Israel is sucking up all the oxygen in the White House

NETANYAHU OBAMA HP 2
Obama had his 9th meeting with the leader of which state of 7 million people last week?

Editor: Last weekend at Occupy AIPAC, Bruce Wolman remarked that the lobby demands so much diplomatic attention from the White House that it takes away Obama’s ability to deal more assertively with China– say, by insisting that it reinvest its dollars here so as to grow American jobs. Oh no: Obama must use his diplomatic capital to get China on board with our Iranian agenda. A few days later we saw the two ads produced by Israel lobby groups making Obama’s supposed betrayal of Israel the only issue in the forthcoming campaign. We sent them to Wolman, and asked him to expound his theory. 

Besides political discourse and the blatant hypocrisy between expressed values and actual deeds, what about actual diplomatic horse-trading or the utilization of capital in our soft-power account? I believe the latter has a great deal to do with the Israel government and Israel lobby’s hold over Congress and the Democratic Party, and thus in turn on the Executive Branch itself.

In all the issues I raise below, how many lobby-approved appointees are now in executive positions that deal with those issues? Even non-Jews appointed must have pro-Israel/Wall Street cred.

And consider a leading lobby organization, the American Jewish Committee. It runs its own foreign policy. There is probably not a government in the world that would refuse the request for an AJC meeting if asked for one. They are too afraid to say no. Look at these testimonials:

“AJC remains today an important partner for Germany-both in terms of dialogue with American Jewry and transatlantic relations in general.”

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

“Let me acknowledge those who have substantially contributed to the creation of an order of security and peace in Europe, such as the American Jewish Committee.”

Václav Havel, President of the Czech Republic (1993-2003)

“AJC is the most effective, most influential, and most respected of American Jewish organizations…. My door will always be open to AJC.”

Nicolas Sarkozy, French President

Whether the lobby has power or not, the outside world thinks it does and foreign governments are constantly trying to get lobby support for their own issues in Washington.

Now some of the costs:

1. Many segments of US industry realize that they are not benefiting from US-China trade policy. Some industries such as solar power and telecom systems are getting decimated. Illegal copying pervades software, entertainment and gaming. Other industries are not getting agreed access to Chinese markets, and those that are do not earn profits or realize they are being forced to transfer their technology and marketing skills at an alarming rate. Let’s say finance, Walmart, agriculture and Boeing still benefit.
Are the rest without political influence? How much is US willingness to suffer enormous persistent trade deficits and Chinese exchange rate control due to a quid-pro-quo for a relatively free-hand carrying out our self-defeating ME policies, including the full-court press on Iran? (The trade deficit is a much more serious and immediate problem than the fiscal deficit. In fact, most of the fiscal deficit would go away if we could get our trade in balance.)
 
2. How much has defending Israel in the UN and reshaping the management at the IAEA cost us with respect to soft-power flexing? Besides the coercion applied, what did we give up or agree to in order to buy votes on the Security Council or other organs?
 
3. How much have we damaged ties with Turkey by taking Israel’s side on the dispute between them and by insisting Turkey make-up with Israel?
 
4. How much is our relationship with Egypt being damaged by our insistence that any new rulers maintain the status quo with respect to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty? 
 
5. How much is our unshakeable support of Israel preventing any reconciliation with Iran?
 
6. How much is our unflappable defense of Israel’s nuclear weapon program preventing non-proliferation in the MidEast? (We are not even allowed to mention the notion of a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East, something every country in the world except one favors.)
 
7. How much do we concede to the ME authoritarian/royal dictatorships to buy their cooperation with our Israeli bias?
 
8. How much is our beefing up of Colombia and the deep freeze in relations with Venezuela due to Israel’s relationship with both countries?
 
9. What trade concessions have we conceded to Japan, South Korea, and the other Asian tigers to keep them in line with respect to our Mideast policies?
 

About Bruce Wolman

Bruce Wolman is a citizen journalist who has lived in Norway and the Washington area.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, Media, Turkey, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 119 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Citizen says:

    We have been giving up our trade leverage to benefit Israel for a long time. Our first international trade agreement was with–guess who? Israel. Said agreement is a monument to agreeing to get screwed by Israel; the net gain for Israel’s trade at the expense of our own is Gigantic! That’s been the secret model condition for all our subsequent trade agreements. If only Dick & Jane had a slight clue. I’d love to lock the lovely couple in a room and go over the fine details of all our MOUs with Israel, in addition to all our trade agreements’ fine conditions, beginning with the first, with Israel. And then show a graph of trade net loss and gain to US v to Israel.

    • irmep says:

      Great analysis, Wolman. Here is one perspective of that wonderful FTA negotiating process: link to irmep.org

      Here is the graph of the $10 billion US deficit growing from an initial balanced trade relationship: link to IRmep.org

      Back in the mid-1980s, no insider ever referred to the US-Israel agreement as “free trade.” They called it what it was, “Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports from Israel.” Of course, the lobby’s position has always been that the agreement was a vital US interest and “1985 affords American products the opportunity to compete on an equal basis with European goods, which all have free access to Israel’s domestic markets.” So sez the bard:

      link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      Guess that’s what made disenfranchising 70 opposing US industries and workers okay. The propaganda truly never stops. Calling a cat a mouse indeed.

      -g

      • and for this opportunity to trade with Israel the US shuts out a potential market of 73 million young, smart Iranians with great technological ability but tremendous wants and needs — Boeing planes, for starters.

        A friend was recalling when John Deere and numerous other US companies had robust trade with Iran, and US universities overflowed with Iranian students.
        Flynt Leverett is teaching his International Affairs students at Penn State that there is no reason why US cannot have the same relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a legitimate government.
        In comments at a Wilson Center panel discussion recently Ephraim Sneh, Bibi’s co-conspirator in demonizing Iran (he attended Bibi’s brother Yoni at Entebbe and was unable to save his life), insists that “Iran needs a revolution and the Iranian people are incapable of doing it,” which is, of course, the way democracies work –in upside-down world: an outside entity that can’t control its own 6 million population decides how 73 million people should rule themselves.
        nb in the linked conference at Wilson Center, Sneh said something interesting — the situation will change in Israel very soon because “the extremist government will be replaced.”

  2. Excellent summary of our foreign policy dilemma, Bruce. It’s something I and some others have been saying here for years: The U,S, special relationship with Israel is the controlling factor in determining American foreign policy – wherever. It chooses our political leaders and top government officials. It works to blanket our government in secrecy and misinformation. It promotes public ignorance and manipulates public passions for its own foul ends. “It” is the special relationship pressed on America by ‘friends of Israel.’

    Such is the power of the Israel Lobby and its neocon and ‘liberal’ supporters, along with its pathetic Christian ‘Zionist’ groupees. All governments and their representatives fear the ruthless power of the Lobby. In the U.S., it is a principal threat to the survival of democracy and Constitutional freedoms. It is an enemy of the people.

    • Philip Weiss says:

      thanks Thomson, these are interesting ideas. I hope they are taken further, with rigor, and the falsities in the thinking, yours and Wolman’s, separated from the gold in it.

      • Thanks for the thanks, Phil. And most of all, thanks for your tolerance of various and often opposing views on topics relevant to your own key issues. As to the “falsity” of anything Bruce or I wrote, I think that if there is any it would lie in hyperbole – in taking basic truths and, for sake of emphasis, stretching them too far into the realm of exaggeration. That is what I (not Bruce) did above, in my ueber-polemical style. It’s a style I normally try to avoid here out of respect for the interests of this blog.

        As time permits, I do like to supply evidence supporting my views, and urge others to do the same.

        • Philip Weiss says:

          Thomson I looked over your earlier post and find it too blanket. I dont think this kind of language helps really. The lobby controls all appointments? I think it’s important to be precise here. This isn’t very precise. I think Walt and Mearsheimer were careful, and Bruce here is taking it to an important new level of understanding, of how much energy it takes up. But I regret endorsing your post whole hog, Phil

        • Opaleye says:

          Phil, um, you didn’t endorse it whole hog. You qualified your endorsement by mentioning falsities.

          A phrase like ” the Lobby … is an enemy of the people” is a little uncomfortable, shall we say. But here’s the problem: what if it’s true? What if the truth is uncomfortable? Do we opt for comfort or truth?

          If only the “Israel” part of the Lobby could be surgically distinguished from the “US Jewish community” aspect, everything would be much simpler. But alas.

          Anyway, these musings led me to a weird and crazy idea. You often mention the destructive effect of US based fundraising for settlements. So…. what if US based Jewish groups started raising funds to go and buy houses in Israel and then …. give them to Palestinians… ?? It sounds crazy … but could it not be done? I mean, the idea would be mainly symbolic I suppose, but I just wonder if it could be done …

        • Agreed, Phil. Point taken – especially wrt careless imprecision and, in my own self-criticism above, “hyperbole” (induced by outrage).

          It’s your and Adam’s blog – a very valuable and highly-valued one – and a cautionary word of specific guidance on occasion can be helpful, as in this case, in clarifying limits for tone and content. I want Mondoweiss to thrive in the public mind.

        • Opaleye, clearly the phrase “enemy of the people” represented ‘truth’ for me or I wouldn’t have said it. But in this contentious world one person’s truth is another’s garbage. The question in my mind is whether my speaking my truth so forthrightly (set aside for the moment the obvious accompanying exaggeration about appointments, etc.) helps advance the noble causes of the blog. Phil said that, in this case at least, it does not. That’s useful information for me because, though I may be inclined to disagree from my own perspective, I am not privy to all the relevant information he has as mastermind of this blog.

          That leaves unanswered your question, What if my truth, or your truth, really is The Truth? Surely, one must fight for the ‘truth’ as one understands it. But do it wisely.

    • pabelmont says:

      What else have the by-oligarchy-inserted-aparatchniks been doing than bad foreign policy?

      Oligarchy including BIG-ZION but also and maybe more significantly BIG-ARMS, BIG-WAR. With some or much overlap, doubtless.

      Recall the $-billions spurlos versenkt in Iraq War and presumably in Afghanistan as well — lost, stolen, or strayed — seem to have been mislaid — but at whose hands? the BIG-WAR people: Military, Mercenaries, repair-the-deliberate-and-unnecessary-damage-to-infrastructure-of-unnecessary-war (Halliburton, et al.)

      And who designed a system, a make-war-machine, in such a way as not to have obvious financial controls? Was it the businessmen inserted into government by Bush — who must have believed (or at least said) that a government runs more efficiently if run by businessmen?

      May it have been the government folks? Those who decided to make the war and to generate the profits? And are those people the pro-WAR and pro-Israel and neocon folks inserted as government apartchniks? In the earlier case, Bush’s apartchniks. Today, unless fixed, Obama’s.

      Summary: those stolen billions (OK, smaller than the BIG-BANK bailouts) were stolen by a make-war machine peopled by a government infested with apartchniks inserted by the various (overlapping) elements of the oligarchy, which together and severally have the power to insert high-level and mid-level appointees (aka apartchniks).

      Maybe not all appointed by BIG-ZION, but Thomson makes a good case that many were at least vetted by BIG-ZION.

      • it’s not just the BIG, macro economic movers who are disadvantaged by AIPAC sucking the oxygen — nobody I know is comfortable taking any kind of risk — to open a flower shop, buy a house, get married, have a child. Everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop, and Israel and the Yahoo are holding that shoe.

        I went to talk to a neighbor about sharing a load of mulch for the yard. The first words out of his mouth were, “It’s really frightening what’s going on.” He said, “I’m not so much afraid for myself, I can take care of myself and I’m and old man. But my children have no future. There is too much uncertainty.”

        Israel and zionism, you’ve had your 15 minutes.

        The resentment is going to build to massive proportions.

  3. radii says:

    israel also sucks untold billion$ from our Treasury every single year … and they suck the loyalty right out of our Congress … as they suck t he objectivity right out of our media … and suck the credibility right out of our foreign policy … wile sucking the national interest right out of our warmaking policies … and sucks our privacy and security from our electronic communications (Carl Cameron reports right after 9/11 on Amdocs) … I guess israel is the Succubus of the United States

  4. pabelmont says:

    Mr. Wolman: Have you any way to [1] discover if your views are shared by CEOs of disadvantaged USA industries; or [2] to put your views before them and ask them to push the issue in Washington? It might sometimes work.

    OTOH, many CEOs (say in Hollywood) may be Zionists (or, worse, right-wing Zionists) and be willing for their industries (of which they are disarmingly known as fiduciaries if the industries are widely-traded corporations) to suffer for Israel’s sake. This would be, if true, another example of the corruption of USA society (this time within corporations instead of because of corporations).

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the shareholders of BIG-FILM and BIG-TV specifically directed their CEOs to use corporate political-spending to FAVOR their own industries by getting pro-industry folks into Washington jobs IN PLACE of any placemen who are NOT pro-FILM and pro-TV (even if they are, e.g., pro-Israel)!

  5. Donald says:

    Very interesting post. Maybe others had brought up these possible links, but some of it was new ground for me, the China part in particular.

    Slightly off topic, but Chris Hayes did a show on Israel and America this morning. I only saw the middle portion of a two hour program, but it was good, and way way above what you’d normally see in the MSM.

  6. ahhiyawa says:

    “Dick and Jane” aren’t the problem. Its not their fault thieving politicians lie, conspire, cheat, betray and commit treason on a daily basis on capital hill. If the US structures of governance were actually democratic as its often falsely claimed, instead of republican per the Constitution, than you and others would be dead right in chastising the American people.

    • yourstruly says:

      given the distances between communities and the forms of transportation available a couple centuries ago, back then indirect democracy was both necessary & proper. today, though, isn’t it time to establish direct democracy, what with there being at least one computer in most residences?* surely it’ll be difficult if not impossible for corporations to buy off a couple hundred million voter/self-representatives, the way they purchase elected politicians.

      *with the public providing computers to individuals who can’t afford them. and, yes, the $$ for such could come out of a general fund provided by us taxpayers.

  7. Elliot says:

    Does anybody keep tabs on how many meetings the President has had with foreign leaders? I think it would be helpful to making the case to put the Netanyahu meetings in the context of all the President’s meetings.

  8. yourstruly says:

    so the tail not only wags the dog but by utilizing an excess of available oxygen drains the dog of its vitality, thereby rendering it incapable of properly attending to its other responsibilities? surely this characterizes a parasitic relationship, if ever there was one.

  9. yep. considering china is our main competitor in both the ME and africa it’s amazing how we run around trying to make that little criminal apartheid state happy.

    excellent post

    • dahoit says:

      Competitor or just looking out for its interests and its peoples,and possibly,heaven forbid,other peoples?Unlike US, who care not one whit for our victims, and their lives just their treasure that we think is ours by blasphemer divine right?
      And someone mentioned our medias credibility?Wha?Did he mean their fealty toward their one handed clapping?
      And just what do they(MSM) have on Obomba,that makes him such a pliable toady?Maybe proof on his eligibility as an American citizen?It wouldn’t surprise me one iota.

      • Competitor or just looking out for its interests and its peoples,and possibly,heaven forbid,other peoples?

        i mean competitor. people are just completely ignoring the elephant in the room:
        link to reuters.com

        China to offer renminbi loans to BRICs nations -FT

        LONDON, March 7 | Wed Mar 7, 2012 5:05pm EST

        (Reuters) – China is planning to extend renminbi loans to other major emerging BRIC countries, in another step toward the expansion of the yuan’s role in foreign exchange, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday.

        The China Development Bank (CDB) will sign a memorandum of understanding at a meeting with its BRICs counterparts – Russia, South Africa, Brazil and India – in New Delhi on March 29, the newspaper reported, citing people familiar with the talks.

        Under the agreement CDB, which lends mainly in dollars overseas, will make renminbi loans available, while the other BRICs nations’ development banks will also extend loans denominated in their respective currencies, the FT said in an article published on its website.

        don’t think the iran sanctions are not alienating to our other allies. the dollar is supposed to be reserve currency so opening up the renminbi loans should be considered a warning. plus, check this out:

        Despite sanctions, India to ramp up ties with Iran
        link to ibnlive.in.com
        Reacting to Clinton’s statement, officials in New Delhi Thursday, however, maintained that India abides by the UN sanctions and not unilateral sanctions by individual countries or groupings.

        it means india is working around the sanctions and stepping up trade with iran. in fact there is a huge delegation from india in tehran right now: link to aljazeera.com

        India seeks way around Iran sanctions
        Old-fashioned business practices being employed to expand bilateral trade currently worth $14bn.

        Some of Iran’s trading partners are seeing the latest sanctions by the EU and the US as opportunity to expand their own trade with the Islamic republic.

        India has sent a delegation to explore more commercial opportunities with Iran to increase bilateral trade worth $14bn a year.

        Despite mounting US pressure, Al Jazeera’s Prerna Suri reports, India is using an old-fashioned but effective way of conducting business to maintain its trade ties with Iran.

        from 2010: link to thehindu.com

        BRIC, IBSA nations not keen on Iran sanctions

        if the bric countries find avenues to trade with iran via china, the US will be the looser. and here’s link to forbes.com
        America’s $4 Achilles Heel Is Gasoline

        this is bad news for the US. not a smart move and obama knows it which is exactly why he warned against tough sanctions.

        • one more thing i am not sure if people are aware of and that is india’s investments in Chabahar in baluchistan.
          India opts to befriend rather than sanction Iran

          India helped build Chabahar a decade ago to provide access to Afghanistan and central Asia – prohibited over land by neighbouring nuclear rival Pakistan – and is involved in building a 900km rail link from the Zabul iron ore mines in southern Afghanistan to the Iranian port. With Iran and Afghanistan, it has agreed that Indian goods headed for Central Asia and Afghanistan will benefit from tariff discounts at Chabahar.

          In addition to its oil needs, India wants to cement ties with a besieged Tehran so as to retain access to Kabul in the run-up to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and to the Asian republics, where there are vast hydrocarbon reserves that could fuel India’s economic development.

          Over the past few weeks a defiant India has been examining ways to step up trade with Iran amid trouble in settling its oil bills as sanctions closed down banking routes.

          Much to Washington’s ire, New Delhi is sending a large trade delegation to Iran later this month to explore business opportunities created by western sanctions.

          The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry in Delhi said the Islamic republic offered massive potential for Indian exports: more than $10 billion (€7.5 billion) a year.

          “The potential of trade and economic relations between India and Iran can touch $30 billion by 2015 from the current level of $13.7 billion,” association secretary general DS Rawat said.

          link to thenational.ae

          India disdains Iran sanctions
          the trade and banking sanctions imposed on Iran by the world community become less effective if they’re ignored by a country of India’s size….

    • Linda J says:

      “…considering china is OUR main competitor in both the ME and africa”

      who is this “our” you speak of? i am not competing w/china. personally, i hope israel’s venal brutality at least and at last proves to be a major hobble on the capitol of capital in the world.

    • seems to me to be a mistake to say, “We should not allow Israel to suck oxygen from US foreign policy because XYZ is a badder actor.” It would be refreshing to say, Israel needs to be treated just like everybody else because it is the right thing to do, and because it is in the best interest of the people of the United States.

      While politically pleasing, it seems cheap and tawdry to say we should stop doing one dysfunctional thing because we see (or create) another demon/enemy on the horizon.

      We’ve been in this cycle since the wars in Europe at beginning of 20th century, seeking dragons to slay. Doing the right thing for the sake of US principles is so much more philosophically rewarding. And politically, too.

      • ahhiyawa says:

        “…Doing the right thing for the sake of US principles is so much more philosophically rewarding. And politically, too.”

        Congressmen, especially Republicans don’t think so. All you can do is vote for bosses, who rule over us for 2, 4 or 6 years.

        And during their terms of office they do much as they please until they face the voters again, a rabble they believe they can flimflam, which they all too often succeed in doing for another pillaging 2, 4 or 6 years.

        A political career is all about getting rich. The idealism’s that inspire candidates for office has the life expectancy of a snow ball in hell once they gain office.

  10. U guys are starting to frighten me, this sounds too conspiratorial to me.

    Just why would such a little country have so much power and influence, please don’t tell me that it’s just all of that zionist money and connections to banks and the mafia, that is just way too much hollywood for me, oh and while speaking of hollywood i am surprised you havent tried to implicate hollywood in your israeli propaganda meme.

    I am shocked at where you are heading with all of this Phil, surprised even to the point that i doubt you would post my shock at all of this.

    There is no way to connect these dots without crossing over into conjecture land.

    you will make fools of yourselves.

    • ;)

      shocked!

      you will make fools of yourselves.

      ouch, fighting words.

      • You know annie, truth be told the battle lines ought to be drawn at some point where things can be defended.

        Winning hearts and minds is more important than winning battles, stay at the core and battle the core, the rest will splinter.

        Decoupling american minds and americas jewish community from the israeli myth is way more important to winning this battle than exploring conspiracies which are more impossible to prove than the myths of the founding of that little project in the middle east.

        Our Press here in the States sucks, and is more to blame than most things we can point to, mainly because they are the wolves in sheeps clothing, our very own pravda but with the credibility pravda could only dream off.

        Think of it this way, if not for the internet we would be who knows where, but definitely in way deeper $hit in the middle east than we are now.

        And we would probably believe way more of the lies that the Gov’t tells us than we do now, and all because dissenting voices on the internet have an outlet and truth seekers have places to go to search it out.

        Oh and i can not forget to thank guys and gals like Phil who left the establishment to be able to speak some truths, men and women with training and the credentials and knowhow to operate at this level.

        • Citizen says:

          atime forpeace, imagine if the people you know had access to information only thru a totally controlled press and the single channel on a radio given to them by the state. They would be just like the Germans we all grew up taught were a special evil people.

          Evil really is banal & that did not stop in 1945.

        • “They would be just like the Germans we all grew up taught were a special evil people.
          Evil really is banal & that did not stop in 1945.”

          Given the political necessity of fighting those battles we can win, we might — make that must work in our own communities at the local level to monitor the textbooks and curriculum our children are taught in taxpayer supported schools.

          We should not allow our children to be taught that “Germans were especially evil people.”
          Sanam Anderlini told the Occupy AIPAC conference that public school children in the US are not taught about Iranian history and culture; it has been scrubbed from the knowledge base American schoolchildren are expected to carry with them into their future. We should insist that our children learn about the world as it IS, not as some ideologues wish it were.

          Phil did a hero’s work with this report — link to mondoweiss.net
          and while the focus of this internet forum is to remember the Nakba, it is not too late to remember the men and women who suffered, fought, lost, were dispossessed in the 20th century wars. Benjamin Netanyahu must not be permitted to get away with slurring the American people who gave a part of their life and future. link to mondoweiss.net

          I suggest that those of us who are better informed through the efforts of blogs like Mondoweiss become active in our local schools and school boards and insist and ensure that a true history, not a Foxmanized history, be taught to our children.

    • Donald says:

      It’s not so much the country, it’s the lobbying groups here. And there’s obviously something weird about the way Congress is almost 100 percent behind Israel and cheers wildly for an idiot politician like Netanyahu. Of all the issues to be bipartisan about, why would support for a country with abysmal human rights policies that is run by a moron be the one that brings Congress together?

      The US is trying to get everyone in the world to line up against Iran. Is it a conspiracy theory to imagine that this priority might impact on other parts of our foreign policy?

      • OlegR says:

        /Of all the issues to be bipartisan about, why would support for a country with abysmal human rights policies that is run by a moron be the one that brings Congress together?/
        Here is a thought,
        maybe those policies are not that abysmal and it’s not run by morons?

        • maybe those policies are not that abysmal

          maybe black is white

        • Shingo says:

          maybe those policies are not that abysmal and it’s not run by morons?

          How about the policy that demands Iran stop making nukes when all 16 intelligence agencies and Mossad unanimously agree Iran hasn’t even decided to try.

          Pure genius.

      • LeaNder says:

        something weird about the way Congress is almost 100 percent behind Israel and cheers wildly for an idiot politician like Netanyahu.

        That’s true, but somehow I would have expected from you a slightly more critical reaction to the whole list.

        Israel influencing US politics in South America? If there was no lobby, US power brokers would willingly embrace Venezuela? Actually that makes me laugh. Without Israel the US wouldn’t have cooperated with ME dictators? I absolutely doubt that too. You seem to have forgotten that right was fine for several decades when dictatorship had to be on the left to not be supportable.

        And while we’re at it, did Israel have AIPAC lobby in the US to outsource it’s whole production to China? I didn’t know that.

        What precise changes in US – Turkey relations do you know of resulting from the deterioration of Israel – Turkey relations?

        I know, I shouldn’t be singling you out you. But there we go.

        No doubt Israel demands much attention for it’s Iran obsession (combined with expansion) probably much administrative resources. Time and money that could more effectively invested somewhere else? Absolutely, but I wonder if we know all the retarding forces besides the lobby. Obamacare and the communist threat, healthcare for all seems to trigger in US minds, with a little help from special interests, was interesting to watch from the outside. Were his opponents then only AIPAC and the lobby too?

        • Bruce says:

          @Leander

          Obama came into power with the intention of de-escalating the conflict with Venezuela. (After all, the Bushies had tried to overthrow Chavez, who naturally had some good reasons to hold a grudge.) But Chavez’s cozying up with Iran was the deal-breaker for the risk-averse Obama. He was unwilling to take the inevitable heat from the Lobby and its friends in Congress.

          Columbia has received an incredible amount of aid from the US in the last years, quite disproportionate to the rest of South America. Is it just a coincidence that it is Israel’s most reliable friend in Latin America? Is it really in the interest of the US to focus so much on Columbia to the exclusion of the rest of its southern neighbors?

          The leaders of Brazil and Turkey – with the personal encouragement and approval of Obama – successfully negotiated a safeguards deal with Iran concerning the 20% enriched uranium Iran needs for medical uses. When the Lobby and its allies in Congress squawked, the Obama administration rejected the deal, a solution that the US should have found quite acceptable. Do you think the leaders of Brazil and Turkey are going to make such an effort the next time around or that US soft-power in either country was enhanced by the episode? Do you think the US reaction encouraged Iran to negotiate further?

          Turkey should be a valuable ally for the United States as it tries to reduce its unsustainable military footprint in the Middle East. The United States valued its relationship with Turkey to such an extent, it went to great lengths to pressure the EU to accept Turkey as a candidate for membership. When Turkey opposed the Israeli attack on Gaza and when Israel killed the Turkish citizens in international waters, the United States completely defended Israel. As Turkish-Israeli relations further deteriorated over the incidents, the Obama administration put great pressure on Turkey to make-up and reinstate the Turkish-Israeli alliance as if that was the number one concern the US had with Turkey. The US pressure was taken as a humiliation in Turkey. The Lobby immediately started calling for punishment of Turkey. Suddenly, Congressmen who had opposed for years the proposed law recognizing the Armenian genocide switched their positions in favor. Whatever the merits, Armenian genocide is a red-line for Turkey. How does any of this work in favor of US interests?

          While from a US perspective, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party would be a good role model for democratizing Arab states, the US has to hold back any enthusiasm since Turkey is still in the AIPAC dog house.

          As far as I know, AIPAC was not an advocate of US outsourcing to China, just of Israeli weapon sales of US technology to China. But as the years have passed and it has become increasingly obvious that the US-Chinese trade imbalances are hurting the struggling US economy, the Obama administration has been unwilling to take any serious stand vis-a-vis the Chinese. On the other hand, it has had no difficulty putting a great deal of pressure on China to support stronger and stronger international sanctions on Iran, a policy that goes against Chinese interests. What is the quid-pro-quo that gets China to accede to this? How is this deal in the interest of the US?

        • Donald says:

          “That’s true, but somehow I would have expected from you a slightly more critical reaction to the whole list.”

          I was focusing mainly on the Iran/China link, which I hadn’t thought about before. I don’t know if it’s true, but it makes sense that if we’re trying to get everyone in the world to line up against Iran, there would be tradeoffs.

          I don’t blame the Lobby for much besides our policy towards Israel and even there I don’t give them all the blame. Overall, though, I think the mentality of US imperialists and Israeli imperialists is such that they probably agree on who to bomb and which thugs to support most of the time anyway, Lobby or no Lobby. The really impressive thing about the Lobby is the way it unifies Congress, turning the entire body (with a handful of exceptions) into groveling sycophants to even a jerk like Netanyahu.

          On Venezuela I think US policy would be bad even if Israel never existed, though it is interesting to see Israeli connections to Latin American death squads pop up from time to time–I first heard about that back in the 80′s. My guess is that Israel was supporting mass murderers in Guatemala and other places as a favor to some segments in the US government. But if Israel never existed, obviously we still would have supported thugs and death squads in Latin American, and also dictatorships in the Middle East. The details perhaps would have been different.

        • Donald says:

          Incidentally, Leander, where the hell did you get the idea that I believed all the things you attributed to me? I thought it was an interesting post in that I hadn’t thought about how this priority given to the alleged Iranian threat probably does have effects on policies (like China trade policy) that are not directly related. From this you conclude that I’ve embraced the notion that the Lobby is singlehandedly responsible for everything bad in the US and in its foreign policies. Presumably I must also think we committed acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the 19th century in order to provide Benny Morris with the rationale he needed to defend the Nakba. That darn Lobby–it can even reach back in space and time and create events that will support the efforts of later hasbarists. Uh, no. Go pick on someone else. I didn’t see what you saw in Bruce’s post, and even without his clarification that’s because it wasn’t there in the first place.

        • LeaNder says:

          good argument, Bruce, even for this nitwit it feels that Israel tends to pull the US into it’s own war, if I may exaggerate, against the rest of the world*, as it seems to be aligned with blocking, retarding influences in US politics, regarding Obama’s promised “change”.
          *Antisemitic Europe & Europistan,

          Admittedly I didn’t know about this: Is it just a coincidence that it is Israel’s most reliable friend in Latin America?

          *****************************************************************

          The core problem for me seems to be the US empire / it’s tremendous military power in a changing world that seems to demand much more cooperation than ever before. To what extend does the US economy depend on the military complex? Wars mean new production and also exports. No?

          Condoleeza told a German audience post 911, that after the fall of the Soviet Union everybody in the US asked themselves, who the new enemy would be–she too worked in the field before–and seemed almost pleased when she added: after 911 everybody knew. War tools need new markets too. To complicate matters, don’t think we don’t need the military. …

          Associatively: We have problems with our Presidents in Germany lately, a largely representative office, two had to resign by now. The first in 2010 due to the public uproar caused bythis statement in 2010:

          “In my estimation, though, we—including [German] society as a whole—are coming to the general understanding that, given this [strong] focus and corresponding dependency on exports, a country of our size needs to be aware that where called for or in an emergency, military deployment, too, is necessary if we are to protect our interests such as ensuring free trade routes or preventing regional instabilities which are also certain to negatively impact our ability to safeguard trade, jobs and income. All of this should be discussed and I think the path we are on is not so bad.”

          Who are the “we”, the good? This seems a clear alignment with the WOT. To what extend was this idea influenced by his job as Head of the International Monetary Fund? Is this something I could only understand if I knew more about the dynamics of a Western institutional frameworks of fiscal control of the rest of the world? Annie collected some data on China’s own ideas in the field.

          Basically, I know that I know nothing, maybe nitwits should be censored too?

        • LeaNder says:

          Donald, please accept my apology.

          I am working on early 20th century self-hating Jews in Germany and Austria, the complicated issue of German/Austrian Jewish struggles with identity and it’s larger sociopolitical context. Studying this has the advantage of knowing what was to follow. It also complicates matters; the closer one looks. It also shades my reception of unrelated matters, no doubt.

          Strictly I addressed you as someone who usually carefully differentiates. This was too spontaneous, I am afraid. I was absolutely aware, that I should not pick you out. But there, it happened. If I evoked your hostility, I surely can understand and live with it.

        • Donald says:

          That’s okay, Leander. I was a little grumpy there. I should have let the first reply stand or rewritten the second one to be less irritable.

        • Bruce says:

          @LeaNder

          You are one of the readers I most respect at Mondo, so when you find fault I listen. As I already mentioned, the way this posting came about finds it less sourced than usual.

          Aljazeera had a detailed article about the Israel-Columbia-USA connection last year as Abbas was looking for votes on the Security Council in his bid for UN membership. Columbia held the Latin American seat on the UNSC at the time. Interesting to what extent the Columbia position was out-of-step with its neighbors and countrymen.

        • “US-Chinese trade imbalances are hurting the struggling US economy, the Obama administration has been unwilling to take any serious stand vis-a-vis the Chinese. On the other hand, it has had no difficulty putting a great deal of pressure on China to support stronger and stronger international sanctions on Iran, a policy that goes against Chinese interests. What is the quid-pro-quo that gets China to accede to this? How is this deal in the interest of the US?”

          I do see Israel’s hand in US-China policy, in subtle ways.

          1. The more recent round of sanctions against Iran has made it impossible for Iran to export Persian rugs.
          I was at a rug merchant’s shop (in USA) the other day. He showed me ‘used’ Persian rugs, of varying quality and very high prices, and new rugs, very beautiful, high knot count, fine quality, Persian designs, astonishing low prices. They are made in China. It’s hard to tell the difference between a genuine Persian and a China made Persian rug.
          Was the sanction on Iran’s Persian rugs (which will seriously harm workers up and down the scale in Iran, in addition to imposing a cultural ‘genocide’ on a Persian art form) a bone tossed to China, to give China a way to employ many thousands of low-wage Chinese people, and produce a stream of revenue from exports?

          2. When I hear US news media/pundits/legislators braying about all the ways China steals US patents & technology and spies on US cyberworld, I see Israel lobby’s hand. Israel is a mirror culture. The ‘evil’ that they point to in others is their own reflection in the looking glass. For example, Israelis ‘interpret’ Iran as if it were Israel; Israelis know that they are and did develop nuclear weapons in secret, therefore, in ‘mirror-think’ Israelis conclude Iran is doing the same thing.
          Applying ‘mirror culture’ to China, Israel knows that it is spying on US cyberspace and stealing US technology; they divert attention by pointing to China, whom they conclude is doing the same thing as Israel is doing.

          3. Dennis Ross — yes That Dennis Ross — was founding chairman of Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. One of the first studies conducted under his chairmanship was Salomon Wald’s paper on the steps Israel should take to assure strong Israel-China alliance in the future, posited on the assessment that the US would sooner rather than later slip from dominance as the world’s major economic power. Eight years ago Israel started to get its ducks in a row to replace US as Israel’s “best friend and ally,” — after they’d sucked US dry.

          link to jppi.org.il

        • LeaNder says:

          I should have let the first reply stand or rewritten the second one to be less irritable.

          For someone with a slightly choleric temperament, which I have, that would have been very disappointing, Donald. ;)

        • LeaNder says:

          thanks, Bruce, interesting article.

          I can use a little flattery and the moment, my net ego was deeply hurt by a vicious misrepresentation based on censorship. I even pondered if I should set up a web-site with carefully researched evidence as a counterpoint. But decided that every single one of the books on my current pile are more interesting than wasting time on an ideologue. ;)

        • LeaNder says:

          teta, a prominent lawyer, I know, is heavily involved in copyright violations against Chinese firms lately. They are all in the field of technology. Somehow this reminds me of rumors about the Japanese some decades earlier, which I never paid much attention to.

          The production of “Chinese Persian rugs” is an old tale. It started in the 1980s:

          The art of Persian carpets also influenced Chinese carpets. But Persian design carpets didn’t become popular in China until 1980s. Due to the Iran-Iraq War and embargo from Iran, large quantities of copies of Persian rugs were made in China and other Asian countries to meet the demands of the international market. Chinese Persian design rugs became more popular and Persian rugs from Iran declined in sales and in quality. Chinese craftsmen exerted their wisdom to make much higher quality Persian design rugs.

        • Mooser says:

          “I am working on early 20th century self-hating Jews in Germany and Austria”

          That is very nice of you, very generous! I am sure that with your help they can learn to like themselves better.
          If only someone like you had been there for me. But then, I had perfectly valid reasons.

        • LeaNder says:

          Moose, you’re right of course, as always! I should stop blathering, not bother people and leave the space for the wiser/wittier & “activist’ier” around. Especially the Mooser type, if you ask me. Much more entertaining.

          But no, not generous at all, part of a longer process and highly self-serving.
          And yes, talk is cheap, reading too. Life is a bitch!

    • Just why would such a little country have so much power and influence ….

      atimeforpeace, you misunderstand, or obfuscate. It is not the pitiful little country itself that has such power, it is its powerful organizations of supporters in America and Europe.

      But, of course, as everyone knows by now, the little mad-dog country has nuclear bombs and its ‘Samson option.’ Do you think it doesn’t use that bit of diplomacy?

    • Mooser says:

      “There is no way to connect these dots without crossing over into conjecture land.”

      Was the positive public perception of Israel up till now based on facts? No, it was based on voodoo-Hasbara and a sort of Kosher radical-chic. And most of it was conjecture.
      And when the public perception of Israel goes negative, that probably won’t be based on facts either. It’s an ugly business, this state-self-self-determination business.
      You drag your religion into, and you deserve whatever you get.

      • seafoid says:

        Yes Mooser

        The Israeli balance sheet is far too big for Israel to manage. They brought in the US as angel investors . The directors could have reinvested in the business but they spent tens of billions building up a project called YESHA.
        The money should have been spent on staff development. Now 50% of the staff are semi rabid. The relationship with the angel investors is beginning to deteriorate. The fallout will be brutal.

        I also think when the split happens 1948 is going to be reopened. I imagine there are a lot of people in DC who know where the bodies are buried.

        • pabelmont says:

          seafoid — you paint an interesting picture. Here, above, Thomson has painted a USA gov’t staffed throughout with AIPACniks, and now you paint an Israeli gov’t packed with semi-rabid YESHniki. OK so far.

          But why do you suppose “The relationship with the angel investors is beginning to deteriorate”?? Aren’t AIPAC solidly behind WHATEVER the GOI (you know who that is) is calling for?

        • seafoid says:

          The discipline is beginning to break down, pabelmont. Corporations don’t do free thinking. Nobody ever disses the boss. So the angel investors are starting to see some new analysis. it’s at a very early stage.

          Take away US support from the balance sheet and Israel is ripe for a Mitt Romney style corporate restructure.

        • Mooser says:

          “Take away US support from the balance sheet and Israel is ripe for a Mitt Romney style corporate restructure”

          You wanna start a betting pool on which Jews will get off scot-free and which Jews will suffer tremendously when it comes apart?
          Even with my faulty “historical memory” I can clean up on that one.

        • seafoid says:

          Those suffering will be

          the Haredim
          The Mizrahim
          The working and lower middle classes
          The poor Ashkenazim
          The Hebrew speakers

          The English speakers will be long gone

    • Pixel says:

      atatimeforpeace,

      Terms like “conspiratorial, “conspiracy theories,” and “conspiracy theorists” are going the way of slurs such as “anti-Semitic,” “self-hating Jews,” and “holocaust denial.”

      Facts are what matter. Let them lead where they may.

      Conjecture and dot connecting are integral to intellectual inquiry.

    • Bruce says:

      @atime forpeace

      Let’s see if I can make this sound less conspiratorial in nature for you.

      I apologize that the above posting was not more rigorously written. Truthfully, I wrote some notes to Phil and he wanted to go with them as is.

      My point to Phil was that the costs to the USA in pushing so hard to defend Israeli interests was beginning to seriously deplete our hard-power and soft-power assets (as defined by Joseph Nye). This analysis is not based on assuming Zionist control of US foreign policy. It only needs to posit that in negotiations if you want something – and the other side knows you want something – then expect to have to give up something in return. As a negotiator, if I insist on fulfillment of one of my demands, I understand that I am going to have to ease up on other demands. This is just the nature of negotiations. This dynamic is even stronger if negotiations are on-going rather than one-off.

      For whatever reasons, the US has decided to make the Iranian nuclear program its number one foreign policy concern. Diplomatically maintaining that policy has its costs. The Chinese may prefer not to see Iran have nuclear weapons, but it is not a major issue for them, while access to Iranian oil is a major objective of the Chinese. The US has in place a policy to increase economic, political and military pressure on Iran to suspend its enrichment program and curtail other aspects of its nuclear program. This pressure cannot be made operational without international cooperation. The Chinese could easily undo US efforts if it wanted. What is the price that the US has paid to get Chinese acquiescence? My assertion is that part of the deal with China is that the US will not demand tougher economic concessions from China, that the US will continue to accept large deficits in its Chinese trade and maintain US openness to Chinese goods, and in return that China will let the US continue with its Mideast policies. (Frankly, I believe China must be laughing at this trade-off, as it considers the US Mideast strategy self-defeating.)

      The connection with Israel is this. The US concern over Iran is as intense as it is due to Israeli policies and the pro-Israel lobby’s insistence that Israeli interests are one and the same as America’s, and should be given the same priority by the US as by Israel. If we did some reasonable polling of Americans and the US foreign policy elites, I am certain we would find that those polled would give a much higher priority to dealing with our economic relations with China and a lowering of priority to dealing with a possible Iranian nuclear weapon’s program than is now in fact the case. Why the disconnect? I would argue on account of US domestic politics. The Democratic Party is heavily dependent on Jewish funding. To what extent does not get into print, but you can be certain that the Party heads and leading politicians know. Otherwise, you would have to argue that the Parties have researched every demographic aspect of their donors except religion, especially the Jewish religion. You only have to listen to the craven speeches of Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer last week at AIPAC to see how servile the Democratic leadership has become to the Israeli narrative and pro-Israeli interests.

      Republicans line up with Israel for slightly different reasons. Although less dependent on Jewish donors, they still receive sizable amounts. In this election cycle Sheldon Adelson has made everyone aware of that. Moreover, Republicans have tried to put a wedge between Jewish donors and the Democratic Party by arguing they are the more reliable supporters of Israel. The Republicans also have the Christian Zionists as part of their base, and in some ways the Christian Zionists are more extreme about Eretz Israel than the Israelis. Supporting Israeli expansion and unpeopling the Palestinians is throwing this part of the base some red meat. Right-wing nationalism always needs an enemy to fight, and Islamization is the current enemy. Iran-Israel is the front line for these people, whom comfortably sit well behind the lines. Finally, well-funded neo-Conservative institutions are part of the Israeli-lobby and important players in the mass media. Republicans want to keep the criticism from these circles to a minimum.

      In an attempt to appease these domestic political dynamics, the Obama administration keeps spending its diplomatic capital defending Israel. While each decision by itself may have been considered a small price to pay for re-election, cumulatively, these decisions add up. Putting at risk our relationship with Turkey in order to take Israel’s side in the flotilla incident and then to continue to insist that Turkey make-up with Israel is not in America’s interests. Being only concerned whether the new ruling forces in Egypt maintain the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty (and not the part of the treaty relating to solving the Palestinian question) does not further US interests in the Arab Middle East.

      There is no conspiracy. It is all out in the open for all to see. Israelis are just taking advantage of the situation with the assistance of their pro-Zionist allies and the American Jewish community. An alternative domestic political strategy was also there for all to see last week. When Israel went too far and so threatened American interests that even Obama was forced to act, the President came out on top. All he had to do was say that he was not willing to put the lives of American soldiers at risk to meet Israeli demands and it was game Obama. Of course it helped that the risk-averse Obama had a fresh polling of American opinions about war with Iran and that the US military is heavily opposed to another war in the Middle East.

      • pabelmont says:

        “My point to Phil was that the costs to the USA in pushing so hard to defend Israeli interests was beginning to seriously deplete our hard-power and soft-power assets (as defined by Joseph Nye). ”

        As to such an idea, my question is a simple one. All along many people have supposed that the USA is run by the BIGs, among which is BIG-ZION (AIPAC). OK. To say that a “cost” is too big for USA inseparably includes the idea that it is PERCEIVED as “too big” by one or more BIGs. If BIG-ZION itself sees it as too big, then Obama is home free. Otherwise, some OTHER BIG (BIG-PHARMA? BIG-OIL? BIG-COAL?) must weigh in and say, “AIPAC, move over — this is costing too much” and the USA must be willing to change horses after many years upon hearing this complaint from a rival BIG.

        What have I misunderstood? Have I been wrong all along about oligarchy, the BIGs, running most everything here?

        • To say that a “cost” is too big for USA inseparably includes the idea that it is PERCEIVED as “too big” by one or more BIGs.

          Huh? Quite apart from the questions of who runs the country, and in which BIGs’ benefit, have you never heard of the ideal of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”? E pluribus unum? Do you not recognize that the American people themselves, collectively, have an interest that might be called ‘the national interest’ and that this is independent of the special interest of any of your BIGs? When Bruce speaks of the “cost” for USA, I imagine that this is what he means, however he might wish to define the interests of “the people.”

        • ahhiyawa says:

          A classic example of misconstruing American republican governance and politics for democracy.

          The interests of corporatism and constituencies rule in America! Not the People, which is an ambiguous term in the Constitution, especially Lincoln’s unfortunate phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” in the Gettysburg Address. Such sentiments in a broad sense are grand & noble, but its not how American governance works.

          Bruce put together a picture of domestic and international interests in collision, and what Obama and his team has essentially done to shepherd their way through these minefields. The throttling US/Israeli special relationship has been over 50 years in the making and its not going to be corrected overnight.

          Some condemn Obama as an abject failure. I reject such characterizations and see a man who has navigated a whole host of grave, destructive challenges any other democrat or republican would have cracked up under the load.

      • I apologize that the above posting was not more rigorously written.

        Bruce, this is an excellent explanation and defense of your excellent post. Some, commenters, I think, managed to misconstrue your meanings.

      • Philip Weiss says:

        Thanks Bruce. This is a helpful addition, it shows how thoughtful you are, and why I seized on your ideas last weekend. It is all out in the open. Then there are the more quiet elements like why Stuart Levey got his job at Treasury. And the Republican calculus is just what you say it is; as is the willingness of the media and the people to back Obama if he would only take a stand, as he did in that instance…

    • mafia has little to do with US foreign policy.

  11. Daniel Rich says:

    Israel didn’t wait for the ‘League of Nations” to ‘lead’ as an example and to become ‘a state of non-states’ when forcibly created in the womb, the ‘breadbasket’ of civilization in the ME. Study history [as far as we're granted access to it], to learn about and understand our future. The creation of Israel was a serious and pitiful mistake. The conclusion of the Balfour commission was right [or spot on, as the British say], back in the day. History’s a tool that gives us insight into our common past and future to be.

  12. As long as we’re addressing this from a cost/benefit point of view, you may be interested in this shocker from The Economist:

    link to economist.com

  13. RE: “Israel is sucking up all the oxygen in the White House” ~ Wolman

    A LATE WINTER AFTERNOON’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, brought to you courtesy of the makers of new Ziocaine Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!
    “Threads” by This Will Destroy You on ‘This Will Destroy You’ (VIDEO, 05:42) – link to youtube.com

  14. Sin Nombre says:

    For those who say that Mr. Wolman is overstating or being too speculative about the costs we pay due to our support for Israel consider what I think should have been his #1, which is the incredible, incalculable cost and damage done to us by that support in the form of higher oil prices.

    How easy it is to forget the ’73 oil crisis, despite its magnitude in almost totally re-altering our economic fundamentals, and then too the longevity of the economic wreckage it left with all those people shoved out of their jobs and all that money going out of our country and system. Indeed I don’t know if all of history has ever seen such a huge transfer of wealth from one group of countries to another. And the damage to the West was simply incalculable.

    And then of course we get to the continued conflict premium we have paid for oil ever since, ignoring even the crisis premiums we pay whenever things have gotten particularly hot, which they have often enough to make the cost of *that* premium insane standing alone.

    One cannot even begin to imagine the trillions of dollars and dislocations and other costs involved in all this, and the millions of Americans terribly affected.

    The fact is this and this alone—involving, as it did, orders-of-magnitude permanent increases in the price of energy which was and clearly remains the very life-blood of our modern economy, not to mention the centrality of petroleum otherwise—essentially re-ordered our entire way of life. And given that it did so via increased costs, did so in no positive way one can think of.

    To try some attempted comparison, one might as well start thinking about what the effect would be if we started having to pay some significant, daily, on-going amount for the oxygen we breathe.

    • Bruce says:

      @Sin Nombre

      I was not trying to write a ranked list of costs. We were talking about China and the US economy, and then this subject came up. The rest were just examples that came off the top of my head.

      Robert Dreyfuss has an interesting series in which he mentions how AIPAC and the oil companies learned to get along.

      • Sin Nombre says:

        @Bruce:

        Ah, didn’t really think you were ranking, just was doing it myself a bit I guess, so absolutely no criticism intended, especially as I admired your piece for doing some very penetrating thinking.

        Poor wording on my part, please forgive the erroneous implication.

      • LeaNder says:

        Thanks again Bruce, that’s a really hightly interesting article, no doubt.

        Concerning this:
        Weissman believes that at the time, and to this day, Iran is less concerned about a U.S. attack than it is about an aggressive American policy aimed at toppling the regime through support to dissident groups and ethnic minorities and propaganda beamed into Iran.

        Bahman Nirumand, was sent to school and studies to Germany and went back to Iran twice, the second time shortly before the revolution, in which he had been involved from his exile.

        Last year he published his autobiography in which he writes that he thinks the Iranian clerical regime wouldn’t have gained power without the Iraq-Iran war. He is pretty sure about that. He believes that the Iranian civil society finds it most difficult to forgive the US for supporting Saddam during that long and vicious war. He turned 75 last year.

        The best support for the Iranian civil society would be to use soft power, forced regime change would arouse the old trauma.

        I met Bahman in the early 70s in Berlin in this student village. He lived on the same floor. I liked him a lot, he was one of the rare political minds I did respect deeply at the time.

        I am surprised there is a English article on him on Wikipedia:

        [Nirumand] assumes that the forces around Ahmadinejad are kept on life because of terror and threats from the West, as well as threatening with sanctions and war. Such actions bolster the regime up, he says. He appraises the support for the regime in the society much less than assumed ın the West. He states that artists, women, and the youth would not become radical and seek freedom. Nirumand claims that the image of Iran in the West is reduced to the Islamic regime

    • American says:

      Wolman isn’t overstating. The most accurate way to view the US Israel relationship is to imagine a intravenous blood transfusion from America directly feeding Israel.
      We have lesser examples of this also due to plain old capitalism but Israel is the only one created by pure political domestic considerations, they being Zio political money and Jewish voting sentiments in regard to Israel.

  15. Keith says:

    This analysis, and the reactions to it, are so far beyond the pale that I am reluctant to even comment. Suffice it to say that neo-liberal globalization is a global strategy pushed by US elites, primarily Wall Street. China is one big export platform for US and other transnational corporations, and is drowning in US treasuries. Offshoring jobs is part of neo-liberalism intended to de-industrialize the US, except for “defense.” All of the deficits are intentional and designed to create de facto debt servitude in the US similar to what was obtained in the Third World via the World Bank and IMF. We are undergoing a controlled demolition of the economy leading to terminal financialization. The notion that most of our problems can be traced back to “the lobby” and Israel is ludicrous.

    • Sin Nombre says:

      @ Keith:

      Dude, on the one hand you say the reactions to this are “so far beyond the pale,” (although I don’t know that anyone actually said that “most of our problems can be traced back to ‘the lobby’” as you charge), and then you say that “[a]ll of the [U.S.} deficits are … designed to create de facto debt servitude.”

      …. and, contrary to lots of the post here you criticize which offer at least some logic for the link(s) they posit (and indeed reasoning and evidence), you do so without a molecule of same for yours.

      (Not to mention using utterly meaningless phrases like “terminal financialization.”)

      So if you want to criticize, you might want to try doing so with logic, reasoning or evidence (say, vis a vis my linking our support for Israel with high energy and petroleum prices), and if you want to posit, you might try using some of the same as well.

      • Keith says:

        SIN NOMBRE- Bruce Wolman’s whole post conveyed the impression that overall our problems are adversely effected by overemphasis on pursuing Israel’s agenda. It would take much too long to rebut him point by point, however, if you compare my comment to his post you can see a huge difference in interpretation.

        • Keith, let’s be clear: Are you denying that America’s problems are adversely effected by overemphasis on pursuing Israel’s agenda? This goes beyond your apparent role as defender of the Israel lobby. You now seem to make the blatant claim that pursuing Israel’s agenda is, if not good for America, at least not bad for us. Please do expand on why you think this is so.

        • Keith says:

          THOMPSON- No, I do not think that OVERALL the problems mentioned by Bruce Wolman are primarily a consequence of some overemphasis on Israel. I think that his analysis of some of these issues is quite mistaken. His whole analysis of the China trade issue is contentious in the extreme. I’ve made a few brief comments on this on this thread which, of course, you ignored. You might try to discuss some of my comments rather than continue in attack dog mode implying that I am an apologist for the lobby. Even there you provide no examples or proof, simply asserting that “This goes beyond your apparent role as defender of the Israel lobby.” Please, give us all some examples of me defending the lobby. You can’t, because I haven’t.

        • keith, speaking of ignoring comments i responded to one of yours here:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          you completely ignored it. also i find it somewhat strange you are referencing someone in “attack dog mode ” in the same comment you call someone analysis “contentious in the extreme”. how is that not an attack?

          also by saying the comments here ‘are so far beyond the pale’ you do realize you are effectively insulting (attacking) all of us.

        • Keith says:

          ANNIE- “keith, speaking of ignoring comments i responded to one of yours here: link to mondoweiss.net you completely ignored it.”

          Thomson responded to my comment by ignoring the substance and instead alleging that “Keith, you can always be relied on to jump in as Apologist for the Israel Lobby. In your other role as Imperialist-Globalist Slayer, try to remember what you have said here before: It’s all connected, man. Most people who comment (or post) here seem to be much more concerned than you about the aggressions and transgressions of the Israel Lobby. You might as well accept that and try your best to explain why you wish to excuse it.”

          He didn’t ignore the comment, he ignored the substance of the comment even as he attacked me personally as an “Apologist for the Israel Lobby.” That is what I refer to as attack dog mode. Did I attack you based upon your comment? You can’t see the difference? As for your comment itself, not only am I not sure what “WOT” stands for, but it was not my intent to get in a lengthy discussion of the Paul Craig Roberts article. It was simply an example of offshoring and the ongoing de-industrialization of the US which has been going on for quite a while. A process which belies any interest by Wall Street or Obama in dealing “…more assertively with China– say, by insisting that it reinvest its dollars here so as to grow American jobs.” I have neither the time nor inclination to go into detail about how China is constrained from making massive investments in the US economy, literally forced to accumulate treasuries to support their export oriented economy.

          “also by saying the comments here ‘are so far beyond the pale’ you do realize you are effectively insulting (attacking) all of us.”

          I continue to be surprised by how thin-skinned some folks are. I make a general comment concerning my subjective impression as to the post and comments in general and you take exaggerated umbrage. First of all, I am not insulting nor “attacking” everybody. I can’t make a general comment without you taking offense? Perhaps you tend to take offense mostly with those you disagree with?

        • keith, your excuses aside i think we all know what ‘beyond the pale’ means.

          He didn’t ignore the comment, he ignored the substance of the comment

          well you ignored my whole comment. and here is where you ignored the substance of my comment:

          not only am I not sure what “WOT” stands for, but it was not my intent to get in a lengthy discussion of the Paul Craig Roberts article.

          fyi (for your information) WOT stands for ‘war on terror’. (the war on terror promoted by our uber mini buddy israel). you may not want to get into a lengthy discussion of the Paul Craig Roberts article, but you used it as an alternative argument and my link chewed the hell out of his theory because the war that has costs us trillions (borrowed from china btw[by the way]) was not even mentioned in his (your promoted) theory.

          either you are seriously interested in exploring this or you are not. take your pick. you can whine about thomson or you can engage.

          I have neither the time nor inclination to go into detail about how China is constrained from making massive investments in the US economy, literally forced to accumulate treasuries to support their export oriented economy.

          you might want to rethink that theory. china has us right where it wants us. they are not adjusting the value of the renminbi /yaun much to the dismay of the US. perhaps you didn’t follow my earlier links.

          link to mondoweiss.net

          LONDON, March 7 | Wed Mar 7, 2012 5:05pm EST

          (Reuters) – China is planning to extend renminbi loans to other major emerging BRIC countries, in another step toward the expansion of the yuan’s role in foreign exchange, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday.

          we owe china trillions. the IS/lobby and their cohorts have put obama in a die if you do die if you don’t situation wrt these sanctions. you must know obama didn’t want them to be so drastic. why? oil prices. so the price goes up and who gets blamed? obama. he rejects sanctions who gets blamed? obama? does he have a choice? no 100-0, catching my drift?

          so who’s boss when the bric countries thumb their finger at the US sanctions? obama/loss of status. if the sanctions are too draconian and bric (brazil/russia/indoa/china..they matter) countries work around them what happenes to the US economy? what happens to the US economy when china says FU and starts offering loans in renminbi /yaun ? you think a little surplus bothers them when we owe them trillions? what happens if the dollar no longer becomes the global reserve currency? thought that thru yet? do you think that will last forever no matter what?

          they have their finger on the tap, china does. we are, somewhat, at their mercy. and who got us into this mess to assure obama goes down in the next election? who created the ‘die if you do die if you don’t situation’? the lobby that’s who.

          so while you are obsessing over thomson, let it be know you are not addressing my pts. we are ‘beyond the pale’ . tripe yawn.

        • Keith says:

          ANNIE- Your recent activity and prominence on Mondoweiss seems to have led you to believe that you have simultaneously acquired instantaneous expertise. You haven’t.

          The article by Paul Craig Roberts briefly but accurately describes the process of off-shoring and de-industrialization which has been going on for over 30 years. The whole process can be summarized as neo-liberal globalization, and involves both privatization and financial penetration and control. It predates the War on Terror, which, in fact, is a pretext for accelerating the process already underway. The prime movers behind this appear to be the financial sector. The main weapon used to get corporate compliance is through pressure involving stock price which Roberts mentions but which you apparently don’t understand. Likewise, the article you linked from “Moon of Alabama” involves speculation regarding oil prices as a consequence of the sanctions. It has no relevance to the Roberts article. The fact that you think that your link “chewed the hell out of his theory,” indicates a profound lack of understanding on this issue.

          I could go on, but why bother? You have no interest in rational discussion, rather you see your role as a defender of the Mondoweiss narrative. As such, you contribute to the echo chamber effect. “The War of Ideas in the Middle East” is turning into “the conformity of opinion regarding the control of US foreign policy by the lobby.” Pity.

        • Sand says:

          Keith: “The War of Ideas in the Middle East” is turning into “the conformity of opinion regarding the control of US foreign policy by the lobby.”

          Keith, I don’t know if you’ve noticed recently but we currently have on our TVees (in the US anyways) as well as printed media a real hard-on when it comes to wanting a war on Iran.

          So why are you surprised when this blog is focusing rather a lot of time on the power of the I-Lobby? Also, Paul Craig Roberts is no fan of Israel either.

          PCR: “…How is the United States a superpower when it cannot appoint the official who oversees the National Intelligence Estimate without the approval of the Israeli right-wing government and its American agents?

          Conservatives will say, of course, that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East.” The question whether Israel, or, for that matter, America, is a democracy is beside the point. The point is that Israel has shown that it can control not merely US foreign policy but also US intelligence policy…

          link to mondoweiss.net

          Why the hell shouldn’t this affect our relationship with China? We know it affects our economic ties with Iran.

          Also, you mentioned — “…the process of off-shoring and de-industrialization which has been going on for over 30 years. The whole process can be summarized as neo-liberal globalization, and involves both privatization and financial penetration and control…” Have you looked into how the DLC was formed approximately 30 years ago? — How Clinton got involved and other members of the DLC?

          link to rightweb.irc-online.org

          It is complicated — but many including myself see there’s a connection and it’s worth exploring.

    • seafoid says:

      What is the end goal of this system of financialisation Keith?
      I don’t believe that anyone is in charge. There are too many f### ups for a big overarching system theory to make sense.
      Deindustrialising the US sounds too much like defecating in its own lunch on the part of Wall St.

      • Keith says:

        SEAFOID- The goal of terminal financialization is to lock-in global corporate/financial control. Global oligarchy. Each area is to have its specialized function, none strong enough to challenge corporate/financial control. Why would Wall Street want to preserve manufacturing in the US when they can utilize Chinese labor at slave wages? Capital transcends national borders. There has been a lot written about this. I provide one link to Paul Craig Roberts as an introduction.
        link to counterpunch.org

        • that 09 article is instructive. i find it interesting he completely skipped the impact of the WOT on our economy. my recollection is the US public suffered from a huge transfer of wealth when literally trillions of dollars was transferred from the public to war profiteers. didn’t cheney advocate privatizing the military? do you think all those military contracts made any difference at all? there was money to be made, in ‘security’.

          This furlough from reality ended when Soviet, Chinese, and Indian socialism surrendered around 1990, to be followed shortly thereafter by the rise of the high speed Internet. Suddenly, American and other first world corporations discovered that a massive supply of foreign labor was available at practically free wages.

          To get Wall Street analysts and shareholder advocacy groups off their backs, and to boost shareholder returns and management bonuses, American corporations began moving their production for American markets offshore. Products that were made in Peoria are now made in China

          As offshoring spread, American cities and states lost tax base, and families and communities lost jobs.

          Wall Street analysts and shareholder advocacy groups? hmm. and then we started a war. and no mention of the neoliberalism, shock doctrine, greenspan. nothing.

          The other serious problem is the status of the US dollar as reserve currency. This status has allowed the US, now a country heavily dependent on imports just like a third world or lesser-developed country, to pay its international bills in its own currency. We are able to import $800 billion annually more than we produce, because the foreign countries from whom we import are willing to accept paper for their goods and services.

          If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not accept dollars in exchange for real things. This event would be immensely disruptive to an economy dependent on imports for its energy, its clothes, its shoes, its manufactured products, and its advanced technology products.

          If incompetence in Washington, the type of incompetence that produced the current economic crisis, destroys the dollar as reserve currency, the “unipower” will overnight become a third world country, unable to pay for its imports or to sustain its standard of living.

          i wonder what kind of incompetence in washington might lead to the destruction of the dollar as the reserve currency? actually i was just posting about that here:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          you might also find ‘Iran Sanctions Push Oil Prices Into Recession Territory’ worthwhile. or maybe not.

          link to moonofalabama.org

        • Annie, you have spelled out, in monster size capital letters, why Iran is a target, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s nukes, nor human rights. Neolib capitalists are orgasmic to gain control of Iran’s educated work force and abundant natural resources and control them for the benefit of major corporate execs and their shareholders.

          When Hil Clinton says “Libya is a model” of how the West will now take down a leader and take control of a formerly-sovereign state, she means it: the ‘investors’ in the Libya operation were all in it for a piece of the lucrative Libyan pie — again, educated work force, vast natural resources.

          US did the same to Japan after the war — for fifty years, US maintained financial dominance over Japan’s economy — an “Occupation without Troops.”

    • Keith, you can always be relied on to jump in as Apologist for the Israel Lobby. In your other role as Imperialist-Globalist Slayer, try to remember what you have said here before: It’s all connected, man.

      Most people who comment (or post) here seem to be much more concerned than you about the aggressions and transgressions of the Israel Lobby. You might as well accept that and try your best to explain why you wish to excuse it.

      • Keith says:

        THOMPSON- “Keith, you can always be relied on to jump in as Apologist for the Israel Lobby.”

        Thompson, you can always be relied upon to de facto excuse the empire by radically de-emphasizing the role of domestic concentrations of power in policy formation. Imperial policy has been a long time in the making, the US didn’t get to be an empire by subsuming its imperial ambitions to Israel, which, in fact, is an integral part of empire. To continue to argue that Israel and the lobby are both alien and all-powerful is to succumb to the delusion that they can be excised from the body politic and everything will be hunky dory. Furthermore, it gives wildly excessive weight to the political system while ignoring the overwhelming influence of global capital. One would have thought that Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and big oil could have put up a better fight if they opposed lobby control and policies harmful to them. Finally, it ignores the reality that the lobby also functions as an imperial lobby. As Norman Finkelstein notes:

        “For Israel’s new American Jewish ‘supporter,’ however, such talk bordered on heresy: an independent Israel at peace with its neighbors was worthless; an Israel aligned with currents in the Arab world seeking independence from the United States was a disaster. Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.” (Norman Finkelstein)

        Let me conclude by saying that I have never heard anyone other than a diehard Zionist act as an apologist for the Israel lobby. This is simply your way of dismissing anyone who looks at political economy outside your extremely narrow ideological focus. It is the type of labeling and name calling which occurs much too frequently.

        • Keith, I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings by calling you names. And I’m sure you didn’t really mean it when you said I have an extremely narrow ideological focus.

          How many times must I assure you: You are not more anti-capitalist than I. Nor more anti-imperialist or anti-globalist or anti-corporatist or anti-Oil or anti-fascist or anti-war or anti-neoliberal “American consensus” or anti-PHARMA, etc.

          FYI, I know about “political economy” from every which way, for crying out loud. Economics is (was) my trade, and politics is my game. I’m not dumb about it. And yes, I’ve read Paul Craig Roberts, as well as a great deal more of many academic and historical luminaries in the field of political economy. I’m sure there are wide areas in which you and I would find agreement, as well as disagreement.

          My advice to you again is: If you want your thinking to be relevant about I/P and America’s misadventures in the Middle East, you need to take the Israel lobby more seriously. You had a chance to learn more about it by watching AIPAC’s operations last week. You aren’t going to do much to ease the plight of the Palestinians (if you are interested in that), or to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran, by opposing the Oil Lobby. (Suggestion: Read more M&W, Blankfort, and Petras – and less Chomsky and Finkelstein.)

          Another suggestion: If you want to learn a lot about international economics and development, start with Krugman, Stiglitz, and Olivier Blanchard. If you want good modern takes on political economy, go to Brad DeLong, Barry Eichengreen, and the Two Romers at UC Berkeley. If you start from a more mainstream grounding, then you will be on firmer terrain when you consider more radical theories and solutions.

        • Citizen says:

          Maybe Keith could start getting the bigger picture you suggest, Rutherford, by digging up the PBS documentary information from that ex-AIPACer who has sued AIPAC in the context of the buried ’04 spy case? There it’s made clear the inside AIPAC scoop is that Big Oil learned back in the ’90s apropos a new pipeline weakening Iran’s oil power–that Big Oil learned it could never get its way in Congress if the Israel Lobby objected to any aspect of the Big Oil agenda, and so, Big Oil learned to cooperate with Israel Firsters to attain at least some of its selfish agenda. And so it has been ever since. Big Oil agenda is secondary to Israel First agenda in Congress–even if it harms the USA, so dependent on oil, it’s Achilles Heel.

        • Keith says:

          THOMPSON- “And I’m sure you didn’t really mean it when you said I have an extremely narrow ideological focus.”

          Wrongo. You have a laser-like focus on the lobby and accuse others who take a more global perspective as apologists for the lobby. In my original comment, I made several brief statements on neo-liberal globalization, off shoring and de-industrialization, and the use of debt as a means to force structural adjustment. You didn’t mention any of this, preferring instead to (mis)characterize what I said as a defense of the lobby. This in spite of your professed interest in economic issues and political economy.

          “How many times must I assure you: You are not more anti-capitalist than I. Nor more anti-imperialist or anti-globalist or anti-corporatist or anti-Oil or anti-fascist or anti-war or anti-neoliberal “American consensus” or anti-PHARMA, etc.”

          Methinks you doth protest too much. The only time I see you discussing these things is when you defensively claim to believe them. When I brought up some of these issues in my original comment, you claimed that by doing so I was a lobby apologist, a ludicrous assertion which you have made in the past. You wear your narrow focus on your sleeve, claims of universality notwithstanding.

          “If you want your thinking to be relevant about I/P and America’s misadventures in the Middle East, you need to take the Israel lobby more seriously.”

          I take the lobby plenty seriously. I just don’t think that it is the center of the universe or the fount of all evil. And as for a firmer grounding in mainstream economics, it is my belief that mainstream economists basically earn their living misrepresenting reality in service to power. Economics is at least 90% ideology in disguise. I prefer the likes of Michael Hudson and Michel Chossudovsky, etc. As for your reading suggestions, based upon your past comments to me, I can’t help but believe that your motivation is less than a sincere desire for my intellectual betterment.

        • Keith says:

          Thomson Rutherford- I just noticed that I inadvertently misspelled your name, then continued to do so. Sorry, it wasn’t intentional.

        • andrew sullivan just wrote:” It is hard to be in any way optimistic about any loosening of the grip of Greater Israel’s control of US foreign policy in the Middle East.”

        • Scott says:

          Annie, where? On his blog? Not in my edition. Agree that would be bold for the careful-with-words Andrew.

          Never mind, I see it now. earlier today, in the Beinart post.

        • yeah, if you google the quote it comes right up on any search. sorry for my laziness.

        • Keith, I don’t discuss economics or political economy here because I don’t consider MW to be an appropriate forum for that. Sorry you don’t agree. (I can recommend at least a dozen good economists’ blogs, if you are interested.) Also, we obviously don’t have the same opinion about the nature of economic science. We do agree, however, that Michael Hudson is a good guy worth paying attention to.

          Have you ever explained how your focus on “political economy” pertains to the problems of the Palestinians? Maybe you did and I just missed it.

          No matter about the misspelling; happens all the time.

  16. Dan Crowther says:

    One of the most “un-serious” posts in Mondo history.

    • Dan, you are being cryptic again. I, among others, am not good at interpreting the Oracle.

      • Dan Crowther says:

        I shouldn’t have commented, your right.

        As for Keith, its funny that on one side of him, he has guys like yourself (and others here) who bash him as a israel lobby apologist and on the other side he has guys like Max Ajl, who call him a white supremacist, raging anti-semite for his views on the same topic.

        • Mooser says:

          Dan, if we were corresponding by private e-mail I would remind you that “your” and “you’re” are two different words.
          But you’re too smart to let that happen, I’m sure.

        • Dan Crowther says:

          hahahaha sheeit man, you’RE right my brother — what’s an unlettered roughneck to do?

  17. American says:

    I could give you a “specific” example of each of 1 thru 8, except 9. But could probably find one for 9 if I looked.
    However the trade and industry decline of the US started in the early 1960′s and accelerate with the 1966 agreements and policies in GATT.
    Israel was not much of a player in that….American corporations that were rapidly becoming behemoth monopolies looking for more and cheaper imported raw materials and labor were. ..that was the beginning of the end of US domestic production.

  18. piotr says:

    On Colombia/Venezuela, I would side with Chomsky: our elite has amazingly retrograde tendencies when Latin America is involved, and it has a long uninterrupted tradition on that matter, predating influence of Zionism on US politics.

    On free trade fetish, it may be the same.

    Otherwise, I agree.

    • Bruce says:

      @piotr

      I am no fan of so-called “free trade” agreements. That is a whole other topic, however.

      Neo-liberalism may be the ideology underpinning such agreements, but it doesn’t explain why the US keeps signing such bad deals for itself.

      Name a recent agreement that actually ended-up with an improved trade balance for the US? The Korean and Columbian deals were give-aways for those countries, the morality of the agreements aside.

    • It’s deeper than zionism.

      imo you have to get to the shared notion of exceptionalism — USAmerica’s sense of exceptionalism comes from J Winthrop, Puritan, and his ‘shining city on a hill’ ideology based upon an biblical commitment to Old Testament as integral part of Christian bible. Winthrop & Puritans were Geneva bible believers, not King Jamesians — James had a bible translated specifically to enshrine the notion of divine foundation for monarchical authority; Geneva bible believed in the authority of all believers, but still incorporated the Old Testament stories into their theology. Thus, the Exodus mythos was important, and Puritans thought of themselves as God’s chosen people, “superceding” Jews in that singular (and jealously guarded) position.

      Roger Williams had a radically different concept about the basis of Christianity. Williams was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon who rejected the Old Testament — he maintained that Jesus made a ‘clean break’ (heh) from Old Testament and Jewish practices & mythos. Bacon also rejected the authority of the Roman Church as passed down from the patriarchs, canonized by Constantine, practiced by ~15 centuries of Roman Christian leaders.

      Bacon was a crucial figure in the Enlightenment thinking that influenced John Locke. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin were heavily indebted to Francis Bacon and were more likely apostles of Roger Williams than Winthrop.

      Protestant Christianity in the US has probably been more influenced by Winthrop than Williams. Furthermore, any attempt to move away from a tight Christian connection to Old Testament has been vigorously resisted by Jewish leaders through the ages up until this very day. That “special relationship” is insisted upon even as vehemently as the “special relationship” between the US and Israel.

      The sense of exceptionalism, and the notion that American Christianity is grounded in Jewish choseness is the source of the American belief that they are Masters of the Universe and chosen by god to tell other people what to do.

      Ronald Reagan was a right wing Christian-Judeo in spades; the Moral Majority put him in office in 1980. iirc the Reagan admin involved US in intrusions in South America.

      oh — and Milton Friedman played a large role as well — especially applicable to US involvement in Chile. I think Naomi Klein addresses this in “Shock Doctrine.”

      • Scott says:

        TetaMM,
        Would you assign any role to the “Scofield Bible” in this? At the conference a couple of weeks ago, I met people who think it was key, (because of the extensive footnotes) and also that Scofield was an aging huckster who was probably incapable of writing the footnotes, and also that he had debts and business dealings, etc. etc.
        I bought their CD, haven’t looked at it yet.

  19. So the entire geopolitical-financial planet is a zionist spiderweb?

    Even if much forensic evidence could be found and zionist fingerprints were left on the scene of many false flag events ( think king david hotel, uss liberty among the few we are aware of ), americans and american jews still wish to defend israel because they see it as our true friend in the middle east and a place jews in the united states and across the western nations can be proud to be associated with and support proudly.

    The gatekeepers in the press keep a tight lid on that casket and the closet door must be kept closed, the skeletons must remain hidden for the myth to hold sway over the hoi polloi that support “that project in the middle east”.

    As those lies are exposed to the light of day more people like myself come to their senses and change their minds and stop supporting “the project” and turn their back on the myth that is zionist apartheid israel, not israel per se, just zionist apartheid israel.

    I do not hate the place i simply disapprove of the work of the elites and the press in lying to us to keep us supporting that place. Who the hell likes being lied to, i feel like a kid who discovered late in life that the folks who i grew up believing were my loving parents really had kidnapped me from my real parents and had raised me as their own, a tough realization to assimilate even as an adult. They may have loved me but they did a bad thing.

    This is not psychotherapy, i am making comparisons, in case anyone wonders if i am fragmented by an event of that sort.

    Remember Helen Thomas, that scion of the American press who was sacrificed on the altar of zionism right before our very eyes. Who the hell came to her defense?
    She is just one venerable example of what can and does happen still to anyone who dares to utter the unutterable.

    The catalyst that exposed the chink in the zionist armor was the economic damage of the recent past and will again be the economic damage around the bend.

    Just my two cents worth of hope for what i see ahead, more exposure.

    • extremely important insight, atimeforpeace; people — like me — don’t hate Jews, don’t much care for Israel one way or the other but whatevah, but hate like hell being lied to, and when we think we see the truth, being punished and silenced for speaking it. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, if THAT thing X was a lie, what else was a lie?

      The truth is not going to get any less true the longer it is silenced, it’s just going to be more painful coming to terms with it. And you CANNOT ground a peaceful life in the Middle East on a webwork of lies; that’s building on shifting sand, and we know what the Bible says about that.
      As Jeremy Ben Ami (nearly the end of the program) said in a book appearance in Summer 2011, we must tell our children the truth; if we lie to them, when they discover the truth there will be resentment.

    • American says:

      This is interesting.
      Perhaps we need to view Zionst Israel and Israel Firsters as a “Cultural War” in the US body politic .

      ‘Wired for Culture’ Makes a Strong Case for Cultural Determinism

      link to thedailybeast.com

      “We depend on everyone else to match our loyalties, and when they don’t, we turn on them. Moralistic aggression has a partner emotion in parochialism—the suspicion, hostility, and even warfare we enact on those outside our group.

      In both cases—when one of our own betrays us, or when an outsider threatens us—they become equally alien. They’re now both excluded from the category of “honorary relative,” those fellow members of our reciprocal altruism arrangement.”

      The ‘reciprocal altruism arrangement” between America/Americans and Israel/ Israeli loyalist is what is missing in the US-Isr relationship. There has been no ‘reciprocal’ in the America/Americans and Israel/ Israeli loyalist relationship that I can see. It’s been a one way street to Israel from the beginning. This also reminds me of the lengths mouthpiece like Abm Oren go to to try and surplant or insert into mass American tradition or US “group’ national identification culture a Israeli zionist ‘flavored’ one.

  20. dbroncos says:

    Israel is a small desert counrty with little to to offer the United States. Practically speaking, it’s absurd beyond belief that it gets more attention from Congress and the White House than does China or India.

  21. ToivoS says:

    This essay brings to mind some of Chalmer Johnson’s analysis. Before his “Blow back” trilogy he studied Japan and Okinawa. What he discovered is that the US gave to Japan many trade advantages in exchange for US bases in Okinawa. This was good for American hegemony over Asia but was very bad for American manufacturing. In any case that was a precedent. The American economy and worker’s jobs are secondary to foreign policy goals. Given that precedent, today the US is sacrificing its economic interests to Israel.

    The point is that Israel has no hesitation to sacrifice American workers for its own narrow goals. And given the earlier precedent, American politicians that trade our jobs for Israel will not be punished.

  22. talknic says:

    Israel has been the squeakiest door in the US for decades.

  23. talknic says:

    Israel threatens to attack Iran, although it can’t even stop home made rockets fired by ill equipped militants in Gaza…. think about it..

    Israel knows the US/world powers don’t want another war, but must take Israel’s threats seriously because the US/we WILL be drawn into another war if Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran. So Israel threatens knowing full well there will be offers from the US/et al. Turn a blind eye to Israel’s illegal activities and provocations on the Palestinians. Maintain the US veto vote in the UNSC. Don’t say anything about Israel’s extrajudicial assassinations of Palestinians who’re only suspected of planning terror attacks.

    An attack on Iran by Israel ain’t gonna happen. The remainder IS ALREADY happening

  24. Keith says:

    BRUCE WOLMAN- Thompson Rutherford said: “It’s something I and some others have been saying here for years: The U,S, special relationship with Israel is the controlling factor in determining American foreign policy – wherever. It chooses our political leaders and top government officials. It works to blanket our government in secrecy and misinformation. It promotes public ignorance and manipulates public passions for its own foul ends. “It” is the special relationship pressed on America by ‘friends of Israel.’”

    Do you agree with this?