 pm

        I am not sure where you get the idea that the expansion of the Afghanistan War was an expansion of the War in Iraq. From day one, the war in Afghanistan has been understood to be part of the war on terror, and it was that way when it had overwhelming support from the country and in Europe. There was one reason people supported that war. It’s called 9/11. 9/11 was not a neocon plot. May be in your world. But not on the planet Earth.

        Once again, you’re just compiling lists of Jews to show something supported by the majority of the country is somehow a “Jewish” idea.

        “majority of the leaders of the neoconservative movement (based at Commentary) are open and aggressive about touting their Jewishness and preoccupation with Jewish issues.”

        Funny, but I do not know the vast majority of the people you list to be “aggressive” on touting their Jewishness. The only person being aggressive about touting their Jewishness around here is YOU. And you’ll have to define what you mean by a “preoccupation” with Jewish issues. I’ve watched people like Eliot Cohen and Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol many times.

        “No reply to the question about your personal stake in Israeli and Mideast politics?”

        What’s yours? I’m not going to play this game with you. That you ask the question reminds me of how Mel Gibson asked someone who questioned him about his drunken antisemitic tirade about whether he “had a dog in this fight.”

        You’re just a garden variety anti-semite, Sean; be a man and admit it.

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 6:16 pm

        hophmi:

        I wrote:

        “No reply to the question about your personal stake in Israeli and Mideast politics?”

        You wrote:

        “What’s yours?”

        I’ll be glad to answer: my only stake in Mideast politics is the American interest, period. I have no narrow ethnic or religious agenda warping my views on that subject.

        I am greatly concerned that continuing American involvement in ethnic and religious wars in that region will inflict even more damage on the American interest than it already has (we are on track to drop $3 trillion down the drain in the Iraq War).

        So: where are you coming from on Mideast and Israeli politics? One can see that you are highly emotional about the subject, and abusive and irrational in dealing with anyone who disagrees with you.

        Why is that? What cultural and religious traditions, authors and ideas have most influenced your thinking about Mideast politics? What is your personal stake in that part of the world? And why should any American feel any obligation to support you?

      • hophmi
        May 21, 2010, 10:01 pm

        I’M abusive? OK, whatever.

        My interest is American interest as well. I think it’s good for this country to support states that are democracies, however flawed, as opposed to dictatorships with no democratic traditions. Israel is a democracy in a sea of dictatorships, dictatorships that are barely stable. The Israelis share our values; the Arab states do not. The Israelis have built a wonderful society that is democratic and vibrant and endlessly innovative from scientific and technological points of views. The Arab states have not. The Israelis are relentlessly self-critical. The Arab states are not.

        Those are my reasons for supporting Israel.

        And yeah, I’m a proud Jew and I support it for that reason as well and I don’t feel the need to apologize to your antisemitic Jew-baiting ass for that.

        I don’t need to ask Americans to support me. They already do. Go ask them why instead of me.

      • tree
        May 21, 2010, 10:05 pm

        “I’M abusive?”

        “your antisemitic Jew-baiting ass>

        Asked and answered in one post.

      • Donald
        May 21, 2010, 11:09 pm

        “The Israelis share our values; the Arab states do not. The Israelis have built a wonderful society that is democratic and vibrant …”

        Good lord. Well, maybe our values do include ethnic cleansing and land theft, hypocrisy, mass murder, torture and so on. Come to think of it, yeah, when it’s in our interest they most certainly have. A match made in heaven.

      • yonira
        May 21, 2010, 11:18 pm

        Israeli mass murder is nothing compared to Hama or Jordan’s dealing w/ BS

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Sumud
        May 22, 2010, 4:48 am

        “Commentary is in some ways a “Jewish” magazine; it is very loosely affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, ”

        Oh hophmi don’t be so obscure. Commentary was founded by the AJC in 1945 and split from them formally in 2007 to become a non-profit organisation. The current editor (John Podhoretz) is the son of Norman Podhoretz, who was editor for 36 years, 59-95. Commentary continues to share office space with the AJC on East 56th St in New York.

      • seanmcbride
        May 22, 2010, 4:56 am

        hophmi:

        Are you even an American citizen? Most Americans wouldn’t write:

        “My interest is American interest as well.”

        “I don’t need to ask Americans to support me.”

        Are you an Israeli citizen, and not an American citizen?

        And you are in fact extremely abusive:

        “I don’t feel the need to apologize to your antisemitic Jew-baiting ass for that.”

        Why is it that so many pro-Israel activists and militants rely so heavily on personal attacks and verbal abuse in trying to defend themselves and their views? I’ve come to the conclusion that their habitual style of brutal communication might well be connected with a deeply ingrained racism and contempt and hatred for cult outsiders.

        Regarding this: “I’m a proud Jew” — so you are a Jewish ethnic nationalist, and you have strong emotional feelings about Israel as a matter of what you perceive to be your ethnic self-interest. My guess is that you have little appetite to make any major sacrifices for the self-interest of any other ethnic nationalist movements — would that be correct?

        Regarding American interests and values vs. Israeli interests and values: how is militant ethnic and/or religious nationalism of any variety compatible with the fundamental democratic values of the United States and the modern Western democratic world?

        And how is it in the interest of Americans to get bogged down in a permanent war with all of Israel’s enemies worldwide? The Iraq War alone is on track to cost Americans $3 trillion. A war with Iran would probably collapse the American economy.

      • seanmcbride
        May 22, 2010, 5:19 am

        hophmi:

        1. How is it “Jew-bating” to point out that Jewish neoconservatives from Commentary have been the dominant faction within the neoconservative movement (and were the dominant voice in the campaign to attack Iraq), and that they are overwhelmingly motivated by their passion about Israel (and their own narrow ethnic and/or religious interests)? Commentary is brimming over with angry and paranoid articles about Jewish and Israeli issues. Anyone can browse the online Commentary archives to see for themselves.

        2. I am still curious about this: What cultural and religious traditions, authors and ideas have most influenced your thinking about Mideast politics? With which branch of Zionism do you feel the strongest sympathy? Are you a secular or religious Zionist? Which political party in Israel do you support? And which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than your own?

    • Colin Murray
      May 21, 2010, 3:32 pm

      @ seanmcbride May 21, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      just off the top of my head … add Dov Zakheim, Harold Rhode, Stephen (Steven?) Cambone (IIRC, Cambone of “if I had one bullet left in my pistol and was about to be overrun by the enemy, I would save it for Cambone), Bill Luti

      heh, here’s the Cambone quote, so damn funny :)

      Smiting the infidels

      A former senior Pentagon official told me of his conversation with a currently serving three-star general who remarked, “If we were being overrun by the enemy and I had only one bullet left, I’d use it on Cambone.”

      oh, and you got Doug Feith, the f-cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth, according to General Tommy Franks

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 3:39 pm

        Colin Murray: How f-cking stupid would one have to be to engineer the worst foreign policy disaster in American history? Pretty f-cking stupid. :) (Or someone in the grip of messianic ethnic and religious cultism — brain-damaged.)

  17. hophmi
    May 21, 2010, 1:37 pm

    It’s not a Foxman act. You simply don’t understand how hateful you are. It’s a disease in your community.

    “NEOCONSERVATIVE Jews. As opposed to, you know, mainstream, sensible (and moral) Jews.”

    I get it, you’re talking about the “good Jews”, defined as those you agree with, versus the “bad Jews”, those who you disagree with. Apparently, unless Jews have opinions you agree with, they are not just bad, they are bad Jews.

    You’re generalizing about a group of people based on their religion, and you think it’s OK as long as you use enough modifying adjectives. Again, I’m missing the part where you talk about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld as neoconservative Protestants.

    • Mooser
      May 21, 2010, 2:21 pm

      Israel has created more than enough ill-will to go around, more than enough for Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews almost alike, frankly.

      So now the Zionists get to use the excuse “Well, if there is one non-Zionist Jew, you can’t dis-like Zionists, cause it would be anti-Semitic, cause of the non-Zionist Jew?”

      Yeah, try again, it just doesn’t work that way. There’s more than enough to go around, and a lot of it will slop over onto Jews not involved, which seems to bother the Zionists not at all, and at now time did that aspect of it ever moderate their course.

      Great, so now the Zionist Jews say “Don’t talk bad about us, cause it might hurt non-Zionist Jews?”

      Always the parent-murderers, begging for the mercy shown orphans.

      Well, I’ll tell you what: maybe if enough non or a-zionist Jews get tired of being slagged for the Zionists sins, those other Jews will get together and do something about it. (Besides kvetch? not on your tin-type, Mabel) Let’s look at it that way.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 5:04 pm

        Of course, it’s not really fair, is it hophmi, cause the Zionists never, ever descended to dealing in stereotypes or propaganda, huh?
        But that’s the way it goes in the ol’ sovereign state game, and the Zionists wanted so much to play!

        So drop the goddam self-righteousness, huh? On you it doesn’t look so good.

  18. Mooser
    May 21, 2010, 2:13 pm

    “OK, man, this is where I get off and stop wasting my time with you.”

    But, dammit, you don’t go!

    • Colin Murray
      May 21, 2010, 4:29 pm

      That was hilarious. Thanks. :)

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 4:50 pm

        My pleasure. As I’m sure you know, the punishment should fit the crime.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 11:04 pm

        A G&S fan as well! Is there no limit to your virtues?

  19. seanmcbride
    May 21, 2010, 2:54 pm

    Jewish neoconservatives: their favorite media outlets

    1. American Thinker
    2. Atlas Shrugs
    3. Commentary
    4. Fox News
    5. Frontpage Magazine
    6. Israpundit
    7. Jerusalem Post
    8. Jewish Press
    9. Jewish World Review
    10. National Review
    11. New Republic
    12. New York Post
    13. New York Times
    14. Newsmax
    15. Wall Street Journal
    16. Washington Post
    17. Weekly Standard
    18. Worldnetdaily

    hophmi and Richard Witty: Since Jewish neoconservatives often raise Jewish issues in a strident and abrasive way in their public statements, in numerous media outlets (some of them extremely high profile), it’s really difficult for the world at large not to notice the Jewish angle on their political agenda, is it not? What say you?

    Here is some advice: if you want to avoid ethnic and religious controversies, don’t provoke them. Keep a low profile on ethnic and religious issues. It’s easy, unless you are completely out of control and are being driven hither and thither by obsessive forces of which you are barely conscious.

    • hophmi
      May 21, 2010, 3:40 pm

      Again Sean, thank you so much for making my point for me. From what neo-Nazi website did you crib this list?

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 5:00 pm

        hophmi, I really don’t want to upset you, but they do call it “The Jewish State”. Or did anti-Semites name Israel? Sometimes I wonder, really I do. (No, I don’t)

        I can just imagine it, the brave Zionist pioneers, resting up from bombing the hotel David and musing on the future, as the head of the gang speaks: “Okay fellas, I think we can get the job done, see it through to a sovereign state, but it’s gonna be rough! It’s gonna take a terrorist campaign against the British, who gave us the keys to the place, and after we get them taken care of, and even while we’re doing it, we are gonna have to cleanse, cleanse, cleanse those Arabs out of the way. After that we might have to provoke a war or two, and use the wars and illegal occupations to expand the state. And all during this time we will wage a campaign of discrimination and harassment against the Arabs tenacious enough to stick around. We very well may go from having the world’s sympathy to being a rogue, and more and more isolated from the community of nations which allowed us to be created.
        It’s gonna be hug-ly! What shall we call it? What do we want associated with all the exigencies and atrocities necessary to a colonial campaign like this?”
        “I know”, said an inspired young Jewish guerilla, “We’ll call it “The Jewish State!”

        Are you laughing? That’s good, cause it’s not a very funny joke, huh?

      • andrew r
        May 21, 2010, 5:05 pm

        You do the impossible, Mooser. You write unfunny shit that’s screamingly hilarious.

      • Mooser
        May 21, 2010, 5:17 pm

        I’m going to meet my fate, in a highly nervous state! Tarantara, tarantara, tarantara!
        Still, to me it’s evident, these attentions are well meant. Thanks.

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 3:09 pm

        “You do the impossible, Mooser. You write unfunny shit that’s screamingly hilarious.”

        Do you work for the publisher that sent the last rejection notice?
        Sure sounds like it.

      • andrew r
        May 22, 2010, 9:59 pm

        Nah, I work for the hit team out to uncircumcize you. All my anti-Zionism was a ploy to gain your trust. And when your back is turned, blam! Foreskin stitched back on and Mooser is no longer a Jewcer.

      • RoHa
        May 22, 2010, 11:06 pm

        “We’ll call it “The Jewish State!”

        Didn’t someone write a book with that as the title?

      • LeaNder
        May 21, 2010, 5:39 pm

        Sean, needs no neo-Nazi sides to collect anything for him. He is a very diligent collector himself.

        hophmi?? Should I remember you under a different name?

        “more robust use of military intervention to promote American interests, which includes democracy and human rights.”

        Hmmm? Democracy and human rights, because they love the Arab street so much, any streets? I have the impression they are more in the security business against the street, so I suspect they must have a different agenda and the slogan you cite is the PR surface only.

        I could imagine a 19th century Germans and the ones later inspired by that spirit would have used “robust” in the foreign policy context too, since it has such a wonderful Roman/Latin ring, reminding them of conquering Caesar.

  20. seanmcbride
    May 21, 2010, 6:05 pm

    Profiling the neoconservatives

    What they’re for (+) and against (-). Notice a pattern? It’s all about pro-Israel militancy and pretty much nothing else:

    1. Afghanistan War+
    2. Afpak War+
    3. anti-Arab hate speech+
    4. anti-Muslim hate speech+
    5. Barack Obama-
    6. Christian Zionism+
    7. Clash of Civilizations+
    8. Gaza War+
    9. George H.W. Bush-
    10. George W. Bush+
    11. Global War on Terror+
    12. Greater Israel+
    13. habeas corpus-
    14. Iran War+
    15. Iraq War+
    16. Islam-
    17. Islamophobia+
    18. Jewish ethnic nationalism+
    19. Jewish religious nationalism+
    20. liberalism-
    21. Likud+
    22. Mideast peace process-
    23. Old Testament cultism+
    24. Orthodox Judaism+
    25. religious Zionism+
    26. torture+
    27. traditional Christianity-
    28. traditional conservatism-
    29. U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights-
    30. warrantless surveillance+
    31. World War IV+

    • LeaNder
      May 21, 2010, 6:45 pm

      Actually I wanted to write above: Sean tries to detect patterns with lists, at least that’s what they felt like when I encountered them. I found your ideas behind them interesting.

      I am not sure if I like orthodox Judaism in the list. I think we shouldn’t confuse religion with politics or its political exploitation/instrumentalization. As I follow The Magnus Zionist in “religious Zionism” cultural versus statist. And lately I notice a certain hesitancy in calling Israelis collectively Zionists. …

      How’s your markup language doing? If that is the correct term.

      • seanmcbride
        May 21, 2010, 7:00 pm

        Leander:

        The lists are about using AI methods for the computer modeling of social and political networks, a subject which greatly interests me (as you know). (There is a great deal to discuss about the role of list-based methods for content analysis and social network analysis, but this isn’t the forum for that discussion. I will just say that one can do powerful things with accurate lists, especially large collections of accurate large lists, in terms of automated knowledge discovery and pattern recognition.)

        Regarding Orthodox Judaism: the fact is, quite a few neoconservatives (certainly not all) have strong emotional and ideological attachments to Orthodox Judaism. The bias bleeds through clearly through back issues of Commentary — take a close look. The entire Zionist enterprise at this point in history is largely being driven by religious Zionists (especially the settlers) who have been steeped in Orthodox Jewish beliefs. (It is also true that there are strains of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism that are critical of Israel, or oppose Zionism entirely.)

        (The semantic markup language is much more advanced and polished now than it was when I first began noodling with it. I hope everything is well with you — I presume you are posting from Germany.)

      • Mooser
        May 22, 2010, 3:04 pm

        : “the fact is, quite a few neoconservatives (certainly not all) have strong emotional and ideological attachments to Orthodox Judaism.”

        That’s why they never attack countries on Friday nights or Saturdays? Cause they can’t start the computers or the vehicles?And why the troops only get Kosher meals?
        Orthodox Judaism pretty much precludes neo-conservatism.
        But that’s the great thing about Judaism, people understand so little about it that they are bowled over by the slightest pretext of it, the most transparent show of it:
        “He must be an Orthodox Jew, look at that hat, look at that beard”
        “Look ,anybody can grow a beard or buy a hat”.
        Would you wear a hat like that or grow a beard like that if God didn’t make you? I’m telling you, he must be Orthodox!

      • Donald
        May 22, 2010, 3:13 pm

        Mooser, you’re getting close to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Maybe neoconservatism is contradictory to Orthodox Judaism, properly understood–I would have no idea about that. But it wouldn’t exactly be the first time someone took a set of noble ideals and turned them into an excuse for land theft and murder.

        Me and my fellow Christians could teach lessons on how to go about doing this, if anyone is interested.

      • seanmcbride
        May 23, 2010, 8:07 am

        Mooser,

        Here is Neocon #1 speaking about the vital connection between Orthodox Judaism and neoconservativism:

        article; Norman Podhoretz; Why Are Jews Liberals?; The Wall Street Journal; September 10, 2010 link to online.wsj.com

        BEGIN QUOTE

        Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of “Jewish values.” But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

        Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law.

        END QUOTE

      • Citizen
        May 22, 2010, 2:30 pm

        So, LeaNder, if we shouldn’t confuse religion with politics or its political exploitation/instrumentalization, why don’t you have a problem with Christian Zionism being in that list?

      • LeaNder
        May 22, 2010, 4:52 pm

        why don’t you have a problem with Christian Zionism being in that list?

        I don’t quite understand the intention behind your question. Frankly it reminds me of your support of Christian America, the Editor, or Ed, forget his first name Moore.

        I don’t know much about Christian Zionism. It’s an interesting topic but not on top of my reading list.

        Frankly this is one of Sean’s more easy lists, but nevertheless I didn’t peruse it too carefully.

      • seanmcbride
        May 23, 2010, 8:12 am

        Citizen,

        Neoconservatives are closely allied with, and strongly support, Christian Zionists. Support for Christian Zionism is one of the key distinguishing features of neoconservatism. The Kristols (Irving and William) and Elliott Abrams have been noteworthy in promoting the policy.

        Of course Christian Zionism+ should be on any list profiling neoconservatism.

  21. seanmcbride
    May 21, 2010, 6:30 pm

    Getting a handle on Commentary’s peculiar preoccupations

    Anyone here can visit Commentary’s online archive, and browse the titles of decades of issues. You’ll catch the editorial drift quite quickly, without much effort. Subtlety is not Commentary’s forte:

    link to commentarymagazine.com

    I just visited the current issue, here:

    link to commentarymagazine.com

    The first article of the current issue? “Mr. President, Your Animus Is Showing” by John Podhoretz. What is John Podhoretz excited about as of May 2010? The same topic he is excited about every day of every month of every year:

    “That President Obama has initiated a definite shift in policy toward Israel has become evident even to the New York Times.”

    The president of the United States is a threat to Israel. All the neocons believe that this is the case, and they have been loud and strident in expressing their views.

    John Podhoretz’s father, Norman Podhoretz, is generally considered to be the godfather of the neoconservative movement (sometimes the co-godfather, along with Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol.) Podhoretz senior is the lead impresario for World War IV.

    (Nepotism is also a big deal in the neoconservative movement.)

  22. Mooser
    May 22, 2010, 3:06 pm

    You guys are getting whooped. Whoop, whoop, whoop! And your wives are all old cranes!

Leave a Reply