(Photo: REUTERS/Vivek Prakash)
Sheldon Adelson’s mark on the 2012 presidential election just got a little bigger.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has launched a campaign to attempt to peel away Jewish voters in swing states unhappy with the Obama administration’s Israel policy. Adelson sits on the RJC’s board, and has pledged big bucks for the campaign.
The New York Times has the story:
The group, the Republican Jewish Coalition, plans to begin a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign in the coming weeks called “My Buyer’s Remorse,” targeting voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, aides said. The campaign uses testimonials from people who say they regret supporting Mr. Obama because of his economic policies and his posture toward Israel, in hopes of cutting into the wide advantage Democrats have held over Republicans among Jewish voters.
It is the latest foray into the election by Mr. Adelson, a staunch supporter of Israel who has vowed to spend as much as $100 million to defeat Mr. Obama. It marks an escalation of the partisan politics over Middle East policy and represents an emerging Republican strategy of highlighting voters who supported Mr. Obama four years ago but are now expressing disappointment, while signaling to others that they are not alone in shifting their allegiances.
Adelson is a major funder of right-wing Zionist and anti-Muslim causes, and a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Watch the RJC’s first ad below, where Jewish Democrat Michael Goldstein announces that he will be voting GOP this year over Obama’s policy towards Israel.
Goldstein also says that Netanyahu represents Jews around the world: “When he had the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, to the White House, he wasn’t just the prime minister of Israel. He really represented all of us–Jews, Israelis, people throughout the world who believed in the state of Israel. And he was disrespectful to him to a point I had never seen.” (That line on “disrespect” is an apparent reference to the disputed report that Obama walked out on Netanyahu during a White House meeting after becoming frustrated with the prime minister’s intransigience on Palestine.)
Of course, the notion that Obama has been hostile to Israel is a farce. Even Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recognizes that Obama has only strengthened the US-Israel relationship. He told CNN last year: “The Obama administration is backing the security of Israel for which I’m responsible in our government in a way that could hardly be compared to any previous administration.”
Sometimes I feel as if I’m living in a dream, certain that at any point I’ll awake from this fantastical hallucination to a world of reason and truth., where things really are as they seem, or as they should be.
The idea that Mr. Obama has been anything less than in intractable enabler of Israeli intransigence and belligerence epitomizes absurdity. When I hear people parrot these claims that Obama is anti-Israel, I want to slap them in the face, douse them in cold water, and rouse them, and hopefully me, from this sickening irreality.
Well said.
@exiled: Ditto. I am sure all rational sane human beings can relate to that (especially your first paragraph).
Goldstein is absolutely unbelieveable. One has to wonder if he even believes what he says, or is simply doing it for the $$.
I think he believes what he says. The NYT story depicted him as a guy who was also disappointed in Obama because Obama had failed to uphold certain liberal policies(like gun control).
My guess is that his blabber about the economy is mostly just a fill-in, but that he is really is one of those few swing-voters who are motivated in large part by Israel.
The vast majority of Jews are not. So I mean, 5-10 % of Jewish democrats are motivated by this to the extent that he is. And then the fact that Obama’s doing okayish(but no more) in the polls probably sapps Jewish support accordingly in line with the public direction.
I am also disappointed in Obama and will not vote for him or anyone else in the coming election. When you have a choice between pest or cholera you just keep a large distance, this way I can say later: don´t blame me, I did not vote for that idiot!
My distaste for our president comes from exactly the opposit direction as Mr. Goldberg so eloguently voices.
I will not vote for him, because he did not keep his word voiced in his Cairo speech, he and his whole government bend backwards to satisfy any and all israeli and jewish wishes, ignoring the plight of the palestinians and arabs.
He offered Israel our most expensive planes that not even our AF has, at no cost!!! He kept his mouth shut about Cast Lead and the storming of ships on open see and has no guts to stand up to that loudmouth Niniyahoo, who slowly, but surely destroys any creditability jews have.
In addition, he did not keep his word on the wars we have!
Now we extended it to three countries, killing innocent civilians in Pakistan and if anyone believes that we are hitting only Taliban leaders, he must see his friendly headshrinker immediately. The controllers of those robots sit thousands of miles away and have no idea of whom are they killing. Important is to spread terror, nothing else.
As far as jobs go, government do not create them, but the private industry does. He inherited from Bush the worst recession since 1930, empty coffers of the treasury and several wars on hand, fought with credits from China.
He made a lot of mistakes, the worst is that he could not stand up to the crooks on Wall Street, but invested billions in their schemes to save their banks and funds.
Why were noone tried and jailed for all that cheating and stealing that went on during the Bush area? Because our president wants to be reelected and you don´t cut down the tree where your cherries grow! Wall Street was and is again a major contributor to Obama and also Romney, whoever gets the WH, they win!
So friends, forget about Obama or Romney, they are just puppets on strings, the real masters sit in the shadows.
@ Theo:
I am also disappointed in Obama and will not vote for him or anyone else in the coming election.
Why don’t you vote for the Greens?
I will not vote for [Obama], because he did not keep his word voiced in his Cairo speech
In the last election, I wanted Obama to win. Now, I hate him. When I see him or hear him talk, I just want to puke. For me, the turning point was when he murdered Bin Laden and then said this in an interview: “Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.” Obama basically said that human rights supporters are mentally ill. Also, how can he mistake revenge for justice? This self-righteousness is totally disgusting.
Greens, what greens?
Watching the greens in Germany is a pain on the derriere, their leaders are rejects from other parties. If nobody wants you, go green!!
A bunch of daydreamers, against everything, but have no answers for any problems.
@ Theo:
Greens, what greens?
Of course, I am talking about the Green Party of the United States.
Here’s an interview with Jill Stein:
link to democracynow.org
link to democracynow.org
Watching the greens in Germany is a pain on the derriere
Well then, don’t watch them. I am not such a big fan of the German Greens either. However, GPUS looks quite good to me. Far better than Dems and Repubs.
Greens refer to people power in Iran. The force that is going to kick Sayyed Khamenei out of his divinely infallible supreme leader of the faithful position. His time is coming, just you watch.
Greens also refer to people who support CAP and Trade to reduce global CO2 emissions.
“he is really is one of those few swing-voters who are motivated in large part by Israel.
The vast majority of Jews are not. So I mean, 5-10 % of Jewish democrats are motivated by this to the extent that he is.”
Yeah, yeah. Jewish Voices for Peace must be the other 90-95% of Jewish Democrats, right?
The silence over Israel and the Israel lobby is deafening.
JVP probably makes up 5% of all US Jews, at the most.
If you choose to stay silent, you have made a choice.
“The vast majority of Jews are not. So I mean, 5-10 % of Jewish democrats are motivated by this to the extent that he is.”
Many American Jews in my experience, are not aware of the degree to which Israel depends on the US. I’m not sure what that means,in terms of votes, but I’m sure it’s true.
‘…he is really is one of those few swing-voters who are motivated in large part by Israel…’
That’s ironic. I, too, am ‘one of those few swing voters who are motivated in large part by Israel.’
I would almost certainly vote for Romney if it wasn’t for Israel.
“I would almost certainly vote for Romney if it wasn’t for Israel.”
What attracts you to him? His high intelligence? Or is it his honesty? Or maybe the thought of Ann Romney converting the White House garage into dressage stables thrills you? Will Refalco be First Horse?
Or are you hoping Romney will give those salmon-stealing Indians in Washington State the real what-for?
“Many American Jews in my experience, are not aware of the degree to which Israel depends on the US. I’m not sure what that means,in terms of votes, but I’m sure it’s true.”…Mooser
How many is many are not aware?
I don’t believe that. If Jews are as said more involved politically and vote in higher numbers it is unlikely they are not aware of the Dem or the repub positions on Israel.
Are you trying to say they don’t hear 0r pay attention to all the political and campaign statements regarding Israel.
Or are you trying to say they think the offical 3 billion aid to Israel is all there is and they aren’t aware of the other sums that go to Israel outside of that official aid?
“” Netanyahu represents Jews around the world”………Jewish Democrat Michael Goldstein
Anyone who wants to know what Jewish suicide for both Israeli and diaspora Jews looks like…this is it.
“Netanyahu represents Jews around the world.” – If I said that, I’d be called an anti-Semite. You know, because accoding to the EU “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” is anti-Semitic.
Correct.
From Wikipedia (the Israeli Public Library Online financed by the Israeli government): (Wikipedia paragraph broken up for visual clarity)
[19] “Working definition of antisemitism” EUMC
link to fra.europa.eu
I’m certain that if you recommend holding individual Israeli Knesset members, ministry officials, judges, and military commanders criminally responsible for their roles in the joint criminal settlement enterprise they’d redefine that as collective punishment and anti-Semitic persecution too. Zionists do not have any rules that would prevent them from having it both ways.
“It provides contemporary examples of antisemitism, which include: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion”
And when the ideology is Zionism ?
link to azvsas.blogspot.co.uk
The tour guide at the museum asked us, “Why did God let the Holocaust happen?” One American on my trip dutifully responded, “If it weren’t for the Holocaust, there might never have been a state of Israel.”
The tour guide at the museum asked us, “Why did God let the Holocaust happen?” One American on my trip dutifully responded, “If it weren’t for the Holocaust, there might never have been a state of Israel.”
That’s an example which promotes harming Jews in the name of an ideology. Judaism itself allows and excuses killing non-observant Jews for religious reasons. The Aish World Center occupies a prime piece of real estate directly opposite the Western Wall. They promote the theological belief that the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were just reincarnated souls of great sinners who entered this world in order to correct their mistakes from previous lives.
If you complain that Aryan Nations Theology teaches the same anti-Semetic bullshit, these bigoted ass hats simply respond that everything they say is the word of God and that you mustn’t act with such contempt towards a fellow Jew, even more so a leading Torah Sage.
link to aish.com
See also Rabbi Yosef: Secular IDF soldiers are killed because they aren’t observant
link to haaretz.com
And who exactly here is defending these crazies?
…”Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it”
Exaggeration comes in two shapes.One of them is to claim that more harm was done than what is admitted.Second is to claim that no one else sustained or faced or experienced this harm or this kind of . Israel uses the second version.
“One American on my trip dutifully responded, “If it weren’t for the Holocaust, there might never have been a state of Israel.”
That sentiment is the very thing which kick-started my anti-Zionism when I was a kid. I was always waiting for somebody to propose another Holocaust so we could enlarge Israel.
This so-called European Working definition of Anti-Semitism is a hasbara propaganda, that EU had to distance itself from on number of occasions.
It keeps being bandied about to intimidate people from criticising Israel’s policies.
This so-called European Working definition of Anti-Semitism is a hasbara propaganda, that EU had to distance itself from on number of occasions.
Eva, could you elaborate on the “distancing”?
Also, I keep reading and hearing the word “anti-Semetic”. Is this an accepted spelling variant of “anti-Semitic” or a mistake?
God help us if Yahoo is representative of any other human being, let alone Jews.
Silly question i know, but should security of Israel be mostly responsibility state of Israel ? Why they have army in Israel anyway if that can’t secure state of Israel.
I wonder the same thing about all the other countries’ security the US finances: Egypt, Germany, Japan, S. Korea….
Israel-firsters, high up in the corridors of power, are looking out for # 1.
If Jews want a Jewish state that represents real Jewish values or even the less stellar basic human values then they need to stand up to Bibi and the rest of the militarist sociopaths who run Erez Israel. Israel is not a goy problem. It is not a goy responsibility. Galut doesn’t need Zionism.
Because the whole thing is going come crashing down and it will take Judaism with it. Israel. Birth wrong . And now it’s a monster,
Why Israel hates Barack Obama
1. Obama still believes in the two-state solution and is opposed to Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Likud Zionists are determined to develop a single Jewish state, Eretz Yisrael, cleansed of all but token Arabs, Muslims, Christians and other annoying goyim.
2. Obama has resisted Israel’s fanatical and relentless pressure to push America into a war against Iran — Israel is really inflamed and flailing about on this issue. Israel and the Israel lobby are counting on Mitt Romney, who appears to be completely under their thumb, to pull the trigger on Iran.
3. Clearly there is a great deal of weird and not very concealed anti-black racism simmering within Israeli and Zionist circles — it is unmistakable.
With regard to many Jews closely binding together all Jews with Likud Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu in the mind of the world — they will have no basis to complain when the shit hits the fan. They might just as well be virulent antisemites in terms of the effects of their words.
Obama doesn’t believe in 2 states. It’s all political theatre. He shafts Palestinians like any American president before him did.
Dear Sean
As much as I dislike the Obama administration’s policies you are on target here. Israel is a very deeply racist state and that racism infects their acceptance of America’s first African-American president. Their racism is infecting the American Jewish lobby as well. Maybe not consciously but definitely at some sub-conscious level. How could it be otherwise? The Israelis have spent the last 60 years oppressing their Palestinian subjects. It is only natural for them to oppress the brown people. Without even thinking about it they must hate an American president with brown skin.
Netanyahu doesn’t represent me. I’m proud of Israel generally — it’s done an amazing job in a tough neighborhood — but I strongly oppose the occupation. Enough already. Here are some of my recent thoughts on this mess: link to terrylevine.com
impressive post at the link terry.
“I’m proud of Israel generally — it’s done an amazing job in a tough neighborhood”
Proud of what ?
And “a tough neighborhood”- who started all the wars?
Thanks.
You’re preaching to the choir here, terrylevine. What do you think the consequence of this is going to be in the larger population? Especially considering that congressmen have spent an inordinate amount of time these past three+ years passing laws for Israel and not getting anything done–Republicans are the majority in the House–for American workers.
Well written, Exiled at Home. I’m afraid as soon as I read the use of the overused “tough neighborhood” by Terry Levine, it signaled that here was someone who still hadn’t quite disabused him or herself of Zionist propaganda.
i found much to disagree about in levine’s essay. nonetheless, the metaphor theme was fresh. i think ‘liberal’ zionists are wrestling with reality right now. even with all that hasbara i got the sense terry really believed what he was saying and there’s a will there to move the mountain. so i valued his efforts. i thought the article was worthy of a thread simply because i’d like to hear our local zios response to the metaphor theme.
Should we congratulate or consider as “fresh” the sudden realization that Israel’s military occupation has gone too far? Because that’s the essence of Terry’s “essay.” There is no recognition of the gradual escalation of occupation; no recognition of Israel’s abusive and oppressive history; in fact, there is no recognition that Israel has ever done anything worthy of criticism, apparently up until Netanyahu’s reign.
Terry’s piece completely washes away decades of Israeli brutality, intolerance, war and land theft and lays the preponderance of culpability at the feet of Arab intransigence and Netanyahu’s right-leaning reactions to this perceived intransigence. I have no respect for those who clamor for peace in an effort to save Israel’s “Jewish, democratic” character. Terry has no remorse for what Israel has done because of how it has impacted the Arab community of Palestine, but rather Terry’s regret comes from the fact that Israel’s image is now sullied. It’s self-preservation which Terry calls for, not humanity, not compassion, not legality. In fact, it’s more ethnocentric babble about Israel standing all alone, about the Jewish people having no one to turn to save for themselves. Terry argues that peace must be imposed by Israel, for Israel, because no one else is up to the task of aiding the Jewish people’s tireless pursuit of peace.
It’s actually a nasty, racist, paranoid piece that deserves nothing more than derision.
I make no apologies for being a Zionist. I’m proudly one. Just as there is good and bad in American “exceptionalism,” there is good in bad in everything, including capitalism, communism, nationalism, democracy and, yes, Zionism. I may think Netanyahu is a first-class tool and I may want Israel to leave the WB ASAP, but that doesn’t mean the Arabs, Palestinians and their “brothers” get a pass. You can’t blame the mess of countries they’ve created on Zionism. And I would still rather live in mostly democratic Israel then any messed up Arab country. Everything is relative folks.
@ terrylevine:
I make no apologies for being a Zionist. I’m proudly one.
Boo! Boo! Boo!
Just as there is good and bad in American “exceptionalism,” there is good in bad in everything, including capitalism, communism, nationalism, democracy and, yes, Zionism.
Then, please, tell me this: What were the good things about Nazism, huh?
I’m sure there’s something. Just like there must be something good about Islamism?
Not entirely no. Zionism is just another complonent of colonialism and Western domination.
In the 1950’s Eisenhower was concerned about the image of the US in Arab world – not among the governments, but among the people. The National Security Council issued a memorandum in 1958 , since declassified, that there is a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports brutal dictatorships, that the US blocks democracy and development, and that the US does it because it wants to control their resources. The report concluded that the perception were accurate, but that the US should be pursuing these policies regardless.
link to history.state.gov
The conclusion also said that as long as the Arab population remained obsequious, there was no price to pay. As long as the dictators back us, it doesn’t matter what the population thinks.
In 2001, the Defence Science Board came to the same conclusion.
BTW. 25,000 Iranians prefer to live in Iran than Israel.
“Everything is relative folks.”
Gosh, I’m touched! We’ve had atheist Jews, and now we have a post-modernist Jew, too! Yes, Terrylevine, everything is relative. Many people feel that way about the Holacaust too, so there’s no need to condemn it.
So a shorter TerryLevine would be: Bye-bye, Palestinians, relativelt speaking, cause relative to us Jews, you don’t mean squat.
And who is forcing you to live in a “messed-up Arab country” instead of Israel or the US?
Scratch a ZIonist and they’re all the same, some just have a slimy sugary coating.
“The National Security Council issued a memorandum in 1958 , since declassified, that there is a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports brutal dictatorships, that the US blocks democracy and development, and that the US does it because it wants to control their resources. ”
Not just in the Arab world. In 195o and 60s (when I was a schoolboy and an undergrad in Australia) we were well aware that any dictator who called himself an anti-Communist would get support from the US.
Gosh, I’m touched! We’ve had atheist Jews, and now we have a post-modernist Jew, too! Yes, Terrylevine, everything is relative.
Clarification: I’m a “born again atheist Jew”. I was loosing my faith in atheism, but regained it when I started reading the thoughts of the Kahanists in the Arutz Sheva Op-Eds;-)
“I’m sure there’s something. (Good about Nazism) Just like there must be something good about Islamism?
Scratch a Zionist, you find a settler. Scratch a little deeper, and it’s quite surprising what you’ll find.
At any rate, I’m sure you will have no problem finding good points shared between Zionism and Nazism.
“I was loosing my faith in atheism”
Well I’m l-o-s-i-n-g my faith in correct spelling.
Lefty
Hitler built the autobahns, reduced the huge unemployment by sending them in uniform to Russia!!
@ Theo:
Hitler built the autobahns
Right. Remember when Eva Herman made this statement? She lost her job as news presenter and got kicked out of a talk show.
link to youtube.com
Anyway, was the building of the Autobahn directly related to Nazism or just a coincidence?
reduced the huge unemployment by sending them in uniform to Russia
… where they got killed. Therefore, this doesn’t count as a good thing.
By and large the “mess” of countries around Israel are the result of US, UK, France, and Israeli meddling. You cannot keep supporting and defending friendly oppressive regimes and then declare it their fault that their countries are in a mess. Why is Lebanon a mess? Because every few years Israel gets a pass to attack it. Why is Egypt a mess – surely nothing to do with the fact that the US and Israel supported Mubarak for many years? Why is Iraq a mess? Don’t answer, we know. And what about Mossadegh in Iran. Yes to a significant extent I can blame the mess of countries “they’ve created” on Zionism and its supporters in the West. We – the West – created those countries in their present form and we in the West have supported the Zionists in stirring up problems in the Middle East. We have supported Israeli aggression against several of these countries and we have been encouraged to fight against others by Israel. The people of the Middle East would be just as capable of having functioning democracies as any other country if we stopped interfering in ways that prevent it happening and started doing something to encourage such a development with aid for education instead of guns. If the Zionists had indeed gone to the Middle East to “repair the world” in the early part of the 20th Century, they could have been a force for that change at the end of the Ottoman Empire. Instead they consorted with their UK and US supporters to steal land to construct their little uber-nationalist racist state at no matter what cost to anyone else around.
Also I am getting pretty angry about those people who say things like “I may want Israel to leave the WB ASAP”. To use the word scrawled across the maps of Israel/Palestine at the Chappaqua Station, “Bullshit!” When you say things like that, it behooves you to tell us how it’s going to happen. The words are just too easy. It’s like saying “I want the Earth to be flat”. Impossible wishes are just a cop-out.
Lefty
Glad you got my point!!!
Dictators are not known to be nice to their subjects.
Terry,
While I suppose I should applaud the fact that you seem to have shed the yoke of ‘circle-the-wagon’ tribalism that so frequently ensconces the majority of your tribe, that’s about as far as I can bring myself in terms of congratulating or appreciating your point of view. You are against military occupation. Brilliant. Welcome to humanity.
As for the remaining litany of misconceptions, poor metaphors and historically contemptible nonsense that fills the pseudo-Zionist ramblings encountered in your link, I should say you’re much more like Mr. Netanyahu than you seem to realize.
While I’m sure you’ve given yourself quite the proverbial pat on the back for your unyielding compassion and generosity in proclaiming that Israel cannot exclusively have the land “now primarily populated by Muslims and Christians who call themselves Palestinian,” you’ve of course miserably misconstrued, and as such misconveyed, the realities of rightful land ownership in Palestine. Jewish attachment to the land is, as you say, but a metaphor for a deeper, I suppose spiritual, connection to Palestine. Palestinian attachment to the land is most certainly not metaphorical. It’s a reality. An undeniable truth. The historical demographics of Palestine have been overwhelmingly Arab, both Christian and Muslim, since the 5th century. As of 1800, only 7,000 Jews lived in these lands. By 1890, it had risen to around 43,000, compared to 57,000 Christians and 432,000 Muslims. Only after this did a Jewish presence begin to gain strength, and only because of aggressive immigration from Europe. Even when Israel declared its illegitimate independence, the (foreign) Jewish presence was half that of the 1.1 million Muslim and 143,000 Christian indigenous. Palestine, (or as you state, the “part” of Palestine) did not suddenly enjoy a Muslim/Christian presence, or a even a majority. It’s been such since well before the blight on humanity known as Zionism infected the mind of Theodore Herzl.
If anyone, it is the existential Palestinian people who should be so gracious to offer to share portions of their land, not you speaking up as some delusional humanitarian offering the scraps of Israel’s colonial project; though I see no reason why Palestine should offer anything to the flee-bitten fanatics of the illegal settlements or their brutal, ideologue overlords in Tel-Aviv.
Your romantic attachments to the idea of Israel have blinded your ability to even recognize cursory realities of Israel’s despicable history. Far from being some recent fringe cliff-dive by the far-right Netanyahu regime, the policies that you seem to so despise define the very fabric of Israel, a belligerent, greedy, colonial entity that has supplanted a diverse and vibrant cultural mixture with an ethno-centric driven society of fanatics, racists, chauvinists and sociopaths. The Israel you lament today is the very Israel that violently carved itself out in successive wars, aggression and occupations since even before its unilateral declaration of independence in 1948.
By the way, I’d like to introduce you to Lebanon, the Middle East’s oldest and most inclusive democracy, despite Israel’s best efforts to manifest sectarian bloodshed. If you’re going to come here, commenting about your sudden epiphany regarding the ills of occupation (especially in such a proud, self-congratulatory manner), a good tip might be this: avoid linking to your Hasbara-laced social commentary that fires off canard after Likud canard that can so laughably be dismissed by the Mondoweiss commentariat.
Good day to you, Terry.
You can leave your pretentious know-it-all tone at your “Israel is Evil Incarnate” meetings.
As for all your historical regurgitations, you neglected the mention the part about the 2/3 of Palestine that was stolen from the Palestinian people and renamed Jordan, where 70% of the population is Palestinian. Funny how all the bleeding hearts never mention that little bit of history in their “the Jews stole the Palestinians’ land” diatribes. Let’s have an Arab spring in Jordan, overthrow the Hashemite king, rename the country for what it is, and then transfer the West Bank back to the East Bank.
The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan Memorandum laid out British administrative rule over Palestine and an independent Arab Emirate of Jordan east of the Jordan River.
Within British-administered Palestine, the Mandate called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
Leaving aside for a moment that neither the League of Nations nor the British government had any right to establish a Jewish colonial state in Arab lands, let’s look at the demographics strictly within the Mandate of Palestine.
1890- 43,000 Jews, 57,000 Christians and 589,000 Muslims.
The final proposal by the United Nations to partition Palestine called for roughly 55% of Palestine to be apportioned for a Jewish state and 45% to become an independent Arab state. Even with aggressive immigration to Palestine of European Jews, by 1947 the foreign-born Jewish presence of 630,000 was outnumbered by 1.1 million Muslim and 143,000 Christians. That’s a ratio of 3:1 in favor of indigenous Arabs over immigrant Jews. Yet, the Jewish state was to claim 55% of the land?
Overlooking the land inequities which unjustifiably favored Jewish settlers from Europe over centuries-long Arab lineage in Palestine, let us also not forget that Jewish militias desiring a greater piece of Palestine began attacks against British personnel and Arab civilians. Successive operations, such as Plan D, aimed to violently and brutally cleanse areas beyond the proposed Jewish state of the Arab residents. Massacres in Jaffa, Acre, Tiberias, Safad and al-Tira, among countless others including the infamous Deir Yassan massacres, effectively forced 700,000+ Palestinians to flee their homes. This is ethnic cleansing, Terry. And it directly violates the principles laid out in the League of Nations’ Mandate “that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
The very idea of an exclusive, Jewish state violates the League of Nations Mandate, which never called for a Jewish “state,” but rather a Jewish home in Palestine. In other words, Jewish immigration was encouraged so that Jews may build a community in Palestine, not so that they may supplant the Arab presence there. Once it became apparent that Jewish militias would not assimilate, the United Nations stepped in and recommended partition, with two distinct state. But, even then, Jewish groups such as Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang were violently gaining territory beyond those partition lines. The final declaration of independence by Israel in 1948 extended well beyond partition lines, into the proposed areas of a Palestinian state. Every step of the way, Israeli actions have desecrated and violated both the spirit and the letter of international agreements to find some form of Jewish reconciliation in the Holy Land. The entire existence of Israel is null and void under those stipulations, not to mention the illegitimacy that stems from the lack of authority for the international community to reach such agreements regarding Arab lands to begin with.
For all its faults, Jordan is not the cause of this conflict. Zionism, the belief that Jewish Europeans have a right to a state in the Middle East, in Arab land, is at the core of decades of violence, death, instability and inhumanity. Colonialism was unjustifiable –and is now widely condemned– when it was enacted by European powers. It should be no different in regard to Jewish colonialism.
you neglected the mention the part about the 2/3 of Palestine that was stolen from the Palestinian people and renamed Jordan, where 70% of the population is Palestinian.
terry, since you seem to know so much about this topic, what percentage of that 70% is a result of the zionist expulsions? you’re not implying palestinians didn’t flee into jordan as a result of the nakba are you?
No doubt, many did. But please, explain to me the difference between a Palestinian born on the West Bank of the Jordan River and one born on the East Bank before or after 1921? Or 1948? While you’re at it, explain to me the difference between a Jordanian, a Palestinian and a Syrian.
@terrylevine
Hostage covers the details. Read his posts. You should surface around Thanksgiving.
Levine, your third-grade hasbara has been debunked here at MW thousands of times over. Sift through the archives before making an introductory post as if you, in 2012 after two intifadas and nearly 70 years of conflict and a new century and the invention of the digital age, are the first Zionist to come up with the ‘what is a Palestinian’ meme or the similarly-pathetic, ‘Jordan-Is-Palestine’.
Sure, and New York is Israel, as per Noam Chomsky – except the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed into Jordan. They were still indigenous to what you call Israel and what IS historic Palestine. So you can draw up imaginary borders wherever you like, but they lived everywhere.
Jews were the minority population and owned a fraction of the land and property.
I notice on your blog full of abstract nonsense, you have a commentator issuing fascist propaganda about the supposed Islamic ‘occupaation’ and ‘genocidal’ cleansing of Al-Andalus. There was no cleansing and there was no occupation, because there WAS NO SPAIN.
And when you read any American ancient Civ. I textbook, barring one from a religious school most likely, it will concede that most of what scholars know about early Jewish history comes from the Bible. We use dismiss this outright but somewhere along the line, we began using this as a sort of careful guideline.
Who cares what the differences are between X, Y, and Z? They existed and they lived in greater numbers than the European Jewish immigrants who usurped them in Historic Palestine. They were not alien to the land. It doesn’t matter how they identified and when. They were human beings like you and your people.
You are so immoral and the proof is in how desperate you are, looking for reasons to dismiss their tragedy.
And don’t play yourself off as some middle-of-the-road-Zionist or a moderate among us extreme anti-Zionists. You are as pro-Greater Israel as they come because there is no such thing as ‘liberal’ Zionism. Zionism is a colonial ideology and that is why I – an Indian American, oppose it whole-heatedly.
terry, i ask you a question and you are responding with another question. you used the figure of 70% for your argument. what percentage might that be had palestinians not been expelled.
explain to me the difference between a Jordanian, a Palestinian and a Syrian.
why not add palestinian israeli to that list? a palestinian is a palestinian no matter where they live just like a jew doesn’t become a non- jew by living somewhere else.
I think the question is fair. I have asked it before and not gotten good answers. Was there a Palestinian identity different from Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian (subjects of the Turkish empire all) in 1920? There clearly is one now. But was there one then?
What does “Palestinian” mean? Are all Israelis “Palestinians” too since they moved to Palestine? Why are so many Israelis uncomfortable being called Palestinian or Arab (since most Israeli citizens have Arab Jewish or non Jewish Arab great grandparents)?
From this article, many Palestinians today had great grandparents who were born outside of current day Palestine:
link to meforum.org
This doesn’t make them any less Palestinian. But it begs the question, what is Palestinian.
Another question that I have relates to Palestinian Egyptians, Palestinian Syrians and Palestinian Lebanese. Why aren’t they full equal citizens of their own countries (albeit who happen to have Palestinian heritage and ancestry)? Why is Jordan the only country that treats Palestinians like one of their own people?
Terry, can I ask you a question. Why doesn’t Israel proudly call itself an “Arab” country? Israel can authentically be many countries all at once. Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, democratic, high tech, free, rich etc. Why doesn’t Israel proudly embrace its blessed and unique multiple heritages? And honor Palestinian Israeli citizens as the national asset that they are?
Why doesn’t Israel insist on its birthright as an “Arab” country and demand admission to the Arab League?
Question for the friends of Israel . . . how can I politely bring up these issues with Israelis without offending them or putting them on the defensive? Or is it best to not bring up these subjects with Israeli business and work colleagues at all?
As for all your historical regurgitations, you neglected the mention the part about the 2/3 of Palestine that was stolen from the Palestinian people and renamed Jordan, where 70% of the population is Palestinian.
All of the territory east of the line from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo was included in the Arab territory that Cairo High Commissioner McMahon pledged to the Sharif of Mecca. The Jordan river was the boundary between the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Vilayet of Syria (aka Damascus).
We’ve pointed out time and again that the territory of Transjordan was not included in the Palestine mandate that the San Remo Conference awarded to Great Britain in April 1920. It was part of the “Arab State” mentioned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. Transjordan was under the Emir Faisal’s Syrian OETA. The memo is available in the FRUS and in J. C. Hurewitz collection.
After the San Remo Conference, the French overthrew Faisal’s government in August 1920. It was then that the British considered adding the territory to the Palestine mandate and excluding it from the provisions regarding the Jewish national home.
FYI, half the seats in the lower house of the parliament of “Jordan” were reserved for Palestinian representatives from the West Bank and they usually constituted a majority of the remainder from the East Bank.
Talk about regurgitating Hasbra. This has been exahsutively covered and there was no theft of the West Bank. No home demolitions, no ethnic cleasing, no evictions. The annexation was passed to a vote adnthe majorioty of Palestinians agreed to it.
So until Israel do the same thing and allow the Palestinians in the WB and EJ to to decide if they want to be annexed or occupied, there is no equivalence whatsoever.
Great idea, but why stpop there? Why not an Arab Spring in all of Palestine? After all, teh Hashemite king is little more than a Western lackey anyway.
Anotherwords, “anan” you are saying the Palestinians deserved what they got, because they weren’t strong enough, violent enough, to prevent it. I’ll remember that view of human relations if I ever have to deal with you, and act accordingly. And if you are too strong for me, there’s always your elderly mother.
I think the question is fair. I have asked it before and not gotten good answers. Was there a Palestinian identity different from Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian (subjects of the Turkish empire all) in 1920? There clearly is one now. But was there one then?
Of course there was a Palestinian national identity in 1920. You can establish that from a number of independent Zionist, British, and Ottoman sources. Here are some comments with background material on that:
*http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/ny-ads-depicting-palestinian-dispossession-are-termed-anti-semitic-by-jewish-community.html/comment-page-1#comment-473863
*http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/ny-ads-depicting-palestinian-dispossession-are-termed-anti-semitic-by-jewish-community.html#comment-474914
*http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/ny-ads-depicting-palestinian-dispossession-are-termed-anti-semitic-by-jewish-community.html/comment-page-1#comment-473895
*The 19th century British Foreign Office Confidential Prints FO 424 series and early 20th century Arab Bureau Papers FO 882 series relate that the origins of the Husayni (aka al-Husseini), Khalidi, Nashashibi, ‘Abd al-Hadi, Tuqan families, and the major clans and tribes – including the Beersheba Bedouin – pre-date the first Zionist Aliya and that all of the groups had been settled there for centuries. Most of the inhabitants today can trace their ancestry to one or more of the families named in the 19th century British consular reports.
From this article, many Palestinians today had great grandparents who were born outside of current day Palestine: link to meforum.org
In fact the article is based upon sheer conjecture and doesn’t cite a single specific example or source which actually supports Gottheil’s claims. According to the Middle East Forum’s own mission statement it’s a political advocacy site affiliated with founder Daniel Pipes’ other organizations, like Campus Watch. If you’re reading this information, you need to check the actual content of the cited sources. If not, your family and friends may need to stage an intervention and deprogram you later on.
The first source that the Gottheil deliberately distorted is the chapter by U.O. Schmelz in Gad G. Gilbar, “Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914– Studies in Economic and Social History”, Brill Archive, 1990. The only census data Schmelz studied were those for two kazas, Hebron and Jerusalem. His editor Gilbar summarized Schmelz’ analysis of the Ottoman registration data for the 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron as follows:
See page 1 “Introduction”
In another article published as a chapter on his study of the Ottoman census of Jerusalem and Hebron, Schmelz wrote:
— See “Demographic Research of the Jerusalem and Hebron Regions Towards the End of the Ottoman Period” in David Kushner, Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation , BRILL, 1986
The Middle East Forum (MEF) article practically ignores those and other disclaimers about the reliability of the data. The population had every motive to avoid the census or to list non-Ottoman origins. Gottheil does conceal the most significant statistical findings made by Schmelz, because they plainly state that the overwhelming majority of the population of both kazas were comprised of local native born Palestinians or Palestinian migrants from other kazas. The author only reports on the possible origins of a fraction of the population of Jerusalem without calling attention to that fact. In the case of Hebron, there were practically no foreign immigrants recorded at all.
Compare Schmelz summary to the deceptive summary provided by the MEF author:
*Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi also said that there were no reliable sources of information and did not pursue the subject of immigration, so Gottheil steps in and makes argumentative use of Bachi’s findings for other countries.
*The Gottheil article ignores the subject of the Jewish Agency Hebrew Labor policy that was in effect during the mandate era and attempts to draw some nonsensical inferences from recent UNRWA statistics on Palestinian migration to states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, & etc. Lebanon would provide a better comparison. Until very recently, Palestinians couldn’t obtain work permits in Lebanon, so migration to that country has been practically nil.
P.S. About half of the non-local Muslim and Christians registered in the Jerusalem kaza were reportedly born outside Palestine, i.e. 53 and 60 per 100 born outside Jerusalem respectively. But almost all of the non-local Sephardim and Ashkenazim were born outside of Palestine, 97 and 92 per 100 born outside Jerusalem respectively. So most of the immigrants were Jews.
In the chapter from the Kushner book Schmelz wrote:
See U.O. Schmelz Demographic Research of the Jerusalem
and Hebron Regions Towards the End of the Ottoman Period, in David Kushner, Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, BRILL, 1986, page 363.
Thank you very much for your well sourced responses. I will need to ruminate over this.
@anan
They were palestinian jews.
Home is palestine. Why they don’t wanna give equal rights, well take a case of Jordan. Majority of palestinian refugees are in Jordan, surprise surprise, zionist draw conclusion that they are in reality Jordanians.
They wan’t to avoid palestinian uprising, so large numbers that they are in Jordan ?
Ask this from zionists. And before you ask, take a step back, to avoid coming vomit.
U R kidding, right ? ;)
And I was complaining about the mispelling of one word. What a looser I am. Spell any way you like Hostage, but keep writing!!
“Why doesn’t Israel insist on its birthright as an “Arab” country and demand admission to the Arab League?”
Ouch! anan! It’s painful to watch you crumble like that. You almost succeeded (not!) in making me believe that you have in effect studied the conflict since we first “met”.
@Terry:
From your blog:
‘No one should confuse my criticism here with any sort of support for 100 years of Arab or Muslim intransigence. I am not a fan of Palestinian terror, or the hardheaded pride of a leadership that has blown every opportunity to make peace with Israel.’
Do you have Testicular Elephantitis? Either that or you’re a maschocist to make such a comment and then post a link to it on here. Talk about balls. Go read a book or better still, have a look around here. It won’t take you long to find a more than a few deconstructions of your comment.
‘Nor am I a fan of Arab policies that have purposely allowed its “brothers” to fester in refugee camps while all the Jewish refugees from Arab countries were welcomed by their own brothers long ago.’
This is one of my personal faves. How about those refugee camps eh? The reason they exist is because the refugees who’s right of return which is enshrined in International Law is denied by Israel.
Israel tried to barter with the surrounding nations to only accept back 100,000 of the 800,000 displaced, which was refused on moral grounds. Don’t even try to switch the blame to others. The refugees are Israel’s fault and 100% Israel’s problem.
With regard to Israel’s absorption of Jews from Arab nations: Do some math. Israel wouldn’t exist without that immigration as their demographic would be lost. Also don’t think that it was all about them being hounded out of their homelands in one fell swoop. The process occurred over 30 years with various push and pull factors including economic migration being a large one. Israel needs Jewish numbers to keep control. A battle it’s currently losing big time. Within the territories it occupies, the demographic is 50/50 Jewish / Arab. Occupation is the only answer for Zionism and democracy it isn’t. And those Arab Jews? We’ll lets put it this way, they ain’t thought of as highly as the white eastern European kind over there.
link to en.wikipedia.org
You’re on the right road in opposing the occupation, but your mind has been filled with Zionist horseshit. Seriously buddy, do some reading.
“You’re on the right road in opposing the occupation, but your mind has been filled with Zionist horseshit. Seriously buddy, do some reading.”
Lol. Definitely a generally useful phrase.
You don’t think that “anan” has already demonstrated his ability to absorb facts, and his basic moral viewpoints on the situation? Do you really think it is going to change?
Netanyahu doesn’t represent me. I’m proud of Israel generally — it’s done an amazing job in a tough neighborhood
Funny. The “tough neighbourhood” shtik is pure Netanyahu.
@ Shmuel:
Funny. The “tough neighbourhood” shtik is pure Netanyahu.
Right. Also, I don’t understand why Israeli Zionists complain about having a “tough neighbourhood”. I mean, it was their own CHOICE to settle down in this neighbourhood.
Yeah, after the Germans slaughtered them, they just chose this neighborhood.
>> I mean, it was their own CHOICE to settle down in this neighbourhood.
“To settle down” makes Jews / Zionists / Israelis seem like passive actors in the conflict. It would be more correct to say: It was their own choice to use terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create a supremacist state in Palestine, to “defensively conquer” land outside of their supremacist state and to increasingly colonize that “defensively conquered” land.
Yeah, after the Germans slaughtered them, they just chose this neighborhood.
Survivors could have chosen the USA or UK. Those who voluntarily chose Palestine have no right to complain about their neighbourhood. Also, Zionism predates the Holocaust. So, don’t blame the Nazis for Jewish ethnic nationalism.
Yeah, after the Germans slaughtered them, they just chose this neighborhood.
The walking dead?
Yes they did, someone else’s neighborhood. They stole someone’s land and wonder why there was no welcomming commitee.
“The walking dead?”
Just shows what Jews can do when they really try! Or maybe it shows just how slimy Zionists are about using the Holocaust. You know what, sounds to me like Zionists were very dissatisfied with the Jewish way of thinking, so they try to inject a whole bunch Christian theology in Zionism to make it more attractive. Sad, a betrayal. No, those Jews in the Holocaust aren’t dead, dem dry bones gone rise again and make Israel.
And out of the tragedy, the loss, the tremendous whole ripped in Jewish life, the Zionists saw their chance to perpetrate a fraud on the Jewish people, and sell them a bill of goods, not to mention (no humor intended) a pig in a poke.
When has anybody ever ascertained that making (and especially in such a fashion) a Jewish State would be the answer to Jewish troubles and problems? When has anybody ever ascertained that out of the choices available to us that Zionism was even necessary? But of course, the Zionists don’t care. With the Holocaust they found a formula for completely relieving themselves of any accounting or responsibility. That’s one hell of a use for the Holocaust.
Yeah, Mooser, as my sister-in-law’s mother found out all by her 11-year-old lonesome, the Zios in Europe left her for dead in the middle of WWII, when, as a new orphan, she begged the Jewish aka Zionist charity for help, because she was too young to glorify their population of Palestine. The end always justifies the means. Wasn’t that Yitzak Shamir’s battle-cry?
German nationalism isn’t still ethnic? Anyone can become a German citizen?
google is your friend
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Somewhat easier.” LOL …
Google is definitely my friend:
link to unhcr.org
The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:
…
(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;
Thank you MRW. I’m sure it can’t be pleasant to dredge up things like that.
Zionists are constantly asking us to believe there is a separate reality for Zionism. completely unrelated to what we see in the world.
@ Terry: Just to clarify: Are you suggesting Palestine is Jordan or just those Palestinian nationals who resided there between those 5 years after being ethnically cleansed out their homeland by zionist terrorist gangs?
I don’t understand your point here. This is about non-Jewish Palestinians who had been ethnically cleansed from Palestine by the Zionists. I don’t think any Jews were ethnically cleansed from historical Palestine.
It’s true that some survivors could chose the US or UK (or I would add Australia) but, as has been documented here several times, Zionists in all of those countries were doing their best to block Jewish immigration from post-war Europe, so as to make Israel the only choice.
I don’t think any Jews were ethnically cleansed from historical Palestine.
General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), which established UNRWA, referred to “Palestine refugees” [Jews, Arabs, & others], not “Palestinian refugees.”
The UNRWA and its predecessor registered, fed, and sheltered at least 17,000 Jewish refugees from Palestine in its camps inside Israel. link to books.google.com
I regard historic Palestine as including Israel.
terrylevine July 26, 2012 at 1:16 pm
“Yeah, after the Germans slaughtered them, they just chose this neighborhood”
It was chosen in the 1890′s and the plan to colonize Palestine was well under way long before the Holocaust.
The zionists moved into someone else’s neighborhood unasked, propose to take it over and get rid of the local people by one means or another. They institute policies denying non-Jews work in Jewish-owned land or businesses. They help the foreign rulers (the British) brutally and violently suppress protest, opposition (both armed and peaceful), and (as influential citizens of western powers) block efforts by the local Palestinian Arabs to form a country based on equal rights regardless of creed (well they could not allow equal rights because Jews were a minority at the time). Culminating this by a campaign of mass murder and terror in order to get rid the land of the indigenous non-Jewish population and “cleanse” (word used by Israeli founding father Ben-Gurion) it for a Jewish state.
Having murdered many of the people who would have been a majority ethnic group and driven most of the rest from their homes, they forever after brag about how they survived in a “tough” neighborhood and how everyone hates them for being Jews.
@terrylevine, just why are you proud of this?
Many thousands went to Canada & South Africa as well – a lot more than went to Australia
@Mooser,
“I’m sure it can’t be pleasant to dredge up things like that.”
Even though my sister-in-law’s mother (why isn’t there one word for this? a lot of people have one) married a Jew and was happy in that marriage with four kids, she carried a deep and unforgiving vengeance and resentment towards Zionists (as well as Jewish organizations) for the rest of her life. As with all emotions (and water-shed experiences) like that, it grew in intensity as she aged. God help anybody who brought up the Holocaust and made a blanket statement about ‘the poor Jews’ in her presence. She went through your head with a drill-bit. If I remember correctly, she lived almost a year in the rubble and forest like a rat. The Zios took her 13-year-old brother to Palestine, so she was alone until the nuns from an orphanage found her in a barn. When little girls tell me they are 11 years old, I think of her at that age and the abject terror those times must have presented. I know equal stories from Vietnamese kids who watched their parents murdered in front of them, and were left to fend for themselves in the jungle until they found a refugee camp; sometimes it took two years.
That’s why for me there is no such thing as a ‘just war’. Unless the marauders are at my neck or in my backyard or proven to be outside my country with sufficient bomb power and ready to blow it up, all else is murder, institutionalized or otherwise. And as I age, my revulsion and horror at the venality and despicableness of those who think they can do it (war) and justify it for any other reason than true provable survival grows exponentially. I don’t give a shit who your god is. I don’t give a damn what book you read it out of, or what group of men 1,000 or 2,000 years ago gave you permission, I despise it.
I regard historic Palestine as including Israel.
Fair enough, but customary international law distinguishes between involuntary transfers within a state and deportation across national boundaries – especially in the case of newly formed states like Jordan and Israel.
See for example the case of the former Yugoslavia and the new Serbian and Croatian states: In “The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic – Case No. IT-02-54-T (Rule 98 bis test – Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State)”
I think we’re in agreement.
Thank you for filling your comment out MRW. I just now got a chance to read this second one, or would have thanked you sooner.
That’s a bit like saying that the Mafia does well in spite of organzied crime.
Shingo,
Thanks for the chuckle of the day!
“it’s done an amazing job in a tough neighborhood”
Amazing job indeed. Taking over 90% of mandate Palestine, smothering whatever is left to smother, slowly ethnic cleansing and settling in it and convincing most of the world that it’s only victim of “aggression” and has to defend itself. Who wouldn’t be amazed at such at a splendid outcome?
In my view of the world anyway, this is good.
Republican dollars are now chasing a constituency that consists of 2% of the population.
On the one hand, I’ll grant that higher voting rates might make that 3%. On the other hand, at least 50% of that 65% of Jews who favor Obama are knee-jerk Democrats. Short of Obama declaring ‘Black Hundred Days,’ they are not going to switch.
So the Republicans are pouring money into something that can yield at most 500,000 votes — as opposed to going after and energizing the thirty million or so Evangelicals — or working on squeezing another percent or two out of that great one hundred million man middle.
Good thing. Every dollar that goes into this is, if not quite a dollar wasted, a dollar that could have been better spent.
Jews who declare that they support a racist Government of thugs that denies basic human rights to 5 million stateless Palestinians living in Erez Israel are just drawing attention to how broken Judaism is. There are too many rabbis talking about the goodness of Torah
link to haaretz.com
while the Jews in the West Bank and the IDF desecrate it by the hour
“Jews who declare that they support a racist Government of thugs that denies basic human rights to 5 million stateless Palestinians living in Erez Israel are just drawing attention to how broken Judaism is.”
Don’t worry, Seafoid. A religion like Judaism, old beaten, on its last legs, historically (the religion) is like a worn out old, well you know what I mean, she’ll go with anybody. When the Zionists are broken, just watch how fast Judaism fixes itself. It’ll amaze you. And if those Zionist Rabbis determine to go down with the ship (instead of being smart rats), it’ll just heal itself so much the faster for the lack of them.
Or do you think, in memory of and solidarity with the Zionists, Judaism will perform suttee? And close up shop? I doubt it.
Is the RJC planning to release this in a way that only Jewish Americans will see it? Some Christian Zionists might like it, but they are planning to vote for the Republicans anyway. Although most die-hard Jewish Democrats won’t vote for Romney, this might convince some of the 25% of American Jews who are swing voters. However, for other Americans sitting on the fence, this might galvanize support for Obama — especially if Obama’s “disrespect” is viewed alongside Congress’s 29 standing ovations for Netanyahu (and Obama’s feeble efforts on the economy are viewed alongside Republican intransigence).
“Republican dollars are now chasing a constituency that consists of 2% of the population”
Location, location, location. They’re focusing on flipping a few votes in Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia where it’s close. If it makes the difference, it’s worth the money to the super-pac folks.
Yeah — but even in Florida, there are probably more gentile middle-of-the-road voters who will prove easier to ‘flip’ than some viscerally liberal elderly Jew who would no more vote Republican than he would discover Jeebus.
I still think that the Republicans are making a mistake — not that I mind at all.
Don’t forget about Republican vote-suppression tatics, which will help that 2% punch above their weight.
Or are you convinced, Colin, that there’s all kinds vote fraud which needs to be prevented?
“Don’t forget about Republican vote-suppression tatics, which will help that 2% punch above their weight.
Or are you convinced, Colin, that there’s all kinds vote fraud which needs to be prevented?”
I’m not sure what all this means. However, lessee…
1. I’m not a big believer that much vote fraud happens at all. To the extent that it does, it probably happens in both directions, and so is largely self-cancelling. I’ll put looking into vote fraud in America down on my list — somewhere well below taking up fly tying.
2. Whether that 2% does, could, or might ‘punch above its weight’ is not something I see as important at all. So what if it does? As I say, if the Republicans want to spend their time and money trying to squeeze something extra out of that 2% whilst letting the Democrats focus on the other 98%, I’m all for it. Indeed, it might all be a ploy to distract Jewish democrats from focusing on the 98% in favor of getting into cat fights with Norman Podhoretz or whoever.
Off topic, but may be of interest:
The New Statesman has some articles on the future of Israel:
link to newstatesman.com
which features some observations on the growing rejection of zionism by American Jews (and thus the non-representative nature of Israeli leaders for Jews). Geoffrey Wheatcroft has a choice quote from Norman Podhoretz in 1951 : “I felt more at home in Athens! They are, despite their really extraordinary accomplishments, a very unattractive people, the Israelis. They’re gratuitously surly and boorish.”, which made me laugh. Not much change there, then, Bibi. How the dream died:
link to newstatesman.com
The ultimate Dual-Loyalty ad for American Jews. In fact, it isn’t even that. In essence, it implies ex-pat American Netanyahu should be the recognized President of the US and faults Obama for not being subservient to that. Astounding. I hope American Jews are prepared for the derision and blowback.
—————————
Goldstein’s figures are not accurate.
“The unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent in 2009, more than double what it was in 2007 and the highest it had been since 1983.1″
link to cbo.gov
Bureau of Labor Statistics says it’s 8.2% now: “The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) was essentially unchanged in June, and the unemployment rate held at 8.2 percent.”
“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION —JUNE 2012″
link to bls.gov
I’m waiting for hoppy to take Michael Goldstein to task. After all, isn’t saying that the Prime Minister represents all Jews the kind of statement of dual-loyalty of American Jews that hoppy is always telling us is antisemitic?
Woody, as an astute student of The Rising vis-a-vis Polish history, I think you doth protest too much. Michael Goldstein converges with Gilad Atzmon on this issue of Israel representing all Jews and Jews representing Israel. I believe Jews who protest this point also know the sad truth. Both Israel and Jews are proxy names for the same thing. From the very beginning of the Jewish people to today and beyond.
Self proclaimed “friends” of Israel who pontificate at the distinction between righteous Jews and Israel and all of the horror it conjures up also realize it’s false. Even for those Jews who protest the very loudest that zionism and Judaism are distinct entities establish their own identity to opposition to Israel.
I think Atzmon has it right, although, obviously, I strongly dissent on the inherent evil of Jews/Israel, but agree with him on the linkage.
In the 1968 so-called Polish anti-semitic purge(the so-called March events)where upwards of 20,000 secular, non-religious Polish Jews were expelled from academic posts, hospital posts, governmental positions and then the country. The communist government developed a Walt-esqe distinction amongst the species Jew including Zionists on the one end and Poles of the Mosaic extraction on the other end of the continuum amongst Jews and Jewesses. In the end, they all got the shaft. My point is not to berate the woe is me motif, but, rather, to point out that those who protest the loudest on the good Jew versus distinct bad zionist Jew issue are sort of full of beans.
This argument is fairly sound in terms of principle — but as a practical matter?
Yes, there was an ‘Israel’ that was important to Jewish identity — but most of the time, most Jews were just busy living life.
Go to that list of ‘great Jews’ Sean posted. Nine out of ten of them had an identity that seems quite complete without reference to ‘Israel.’
At the same time, the ‘Israel’ that did form part of Jewish identity was an ideal, not a specific, concrete reality. It was good. It may have had reference to a physical place — but it was nothing like that vicious little garrison state that currently makes use of the name.
So yeah, Jews and ‘Israel’ may have always been connected. Whether they either need or should need the abomination that happens to be currently labeling itself as such is another matter entirely.
could I ask what you mean by the phrase “so-called Polish anti-semitic purge” from the context I’m having trouble determining what so-called is supposed to be modifying
I agree with Aaron Miller that Obama if reelected will try to reach a middle east peace and he won’t succeed, and I also believe that the two sides are too far apart and have been too far apart since obama came into office and are moreso far apart now, so therefore however obama may have dissed israel or netanyahu that it is irrelevant to the lack of success so far and future second term success.
leaving aside policy and going for just imagery: obama went to cairo and followed it up with a visit to buchenwald (or some other wwII camp). this could be perceived as a diss, considering a buchenwald visit to be the balance to the cairo speech instead of a visit to israel.
and as far as netanyahu rather than israel there is that photo released by the white house of obama with his feet on his desk talking to netanyahu. what was that? how often is such a photo released in the context of talking to a foreign leader?
but for emphasis, the symbolism is not the major issue, there will be no palestinian israeli peace treaty in the second term.
how is obama handling the arab spring? tough to say. was the west overthrow of kaddafi a good thing? tough to say. What about the rise of the MB in egypt? I don’t know. we’ll see how that plays out. i don’t agree that obama lost egypt. mubarak lost egypt and the people who trust the MB handed it to the MB. Is this good news or bad news? we’ll see. maybe the MB will grow up to be wise. Stranger things have happened. but maybe the MB will grow up to be stupid. (probably my definition of the MB acting stupid would elicit applause rather than boos from much of the MW commentators. This I also don’t know.)
Yonah, are you Israeli? Do you live in Israel?
I have dual citizenship, American and Israeli. I am currently a resident of NYC and visiting Israel for two months.
Where do you live MRW?
yonah
You cannot serve two masters simultaniously, therefore you are either american or israeli!! Or you are kidding yourself!
Should the USA go to war with Israel, would you join our army or the IDF?
I remember the days when it was not allowed in the USA to have two passports, that was before ADL and AIPAC took over our government.
Theo- I didn’t write the law. Congress wrote the law or the Supreme Court interpreted the law.
yonah- you did not give an answer!
Theo- I didn’t write the law. Congress wrote the law or the Supreme Court interpreted the law.
Yonah, Hersh Lauterpacht’s son published a book of his late father’s advisory opinions and law review articles. They included two opinions written for the Jewish Agency for Palestine advising it to file test cases in the courts or to demand binding arbitration. Another Jewish agency legal advisor, Jacob Robinson, also published books in which he advised that similar tactics be adopted.
I think that we can safely conclude that Zionists bankrolled test cases, like R. v. Ketter, in which Mr I.D. Ketter (aka Kletter) unsuccessfully argued that Palestine had been transferred to the British Empire and that he, a citizen of Palestine, could not be deported from England as an alien.
Several years later, in Kletter v Dulles, he argued against the Bancroft treaties and the US State Department practice of revoking US citizenship in cases where individuals voluntarily became naturalized citizens of a foreign state, like Palestine. See Kletter v Dulles link to dc.findacase.com
When the US Supreme Court finally overturned the treaties and statutes on dual citizenship, it was another case involving a Zionist: Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
Oddly enough the Court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t mention the right of the government to revoke citizenship once it has been granted. The court also noted that the 14th Amendment prohibits the state governments from doing that. But the Supreme Court has subsequently allowed the federal government to strip citizenship from US citizens born overseas to service members and US expatriots on the grounds of failure to fulfill residency requirements. So Zionists with dual citizenship may actually have better guarantees than other nominal US citizens.
Whenever there’s a case involving an interest of the State of Israel, you can be sure that one or more of its proxies or the auxiliaries of its parastatal organs will furnish counsel or file an amicus brief. For example, in Samantar v. Yousuf, the applicability of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FISA) to acts of former government officials accused of torture or crimes against humanity was being decided. Although no Israelis were involved in the case, and FISA does not apply to non-profit organizations, the members of the Israel Lobby became heavily involved. Amicus briefs were filed by: The American Jewish Congress, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Agudath Israel of America, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the Anti-Defamation League. link to scotusblog.com
In M.B.Z. v. Clinton, which involved recognition of Jerusalem as a city in Israel, there were amicus briefs filed by the Anti-Defamation League et al., the Zionist Organization of America, the Lawfare Project, and the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. link to scotusblog.com
In the case of the recent example of legislation that requires UNRWA to provide a break-out of refugees vs their descendants, we know for certain that the legislation was actually drafted by a member of the Israeli Knesset and introduced to our legislators by the AIPAC lobbyists.
Theo- In the case of war I will be torn. I pray that such a thing does not occur and I am not sure what I will do.
Currently US policy views the WB settlements as an obstacle to peace and the Israel government views them as “no problem”. I view them as an obstacle to peace. (not the only obstacle but certainly an obstacle). But in case of war I will be torn.
“yonah- you did not give an answer!”
Oh yes he did. He basically said he has no faith in Israel lasting, so he retains the chance to skeedaddle back to the US, when the excrement contacts the rotary ventilation assembly.
there is that photo released by the white house of obama with his feet on his desk talking to netanyahu. what was that?
Talk about projection and over interpretation.
That body language speaks friendship, trust, relaxation, when speaking with a freind.
there is that photo released by the white house of obama with his feet on his desk talking to netanyahu. what was that?
It’s a world leader with 70,000,000 votes and a clear majority and mandate talking to someone who got 735,000 votes and no majority and who needed partners to gain office in a country that relies on $15,000,000/day from the guy who has his feet on his desk.
Got that pumpkin? [Ellen, I was talking to Yonah, not you.]
Clear is clear, MRW. As far as Netanyahu’s vote total, that really makes no difference, other than that the vote total reflects the respective nations’ GDP. Yes, I agree Israel receives US aid and therefore the relationship is giver and receiver of gifts and therefore there is no problem with dissing Netanyahu. But then to pretend that there is no diss, and all of a sudden that which seemed crystal clear is murky and some type of weird game playing. Clear enough, pumpkin?
There are countless WH photos with Obama’s feet on his desk.
“There are countless WH photos with Obama’s feet on his desk.”
Product placement. Everybody is running to Nunn-Bush and Florsheims asking for the Presedential Wingtips.
As someone who loves movies I love photo images and the Obama with his feet up is a “great” image. (remember khruschev banging his shoe at the UN with Gromyko turning colors next to him, now that’s a top 50 image of all time world politics, obama with his feet up will be forgotten), but nonetheless some people took it the wrong way and I indeed feel it is relevant to ask, since when does the white house release photos of what the president was doing while speaking to a leader of another country. (am i imagining it or was it reported that monica gave bill a blow job while he was talking to arafat. maybe this photo image was to make up for that word image.)
Another middle eastern image was Obama bowing to the king/prince of Saudi Arabia. What was that about?
To be clear, Romney seems to have no inner compass whatsoever and I will never vote for Romney. And because the American people are too lazy (and I include myself) there is still an electoral college, and Obama will win New york state so my vote doesn’t count anyway. although the preferred result (except for a lousy four years) might be an obama popular vote victory and an electoral college loss. maybe twice in 12 years will get the american people to demand a change, but actually probably not.
I know why Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia- because he’s meeting with the head of state of a foreign country and that’s what you do.
Also-
A. Saudis work as our “in” at OPEC, they will push their weight to ensure oil output is in our favor
B. The Saudis invest a lot of money into our economy, including buying military equipment they don’t need in order to keep our industries profitable.
C. Even though they’re anti-Iran, they don’t actively try and destroy progress in negotiations. The White House isn’t losing sleep that Saudi Arabia is going to bomb Iran behind our back.
D. They may not agree with every move America makes, but they make their concerns known privately and they don’t disrespect the President or American top official in press conferences.
E. They might prefer one American presidential candidate but they don’t actively try to manipulate the election one way or the other. Romney or Obama, the US Saudi relationship is not going to change that much.
Here’s an interesting post at Open Zion about Israel, Obama, and whether he’s a friend–
link
I think it’s a fair summary of Obama’s actions regarding Israel.
The relationship boils down to this–Obama probably doesn’t give a damn about Palestinian human rights (or anyone’s human rights) but he knows that the occupation hurts America’s image in the Muslim world and he started off trying to do something about that. Then Israel screamed and its supporters screamed (so much for the 2SS most claimed to support) and Obama caved. He didn’t need the fight on this issue. On Iran he’s trying to impose America’s will on the uppity Iranians through sanctions, but Israel wants total and unconditional support and some would prefer that the US just start bombing and again, so do some of their supporters in the US.
I think Israel’s supporters hate Obama because they know that when someone backs down from a confrontation and grovels to them in as humiliating a fashion as Obama has done it is clearly insincere and they don’t know if he will remain in their pocket if he is re-elected. So the substance of his policies don’t matter, really–what really shows his heart are those feet he propped up or so the argument goes. He’s not groveling enough, dammit and anyway, it’s not enough to grovel–he’s got to love Israel and if he loved Israel in the way they want to see they wouldn’t have had to force him to grovel. I don’t say this with any sympathy for Obama–he’s a politician and most of them will sell out anyone to anybody if it helps them politically. But knowing that about him and not being 100 percent sure that he will continue to grovel after November (if he is re-elected) has the AIPAC types worried.
Yes, I think it’s compounded by the fact that they know that without their blakmail, he wouldn’t be on board. I think on one hand, the lobby loves wielding thsi power, but having to do so publicly and in such a messy way reminds them of the delegitimacy of their agenda.
It’s kind of an odd situation the way Obama is handling it. He’s not going to get their support, no matter what he does, so why grovel the way he is doing?
“That body language speaks friendship, trust, relaxation, when speaking with a freind.”
In some places that body language would be regarded as insulting. It would be seen as carrying a message of “you are so insignificant that I do not need to sit up and pay attention to you”.
The ironic bit here is that if anyone pays attention to all that ‘body language’ bullshit, it’s probably Obama. He’s the type.
He was probably trying to convey what good buds he is with Netanyahu. Had he been honest, he would have been sitting bolt upright with a legal pad and pen in hand — and a tape recorder going.
However, the right is so rabid that it didn’t do him any good anyway. If he hugged Netanyahu they’d claim he just suspected he was armed and was feeling for the gun.
I remember when Obama cow-towd to the saudi king and I was most ashamed for our nation.
He has problems with diplomatic etiquettes.
Theo,
The US President is unique among western countries. He is both head of government and head of state.
For the latter, he has hundreds telling him the proper diplomatic stance and behavior, which is something few Americans know about, who would prefer their President (read head of state) greeting foreign leaders on a white horse yelling Hi-Yo-Silver.
Few Americans know there is a First Lady school in Switzerland that all First Ladies from every country attend discretely either during the transition or shortly after inauguration. They have to do this to save the embarrassment of world leaders (whom the wives/spouses inform) gripping a fork like a stake and chopping at their meat like an ice pick. The diplomacy around bad table manners is something most Americans cannot begin to grasp the importance of because they are guilty of it themselves.
“The ironic bit here is that if anyone pays attention to all that ‘body language’ bullshit, it’s probably Obama. He’s the type.”
Colin, when a man, in long intimate chats and detailed personal letters, reveals his innermost soul and beliefs to you, you are not supposed to blab.
But I’m jealous! He’s my President, too, but he never tells me those kind of details about himself. Or do you just have a special ability to see into the minds of lesser beings? ESP, do yo’ stuff!
“…which is something few Americans know about, who would prefer their President (read head of state) greeting foreign leaders on a white horse yelling Hi-Yo-Silver…”
That is a thought. It was more or less the only argument in favor of a Sarah Palin Presidency.
“I agree with Aaron Miller that Obama if reelected will try to reach a middle east peace and he won’t succeed…”
Lol.
‘ _____ if reelected will try to reach a Middle East peace and he won’t succeed’ is a reasonable description of every president we’ve had for the last forty years.
One is vaguely reminded of Vichy France’s desperate but futile attempts to conclude a peace treaty with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany found she could take everything she wanted as matters stood and felt no need to reach a peace agreement. Indeed, absent a treaty, Vichy France kept feeling she had to demonstrate she was a ‘worthy partner.’ Germany got a vigorous defense of French colonies, an energetically anti-semitic policy, and active cooperation in armaments production and labor recruitment — all for virtually nothing.
Why would Israel agree to peace unless we threaten to pull the plug? The situation seems to be similar for her. Notice how the PA has to keep trying to prove it’s ‘a partner for peace’?
This post is gonna enrage the ‘old white usa patriots’ on this site, boy! whooo- wee!
Nah, Dan. But it is going to enrage–no, I make that: wake up–the non-Evangelical Christians and fence-sitters.
I got a survey call about three weeks ago to test how I felt about Adelson. I lied because I knew what the survey was testing. I didn’t know, I surmised. I wanted to encourage Adelson to feel as if he were at the top of the heap.
No kiddin’, who was doing the survey?
It pretended to be a survey of my “political views.” I never respond to them, but my spidey-sense said do it this one time and let’s see what it’s about. The fact that I was asked my thoughts on Adelson was strange, I thought. The choices were: did I like like him, hate him (yes, ‘hate’) or have no opinion. I thought it was trying to souse out anti-semitism with the ‘hate’ thing–too weird for a political survey obviously put together quickly–and it was buttressed by a need for responses on other Jewish non-politicos; again, to determine anti-semitism IMO.
Weird. I cant say Im surprised though, it seems anti-semitism or perceived anti semitism is going to play a role in this election
Only as a slimy election issue, Dan. I perceived it instantly as something Adelson wanted to find out before he made a more public face. As a result, I wasn’t surprised by the ad above.
He is saying that Jews follow and believe in fascism because that’s what Netanyahu represents, and it’s a sad irony that this would be said considering Jews suffered from fascism. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, so many Jews don’t support Netanyahu. You know that, and I know that, but not everyone will know that. This is dangerous behavior. These people should be sued by Jews who object.
Forget this political theater designed to make Obama look reluctant and embattled. Interesting article about Syria by Jack Smith over at dissident voice. A couple of excerpts:
“There are two principal and interlocking reasons the U.S. and its NATO and Mideast coalition allies are conspiring to oust the Assad government.”
“(1) The first is to secure Washington’s geopolitical position in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), particularly as President Obama prepares to focus additional military and economic resources on East Asia to contain the rise of China, and on Eurasia reduce Russian influence.”
“(2) The second reason is to enhance the power of Sunni Islam in MENA and limit possibility of a larger regional role by the Shia Muslim minority.”
link to dissidentvoice.org
Over at CounterPunch, Vijay Prashad discusses the US military build-up aimed at Iran. “The monarchical Gulf Cooperation Council, the so-called Arab NATO, has expanded military ties with the U.S., and its six members, along with 11 other countries, will join the U.S. in a massive military exercise off the Iranian coast in September.” Perfect timing for an October surprise, says I. Prashad concludes thusly: “The Republican’s Mitt Romney can only tail Obama’s belligerent foreign policy.”
link to counterpunch.org
How many times do I have to repeat the Wesley Clark quote? He identified seven countries slated for regime change. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. Iraq and Libya were assaulted, the old regimes removed. Lebanon has been attacked, and likely will be again by Israel. Sudan and Somalia are under assault from drones and special operations forces. Syria and Iran are under unconventional attack leading to possible direct assault. This shouldn’t be controversial. Empire appears fully committed to remaking the Middle East to eliminate potential future rivals. It is a high-stakes gamble, but so far, they appear to be succeeding.
Keith,
You wrote:
“How many times do I have to repeat the Wesley Clark quote? He identified seven countries slated for regime change. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. Iraq and Libya were assaulted, the old regimes removed. Lebanon has been attacked, and likely will be again by Israel. Sudan and Somalia are under assault from drones and special operations forces. Syria and Iran are under unconventional attack leading to possible direct assault. This shouldn’t be controversial. Empire appears fully committed to remaking the Middle East to eliminate potential future rivals. It is a high-stakes gamble, but so far, they appear to be succeeding.”
Didn’t Wesley Clark lay the blame for these lunatic and self-destructive policies firmly at the feet of neoconservatives? The New York money people? What Colin Powell called “the JINSA crowd” (JINSA=Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)?
Remember the Clean Break paper that was produced by neoconservatives like Richard Perle and David Wurmser with Israeli (Likud Zionist) objectives chiefly in mind? It articulated similar strategic objectives.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are as much under the thumb of the neocons and the Israeli government as George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were — they are neocon puppets and tools.
This is mostly about using American military power to make the world safe for Eretz Yisrael.
“Didn’t Wesley Clark lay the blame for these lunatic and self-destructive policies firmly at the feet of neoconservatives?”
That was my recollection. Sweeping, zealous, regime-change mania as example of how NOT to conduct foreign/defense policy.
“That was my recollection. Sweeping, zealous, regime-change mania as example of how NOT to conduct foreign/defense policy.”
The neo-cons were fantastic idiots. I remember when Wolfowitz laid down our goal in Iraq as the establishment of ‘a secular democracy with a tilt towards Israel.’
I figured that had to be cosmetic fluff intended for the functionally illiterate.
…but he meant it! And do you remember that flag that was proposed for Iraq?
What were they thinking? Ideology aside, how could they have thought such a program would work?
…and of course, sure enough it didn’t. It all suggests these people aren’t operating in the real world at all, but are simply operating in a kind of dream of court politics, getting ahead by saying whatever seems to give you the high ground at the conference table.
It is, I suppose, above all simply profound irresponsibility. Does these people even care what the actual outcome of the policies they propose will be?
The goings on must have been similar in the court of Tsar Nicholas II or the last Manchus. We’re really screwed if this is the mentality behind the formulation of policy.
I was in and out of DC at the time, and they absolutely believed it! Orthodoxy, actually. I can’t tell you the times “the war will pay for itself” was said by rep, sen, and committee staffers. It was pervasive thinking at the time.
Of course the staffers that were there in 2001/2 have moved on to “industry,” so there are susceptible new staffers to inculcate with lobbyist-derived versions of reality.
So it goes…
SEAN MCBRIDE- “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are as much under the thumb of the neocons and the Israeli government as George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were — they are neocon puppets and tools.”
I hope you realize that what you are saying is that, in effect, the empire is being run out of Tel Aviv? The neocons are an important part of the ideological apparatus of the military/industrial complex who also have a strong pro-Israel bias. The military/industrial complex strongly favors militarism, as does Wall Street, hence, there is a strong bias in favor of these policies. It is inconceivable to me that these policies are being foisted upon America’s elites. Some accommodation, sure, but for the imperial elites to willingly subsume their power-seeking instincts in favor of Israel, to, in effect, become Israel’s vassal state is simply not believable. Obama is Wall Street’s front man. I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on who he may or may not be deferring to at the moment, or on public statements made for effect. Does much of US Middle East policy work to Israel’s favor? Sure. Is the empire being run out of Tel Aviv? No. Is the empire still an empire pursuing an imperial geo-strategy? You better believe it. I am now going to piss you off with a quote from Henry Kissinger.
“Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)
Keith, what is the largest media outlet that shows signs of being more loyal to US solvency than to Israel?
“The neocons are an important part of the ideological apparatus of the military/industrial complex who also have a strong pro-Israel bias.”
Don’t you remember Kristol and Jeremy Ben Ami bragging about how all limited-supporters of Israel had been pushed out of the Republican party?
Rahm and Wasserman-Schultz in charge of choosing candidates and funding amounts for the other side of the isle?
It’s pretty clear cut occupation. You might have missed Bibi’s 29 standing ovations as he re-wrote US foreign policy.
The JFK State Department had it right. Supporting Israel disproportionately to its neighbors served zero national interest, and the only benefit of such a strategy was to appease US Jews.
CHARLES BARWIN- That there is a strong pro-Israel bias among the power elite is not in question. That the Israel lobby makes massive campaign contributions is widely known. However, I have seen no evidence that the empire is being run from Tel Aviv, or that Wall Street and the military/industrial complex are not generally supportive of current imperial geo-strategic. Perhaps a few examples of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon ignoring business to serve Israel would persuade me. Also, I have difficulty reconciling AFRICOM and the pivot towards Asia with support for Israel. You need to account for the political economy of global capitalism and empire as if they mattered because they do.
Keith,
You wrote:
“That there is a strong pro-Israel bias among the power elite is not in question. That the Israel lobby makes massive campaign contributions is widely known. However, I have seen no evidence that the empire is being run from Tel Aviv, or that Wall Street and the military/industrial complex are not generally supportive of current imperial geo-strategic.”
This is where your analysis falls down. Your mental model of American elite power is reminiscent of Noam Chomsky’s, say circa 1980, more than thirty years ago.
The issue is not that the empire is being run from Tel Aviv. The issue is that an extensive network of billionaires IN THE UNITED STATES (and largely in New York, as Wesley Clark correctly pointed out), and with strong emotional connections to Israel, substantially dominate both political parties, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Hollywood, the mainstream media, etc. — all the key centers of American political, social, economic and cultural power. And they have been the lead lobby in promoting a succession of American wars against Arab and Muslim states and groups on behalf of Israeli (especially Likud Zionist) objectives. They are the prime movers behind the Global War on Terror and Clash of Civilizations.
The WASP Old Guard that used to dominate Wall Street and the military-industrial complex is long gone, and many of the leading members of that WASP Old Guard have strongly dissented from the neoconservative and neoliberal policies that have been implemented by the Bush 43 and Obama administrations.
For instance, nearly all of the key policy centers and think tanks that define policies for the military-industrial complex are financed and controlled by Israel-centric neoconservatives.
This is why the Israel lobby (in the *U.S.*, not Tel Aviv) was easily able to muscle a sitting American president (Barack Obama) into backing down in his confrontation with an Israeli prime minister (Benjamin Netanyahu) over illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. A powerful unified wall of pro-Israel billionaires, cutting across both major political parties, now exerts easy control over mere American presidents (not to mention members of Congress). American politicians are mere tools, bought and paid for. Those who refuse to be bought are destroyed through a wide variety of methods.
The JFK State Department had it right. Well, we know what happened to the US State Department between 1948 and 1965. It took almost 20 years to cleanse it.
Keith, then you’re dense. Read Ari Shavit’s White Men’s Burden article. What is so difficult about admitting that yes, there is a right-wing pro-Israel grip on American congressmen?
It is inconceivable to me that these policies are being foisted upon America’s elites.
Then where have you been? Why is Romney going to Israel in a few days? For the hummus? What were the 29 standing ovations about in May 2011, which offended Americans more than you know?
Yes, the empire is being run out of Tel Aviv. Or attempting to be so. And any public figure who objects to this is given the Helen Thomas treatment. That is what is objectionable.
Would it be more palatable to you if we said a ‘foreign city’?
It is the silencing of the honest criticism–by bringing up anti-semitic charges–that is galling. Eventually, that too will have a consequence.
Oh boy, here we go again. Keith, if you don’t admit the entire world and its ruling classes are run by zionist jews for their interests, you just aren’t serious…….
Nuance, Dan, nuance. And referring to Jews globally in the plural all the time obfuscates the issue, as our hasbarists here underscore all the time. Nonetheless, in blog posts the plural happens if you don’t want a 21″ post of hair-splitting.
SEAM MCBRIDE- “Your mental model of American elite power is reminiscent of Noam Chomsky’s, say circa 1980, more than thirty years ago.”
Ah, what would you do without your Chomsky bogey? You need to practice making rational arguments rather than resorting to proof by labeling. Highly contentious labeling, I might add.
“The issue is not that the empire is being run from Tel Aviv.”
Wrongo, that is precisely the issue. You and others (see MRW below) continue to imply that American foreign and domestic policy (they work in tandem and are inseparable) is more-or-less the consequence of Israeli machinations and is, in fact, significantly different from what it would be without this Zionist control. I disagree. The neocons are MIC lobbyists and imperialists first, Zionists second. If Zionist control of empire is so complete, why not just give Israel Qatar and be done with it? It would save $3 billion a year in aid.
“The issue is that an extensive network of billionaires IN THE UNITED STATES (and largely in New York, as Wesley Clark correctly pointed out), and with strong emotional connections to Israel, substantially dominate both political parties, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Hollywood, the mainstream media, etc. — all the key centers of American political, social, economic and cultural power.”
I have always maintained that the center of Zionist power is the US not Israel, and that New York is effectively the capital of global capitalism. I further maintain that Israel is an integral part of empire, not some alien force which can be exorcised from some mythical “good” empire. The key centers of American power which you mention seem to me to be essentially in agreement in regards to the current phase of imperial geo-strategy, I certainly don’t see a lot of resistance and infighting among the contenders for power, or some sort of surrender to an outside force attempting to divert empire from its traditional role concerning raw materials and markets and destroying perceived threats to the system. Unfortunately for the Arab street, all of that Middle East oil has enormous strategic value, as recognized by virtually all strategic planners. Yeah, yeah, I know, oil is fungible, and all of those military bases irrelevant.
As for all of those old saintly WASP elites, any honest examination of US history will quickly dispel the notion of noblesse oblige. Please be aware that US policy is entirely consistent with neoliberalism and globalization, and generally reflects the consensus position of the entire power structure. If it doesn’t, they are being curiously reticent about vigorously opposing it. That there is a strong Jewish presence and pro-Israel bias among the elites is fairly obvious. Nonetheless, it remains an empire and behaves like one. As far as I know, Caesar has no plans to make Aliyah.
MRW- “Yes, the empire is being run out of Tel Aviv.”
Israel is the driving force behind neoliberalism? Behind globalization? Behind the US pivot towards Asia? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations? Behind the creation of AFRICOM and the looming resource wars? Jeez, why wasn’t I informed? Israel must have a rather bloated bureaucracy to deal with all of this. Any quotes regarding Israeli directives to the US on these matters?
Ah, congressional influence. What do you think this is, some sort communist government issuing directives to industry? This is global capitalism. Please, just one example, I’m sure there must be dozens, of Netanyahu and Israel forcing Wall Street to do its bidding. How about the bond market, is that also controlled from Tel Aviv? She it.
Keith,
Forbes billionaires occupy the top of the capitalist pyramid in the United States. Please name the Forbes billionaires who you think have been the most aggressive and influential in promoting neoconservative policies, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Afpak War, an Iran War, the Global War on Terror, the Clash of Civilizations, Islamophobia, etc. How do they profile out? What is their background? What is their ideological agenda? Which media properties and policy centers do they own, control or substantially dominate?
This is the kind of empirical data one needs to look at to understand what is going on at the highest levels American politics in the year 2012. Follow the money.
What does your list look like? How much meaning can you wring out of the last two or three decades of Forbes billionaires lists concerning the distribution of power in American society among various competing and cooperating interest groups?
I have never seen Noam Chomsky or any of his disciples conduct that kind of analysis. Mostly they specialize in rehashing watered-down Marxist theory — abstract and ungrounded, heads in the clouds, many large generalizations, few salient facts, etc.
Keith,
No one has claimed that the WASP elite was “saintly” — American imperialism from the start has been guilty of many offenses. But the current generation of disastrous neoconservative policies have not been engineered by the dwindling WASP elite — in fact key leaders of that dying and increasingly irrelevant elite have opposed those policies. They are most assuredly not on the same page with Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
Mondoweiss discusses this historical shift among American power elites all the time, but I rarely (never) see you or Dan Crowther reference it. When the subject comes up, you try to blow it off as not consequential.
SEAN MCBRIDE- “I have never seen Noam Chomsky or any of his disciples conduct that kind of analysis. Mostly they specialize in rehashing watered-down Marxist theory — abstract and ungrounded, heads in the clouds, many large generalizations, few salient facts, etc.”
Here you go again with your “Chomsky and his disciples” schtick.
“The Open Door, Manifest Destiny, Reagan’s crusade against the Evil Empire, and now Bush’s War on Terror, all should be seen as variants of the same strategy, the aim of which was to propel the ever outward expansion of the American empire.” (America’s Oil Wars, p137, Stephen Pelletiere, 2004) “Stephen Pelletier has been a journalist, a university professor (most recently at the National War College), the chief CIA analyst on Iraq from 1980-1988, and–beyond the sum of his parts– a historian.” (from the dust cover)
“…American leaders have long sought control over the Persian Gulf’s oil, and they appear determined to extend this control into the future. The same geopolitical chess game is now being played in the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia as well. Any challenges to U.S. interests in these regions will be countered with the full weight of American military power.” (Blood and Oil, p52, Michael T. Klare, 2004) “Michael T. Klare is the five college Professor of Program Peace and World Security Studies at Hamshire College in Amherst.” and he is (was?) the “Defense correspondent for the “Nation” and a contributing editor for “Current History.”
Both of these authors are quite mainstream. Both books (among many I could mention) are copiously footnoted referencing data and archives, etc. Neither mentions Chomsky, nor AIPAC, nor Marxist theory. Both do mention the neocons whom they describe as Military/Industrial complex ideologues, Pelletier going so far as to imply that the neocons want war for war’s sake. I tend to agree, what with the US being a warfare state and all.
This is from the CounterPunch article “Extending the Empire to New Frontiers,” by Deepak Tripathy. “Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung, regarded as the father of conflict and peace studies, said in 2004 something that is a fitting definition of the term “empire.” He described it as “a system of unequal exchanges between the center and the periphery.” An empire “legitimizes relationships between exploiters and exploited economically, killers and victims militarily, dominators and dominated politically and alienators and alienated culturally.” Galtung observed that the U.S. empire “provides a complete configuration, articulated in a statement by a Pentagon planner.” The Pentagon planner in question was Lt. Col. Ralph Peters:
“The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.” (“Fighting for the Future, Will America Triumph?”, 1999, 141)
link to counterpunch.org
One more quick link: “The nuclear issue, though, is but a pretext used to veil U.S. imperial designs in the region. As a senior U.S. Defense Department official recently let slip to the New York Times: “This is not only about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but about Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions.” In other words, it is about removing one of the last irritants to U.S. power projection in the resource-rich Middle East.”
link to counterpunch.org
You may find this hard to believe, but the vast majority of strategic analysts whom I have read seem to feel that the US is an empire and behaves accordingly. AIPAC and the neocons are seen as domestic concentrations of power which influence imperial priorities and decision making. To the degree that Zionist Jews have achieved elite status, this would obviously tend to influence elite priorities, however, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on individual billionaires compared to the organized power of the corporations, particularly the financial institutions. There is always a certain amount of disagreement among the elites over specific policies, however, I am unaware of a significant conflict of interest between the Israel lobby, the military/industrial complex and Wall Street. All are part of empire and share in the spoils. I would further add that neoliberal globalization is the process by which the American empire is being transmogrified into the corporate/financial matrix of global control, a new and different empire separate from the nation state. The “Extending the Empire” link briefly touches upon this.
As for your list of elites, all were staunch supporters of empire and of war, not peaceniks. Their opposition to some of the current strategy and AIPAC influence is made within the framework of continuance of empire. Do they oppose the bloated military budget and all of our overseas bases and alliances? Do they oppose turning NATO into a US controlled out-of area mercenary force? If they oppose the assaults on Syria and Iran, then I wish them success, however, they don’t seem to be having a lot of influence, hence, I conclude that they do not have the support of the MIC and Wall Street, the main drivers of current policy, AIPAC opportunistically doing double duty as an Israeli and imperial lobby.
The bottom line is that attempting to evaluate imperial global strategy by focusing on the Israel lobby doesn’t cut it. You simply can’t account for neoliberalism, financialization and globalization with you head buried in Middle East sand. The forest is real, even though you deny its existence to concentrate on the leaves. Or should I say lists?
Keith, you don’t see what their problem is? If the US isn’t better, much better than Israel, and being led around by the nose by Israel, if the US is just as bad or worse than Israel, than who is going to fix Israel?
Keith,
You just served up another collection of vague abstractions, summarizing basic and worn out Marxist theory about how the world allegedly works, and once again without mentioning the names any particular individuals, corporate leaders, billionaires, organizations, policy centers, media outlets, etc. — pretty much no empirical facts at all.
I am trying to think of a way to break through your mental bubble on this issue and bring you back to earth.
Let’s try this:
1. Were Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jim Walton and John Malone ringleaders of the Iraq War? Are they Islamophobes? Have they been obsessed with using American military power to crush the enemies of Israel?
2. Sheldon Adelson has promised to spend as much as $100 million in the current election to drive Barack Obama out of office on behalf of Likud Zionism and Greater Israel. How many Fortune 500 CEOs share Adelson’s ideological agenda? NAME THEM, please. I am not interested in hearing any more ungrounded claims about a vague corporatocracy that supposedly marches in lockstep on American foreign policy.
3. How did American corporations overall benefit from the Iraq War? Were Fortune 500 CEOs collectively the ringleaders of the war? The Iraq War was a key factor in causing the financial crash of 2008. Most of the spoils of the war, in terms of oil rights, went to foreign oil companies. As we speak, the American economy — and the fortunes of many American corporations — are in severe trouble as the result of self-destructive neoconservative foreign policies — policies that have been opposed by many leaders of the Old Guard American power elite, including George H.W. Bush and James Baker.
How does your Chomskyan model of the world explain any of the these facts of life? It doesn’t.
If you want to understand the structure, complexion and dynamics of the American elite power in the year 2012, this is where to start:
“The Forbes 400: The Richest People in America”
link to forbes.com
And you pay close attention to the *details* — to the affiliations, background and agenda of each individual in the group and how those individuals connect to one another and coordinate their political activities.
Which *specific* individuals on this list have been the prime movers behind the entire Global War on Terror, Clash of Civilizations and a succession of failed neoconservative wars? If you can’t name them, then you really don’t have a grasp of what is going on in contemporary American politics.
Keith,
This is why some folks have expressed exasperation with your mental model of the world: if we don’t start focusing on the specific individuals who have been the prime movers behind a decade of failed neoconservative wars, and analyzing their motives, then there is no chance of slowing down or stopping the neocon juggernaut.
Every time you try to shift this discussion to complaints about a vague and abstract capitalist corporatocracy, without naming names or providing details, you help pave the way for the neocons to continue on their merry way with no effective opposition.
Sometimes I wonder if you even read Mondoweiss or understand it. :) MW has been particularly aggressive in pursuing this line of inquiry — the role of the Israel lobby in dominating the formulation of American foreign policy, and the role of big money — billionaire money — within the Israel lobby.
MOOSER- You are essentially correct. Opposing the “Lobby” seems doable, going up against empire, hopeless. There are other factors involved as well as indicated by the hostility to Noam Chomsky. There is a certain ideological comaraderie among the core of high volume anti-Zionist Mondoweiss commenters. They are, to a degree, Phil’s echo chamber. Phil, in turn, sees Zionism and Israel as an ugly blemish and potential liability to his Jewish identity. He feels the need to oppose this particular aspect of the empire, and rightly so. Who can oppose seeking justice for the Palestinians? I am guessing here, but for Phil to go beyond simply critiquing Israel, Zionism and the Lobby, might well jeopardize his funding sources and future employment prospects.
As for myself, I see the current situation in regards to Syria and Iran as a continuation of an all-encompassing process to transition from an American empire to a transnational corporate empire. The financial changes mind boggling, Israel a minor factor. Iran could be the key to imperial success or failure. Things seem to be building up to an October surprise. On the bright side, what a wealth of opportunity for gallows humor.
“Oh boy, here we go again. Keith, if you don’t admit the entire world and its ruling classes are run by zionist jews for their interests, you just aren’t serious…….”
I’d define it as a kind of unholy alliance between Zionist Jews, obsessive bigots, politicians doing/saying whatever will get them into/keep them in office, and Christian Evangelicals.
These categories overlap, of course. They’re all in it for different reasons, but they’re all in it.
Keith the Israeli lobby isn’t nearly as powerful as people think.
What you call “transnational corporate empire” has been far more powerful than what you call “American empire” for generations.
Actually I don’t know what you mean by “American empire.”
SEAM MCBRIDE- The notion that history is shaped primarily by individuals, by “great men” is both invalid and largely discredited. Powerful institutions have both a culture and mission which transcends the individual executives. Usually a change of CEO entails little change in corporate strategy. Also, the change from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama has had little impact on the overall trajectory of US policy. Clinton implemented Reaganism, including NAFTA and deregulation, and Obama has carried on and accelerated Bush’s militarism and Wall Street subsidies, etc. If you are unable to conceptualize beyond the individual, public quotes and imputed psychology, you will be unable to appreciate the overall thrust of policy. The strategic importance of oil too vague for you? The World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, NAFTA, GATT, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, CENTCOM, AFRICOM, NATO, Business Roundtable, World Economic Forum, etc, are all nothing but “a vague and abstract capitalist corporatocracy?” Individuals? Who cares, they are pretty much interchangeable. Quotes? You think they engage in straight talk for the masses? Folks, we have decided to gut social security and privatize education so that there will more for us and less for you? No, they want to “rescue” and “reform” for the good of us all. Reality is much better perceived by focusing on the facts on the ground and mostly ignoring the bullshit in the media. As for Mondoweiss, it is fine to focus on Israel/Palestine and the Lobby, however, there is an all too real attempt to discredit all other factors than the Lobby, even while claiming you don’t. It is as if you are trying to exorcise the Lobby from empire without unduly disturbing empire. Hardly a realistic or laudable goal.
Keith,
The problem with the Marxist and Chomskyan approach to analyzing history, power elites, social forces and conflicts, etc. is that it vastly oversimplifies reality. All syntax, no semantics. Chomsky’s linguistic theories suffer from the same problem — no semantics.
The Marxist approach to interpreting politics tends to appeal to intellectually lazy people — with the help of their simplistic assumptions about the world, they are spared the hard work of sifting through and understanding all the empirical data in situations. They ride their little hobbyhorse back and forth and back and forth, remaining perfectly stationary. Their ideas go nowhere.
So far you and Dan Crowther haven’t responded to any of the key points I have made in this thread — you ignored them entirely. I get the impression that you don’t understand the points I am making.
Marxists and crypto-Marxists have a tin ear for cultural factors in global politics — particularly the complex interactions and ethnic and religious groups and ideologies. They don’t do history in any serious sense. They are basically members of a cult, like psychoanalysis. Fast food for the mind.
Averroes, this comment is directed towards you.
seanmcbride, I understand and agree with you. :-)
Large complex multi-sided heterogeneous plural diverse free democracies such Brazil, America and India are in many ways alike. They are plutocracies with vast numbers of networks. Networks inside Networks and Networks correlated with Networks. These different Networks of interest (interest groups or lobbies) form constantly shifting alliances with other Networks of interest. Some networks rise and fall in influence. It is these constantly shifting alliances between networks of interest that determines policy.
Another growing trend is the increasing strength of transnational networks of interest. An examples of this would be: the the global greenhouse gases cap and trade lobby. The global human rights lobby. The global Natural Gas lobby. The global Hadoop open source community and lobby. The global Java open source classes community and lobby. Global lobbies on near field communications. Global semiconductors standards lobbies. The global biotechnology lobby.
Marxists do not try to understand who and what these networks of interest are and their constantly shifting alliances with each other. Hence their understanding of the world is inaccurate and irrational.
Keith,
You wrote:
“The notion that history is shaped primarily by individuals, by “great men” is both invalid and largely discredited.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I am an Emersonian: “An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) Think Steve Jobs and Apple, for instance.
Human civilization is the product of vanguard movements, and vanguard movements are led by *individuals* — prophets, visionaries, geniuses, etc. — fully developed singularities who are unbound by collectivist and conventional thinking and who possess the inner force to shatter idols.
Marxists — who are quintessential collectivists — don’t understand the human factors that are most vital, imaginative and consequential in making history. They believe that the world as a whole is as dull as they are.
With regard to the current complex complexion of the American power elite, and its many internecine conflicts, you and Dan Crowther don’t seem to know anything about it. You don’t pay attention to the concrete empirical details concerning deep politics — to mere “lists” (collections of strategic facts).
There is currently a ferocious battle going on within that power elite between foreign policy realists (largely WASP-centric) and Likud Zionists (Israel-centric). The realist faction within the upper levels of the American power structure strongly disagree with the notion that neoconservative-instigated foreign wars are serving American imperial interests (or any kind of American interest, imperial or non-imperial). For the time being, however, they have been overpowered by the resources and ops of the pro-Israel billionaire network and lobby which I have repeatedly tried to bring to your attention, but which you continue to ignore.
Keith,
On the role of individuals and special interest groups (especially identity groups) in influencing American politics and American foreign policy:
BEGIN ARTICLE
TITLE I’m Sorry, but Haaretz Got it Wrong: It Was Romney’s Voice, but Sheldon Adelson’s Words
AUTHOR David Harris Gershon
PUBLICATION Daily Kos
DATE July 30, 2012
URL link to dailykos.com
BEGIN QUOTE
END QUOTE
END ARTICLE
Keith: do you and Dan Crowther really believe that most Fortune 500 CEOs are on the same page as Sheldon Adelson because they are all part of the “capitalist” elite and corporatocracy? If you believe that, you couldn’t be more wrong.
seanmcbride wrote yet another brilliant comment.
Each individual is made from the image of God and has infinite power, imagination and potential. Every individual can transform the world by the power of their thoughts and actions.
For example Edgar (Ted) Codd, the founder of relational data bases or James Gosling, founder of Java and the man who in many ways created Sun (and is now part of Oracle.) Or Isaac Newton, or Einstein. Or Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Or Homer. Or Jesus. Or Mohammed (and his daughter Fatimah and son-in-law Ali).
The problem with the Marxist and Chomskyan approach to analyzing history, power elites, social forces and conflicts, etc. is that it vastly oversimplifies reality.
I’ve pointed out on several occasions that both sides here are guilty of producing a caricature of Chomsky’s position. He has plainly stated that the Israel lobby is part of the equation and that it accounts for US policy on the settlements. But he is also correct in pointing out that the Lobby alone, can’t account for US policies in the Middle East and the rest of the world. If that were true, the US would have gone to war with Iran decades ago when the Israel Lobby first started shreying about that particular agenda item.
BDS and Israel’s unpopular settlement policies are already costing Israel’s businesses partners money. If there’s an economic decline, or the settlements are removed as part of a peace deal, who’s going to bailout the bond or mortgage holders on the private and commercial loans made to construct all of those communities on the wrong side of the Green Line? I believe they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, but the majority of the risk takers holding that paper are ardent Zionists, not smart capitalists backed by US loan guarantees.
“They are, to a degree, Phil’s echo chamber. Phil, in turn, sees Zionism and Israel as an ugly blemish and potential liability to his Jewish identity. He feels the need to oppose this particular aspect of the empire, and rightly so. Who can oppose seeking justice for the Palestinians? I am guessing here, but for Phil to go beyond simply critiquing Israel, Zionism and the Lobby, might well jeopardize his funding sources and future employment prospects.
You should not over-think this, Keith.
anan,
You wrote:
“Each individual is made from the image of God and has infinite power, imagination and potential. Every individual can transform the world by the power of their thoughts and actions.”
No matter what disagreements we might have in the future — and I am sure there will be a few — we share the same bedrock belief on this most important truth — we belong to the same “church.”
All of those vanguard leaders you mentioned did indeed make huge waves and powerfully move human civilization forward. None of them were constrained by any other person’s theory or mental model of the world. They were fully self-actualized in the Emersonian sense — fully in touch with their own inner voice and genius and something bigger than that.
SEAN MCBRIDE- “The problem with the Marxist and Chomskyan approach to analyzing history, power elites, social forces and conflicts, etc. is that it vastly oversimplifies reality. All syntax, no semantics. Chomsky’s linguistic theories suffer from the same problem — no semantics.”
You have a real penchant for creating straw men. What Marxist or “Chomskyan” analysis are you referring to? Surely not me, somewhat of an anti-Marxist who thinks that most Marxists suffer from intellectual necrophilia. As for Chomsky’s approach of examining the documentary record and drawing the appropriate conclusions, I concur, however, nothing I have said relies on Noam Chomsky. The summary conclusions I quoted are supported by mainstream research techniques involving copious quotations and statistical tabulations, the very stuff of a strategic analysis. My continual reference to the powerful institutions of global capitalism, World Bank, IMF, Business Round Table, Council on Foreign Relations, etc, is hardly a Marxist oversimplification of reality, yet another label you apply in your never-ending proof by labeling. As for Chomsky’s linguistic theories, I am not qualified to evaluate them and, I suspect, neither are you. If you feel you are, feel free to submit a critique to the appropriate technical journal. Yet, the fact that you feel qualified to denigrate Chomsky in linguistics says volumes about your hubris.
“Marxists and crypto-Marxists have a tin ear for cultural factors in global politics….”
Two comments are in order. First, you and that straw man have to stop meeting like this or there will be talk. I am not a Marxist and I doubt that Dan is either, so what is the point? Even if it turns out that Dan is of a Marxian bent, so what? Discuss what he says, don’t create a bogus label to attack. Speaking of which, you constantly engage in the same vague generalities which you claim to object to. Want to take on some real Marxists? Follow the links to Jewbonics and Jews Sans Frontieres. I’m sure Max Ajl and Gabriel Ash will be thrilled to debate you.
“So far you and Dan Crowther haven’t responded to any of the key points I have made in this thread — you ignored them entirely.”
That’s rich, coming from you. I am unaware of you responding to anything I have ever said, other that to characterize it as some vague Marxist, Chomskyan oversimplification. You create a straw man, then label it and think you have proved something. Where you ask a specific question, it is almost a nonsense question, difficult to take seriously. For example: “Were Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jim Walton and John Malone ringleaders of the Iraq War?” No, that is not their job. Does oil have strategic value? Does Iraq have oil? Does Iran have oil? Does the US have a lot of military bases around the Middle East and Persian Gulf? Is all of this force projection merely to protect Israel? Have Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jim Walton and John Malone ever vigorously opposed the Iraq war? Did the Council on Foreign Relations, IMF, Business Roundtable, Wall Street, etc, vigorously oppose the Iraq war as bad for business? Have the four guys you mentioned profited handsomely from the fruits of empire? Are any anti-Imperialists? I have done a better job responding to you than you have to me.
“The Iraq War was a key factor in causing the financial crash of 2008.”
You are the only one I have ever heard say this, a preposterous notion. The crash was an inevitable consequence of de-regulation and financialization.
“I am an Emersonian: “An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) Think Steve Jobs and Apple, for instance.”
If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had never existed, things would be little different. Computers were developed in response to Department of Defense funding, without which private business wouldn’t have committed the necessary resources. Part of military Keynesianism is the de facto subsidy of corporate R & D. The internet was developed by the military. Most modern technological development is the result of well funded project teamwork, the ‘lone wolf’ inventor a thing of the distant past. It is highly instructive that your guide to modern political economy is Ralph Waldo Emerson. In any event, we have both spent too much time on this. While I suspect that will get in the last word, unless it is something different, it is unlikely I’ll respond.
How many times do I have to repeat the Wesley Clark quote? He identified seven countries slated for regime change.
You misquote. Clark expressed surprise at the list. Go to Fora.tv, pay the fee, and watch the entire talk. Who was in power then in the DoD under Rumsfeld? Who was setting these countries up? Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, et al. The boys you ignore and deny. Zelikow said the war in 2003 Iraq was for Israel’s security. Israeli Interior Minister Paritzsky (April, 2003) said the war was to re-open the Mosul-Haifa pipeline to get oil to Israel and turn Haifa into Rotterdam.
Read the damn archives. I’ve written 1.5 million words since July 31, 2009 and many more going back to 2005. Phil has written the same and more. You bring up issues we’ve been through over and over and over and over again. Teach yourself. No one has the time.
MRW,
You know, on the subject of the Israel lobby in American politics, Keith and Dan Crowther sometimes sound like Adam Levick lacerating Glenn Greenwald. Be sure to read this:
BEGIN ARTICLE
AUTHOR Adam Levick
TITLE The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald: The anti-imperialism of fools
PUBLICATION The Times of Israel
DATE July 27, 2012
URL link to blogs.timesofisrael.com
END ARTICLE
One of many Greenwald quotes that Levick cites which drive him into a tizzy of moral outrage:
“The dominant narrative among neocons and the media is that, deep down in his heart, [Obama] may be insufficiently devoted to Israel to be president of the United States. Has there ever been another country to which American politicians were required to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel?”
Another Greenwald quote:
“[Charles] Freeman is being dragged through the mud by the standard cast of accusatory Israel-centric neocons (Marty Peretz, Jon Chait, Jeffrey Goldberg, Commentary, The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb, etc. etc., etc.).”
Greenwald, Phil Weiss, Stephen Walt and many other analysts are much better informed about the structure of American elite power in the year 2012 than Keith and Dan, in my opinion. They are bottom-up empiricists, always grounding their assertions in large collections of facts — not top-down ideologues, imposing an abstract political theory on facts that don’t fit.
With regard to high level members of the American power elite who have opposed the Israel lobby and the neoconservative campaign for endless Mideast wars on behalf of Israel and Likud Zionism:
1. Anthony Zinni
2. Brent Scowcroft
3. Chas Freeman
4. Chuck Hagel
5. Colin Powell
6. David Petraeus
7. George H.W. Bush
8. James Baker
9. James Webb
10. Jimmy Carter
11. John Mearsheimer
12. Lawrence Wilkerson
13. Michael Lind
14. Michael Scheuer
15. Patrick Lang
16. Paul Craig Roberts
17. Stephen Walt
18. Wesley Clark
19. William Odom
20. Zbigniew Brzezinski
There are many more. Militant pro-Israel billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban by themselves (just the two of them, not to mention their many other billionaire allies) wield much more power in contemporary American politics than all the above names combined.
By the way, none of us have described the WASP Old Guard as “saintly.” We are all aware of the bloody history of imperialism from the inception of America. But this new neocon phase of American history is an entirely different beast indeed — combining the worst features of Hitlerism and Stalinism. And these people couldn’t care less about the American interest on any level. Even David Brooks acknowledged recently in the New York Times that the now dying WASP elite was motivated in part by a sense of civic responsibility.
MRW- “You misquote.”
No, I made reference to the fact that I had previously quoted Wesley Clark from his book. Rather than quoting yet again, I emphasized that 7 countries had been identified for regime change and that we either were or are assaulting all of them, an indication that this was our plan all along, not some “humanitarian” response to unforeseen circumstances. That Wesley Clark was surprised is not all that significant. The fact that this policy is being implemented indicates that, in effect, the neocons won the day. The US has embarked upon a policy of extreme militarism in response to a changing world. Nonetheless, these are imperial policies, however arrived at, and need to be evaluated as such. I rather get the impression that you are blaming Israel for all of this, suggesting that empire has succumbed to Zionist control. Well, I don’t recall Lloyd Blankfein and/or Jamie Dimon writing editorials to the NYT suggesting that we get the hell out of the Middle East because it was bad for business. Do you detect any opposition from the corporations that comprise the MIC? There is a lot of corporate/financial muscle out there that seems quite happy with how things are going, what with corporate profits up and civil liberties and the New Deal in the toilet.
“Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, et al. The boys you ignore and deny.”
These guys are long gone, yet the policy remains indicating it has become official policy. Obama’s policy. Policy supported by Wall Street and the MIC.
“Zelikow said the war in 2003 Iraq was for Israel’s security.”
The very notion that the US empire went to war in Iraq with no expectation of benefit is absurd. That Wall Street and the MIC stood meekly by as their economic interests were damaged not believable. Any President who rides roughshod over the interests of the US corporations will be quickly impeached. You and Sean pay way too much attention to the possibly self-serving public statements of various officials. Anyone can compile endless lists of quotes to buttress their bias.
“Read the damn archives. I’ve written 1.5 million words since July 31, 2009 and many more going back to 2005.”
Ah, why didn’t I think of that? Why am I wasting my time with John Pilger, Michael Hudson, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy, William Blum, Hannah Arendt, David Korten, Israel Shahak, etc, when the true path to enlightenment is to immerse myself in the teachings of MRW contained in the Mondoweiss archives.
Thing is, the “all lobby” theorists have to prove not just that the individual billionaires listed are pro-israel zealots, but that they continue to be pro-israel zealots while it harms their other interests, financial, social etc.
I have seen zero evidence of any “israel firster” driving his business into the ground on behalf of israel, or that his/her “israel firsting” has come at the expense of his/her business or career.
Dan Crowther,
You wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE
Thing is, the “all lobby” theorists have to prove not just that the individual billionaires listed are pro-israel zealots, but that they continue to be pro-israel zealots while it harms their other interests, financial, social etc.
I have seen zero evidence of any “israel firster” driving his business into the ground on behalf of israel, or that his/her “israel firsting” has come at the expense of his/her business or career.
END QUOTE
No one has claimed that the Israel lobby is the *only* lobby driving neoconservative and neoliberal American foreign policies — they are arguing with a great deal of concrete empirical evidence that the Israel lobby is the *dominant* player driving those policies. Please stop relying on straw men to make your argument.
Pro-Israel billionaires, acting not as individuals but as part of tightly coordinated lobby with enormous influence over both major political parties, Wall Street, the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, are driving the entire American economy into the ground on behalf of Likud Zionist political objectives. Americans as a whole are suffering, but these Israel-centric billionaires just seem to keep acquiring more and more disproportionate wealth. You are right: so far they haven’t been harmed by the endless Mideast wars on behalf of Israel they have been promoting.
DAN CROWTHER- The problem for the “Israel lobby explains everything” crowd is that any honest interpretation of history and the big picture is totally incompatible with their obsessive myopia. As a consequence, they seek to squelch any sort of strategic analysis, usually denigrated as “Chomskyite.” Occasionally, you and I come under attack as well. No biggie. Of course, they ignore any evidence which contradicts their bias. I asked MRW for just one example of Israel and the lobby throwing Wall Street under the bus to impose their Zionist game plan. His response? Angrily saying that I needed to read his archival comments, all 1.5 million words. Jeez, it wasn’t long ago that I was chastised for claiming that Middle East oil has strategic significance. It ain’t the oil, it’s the lobby. Not both either, just the lobby. What you have to understand is that while you and I approach these issues as individuals with our own individual biases, there is a core of high volume, anti-Zionist commenters who are part of a de facto Mondoweiss family sharing a de facto Mondoweiss informal ideology which they defend. They tend to get rather pissed off at perceived threats to their shared worldview, Noam Chomsky frequently attacked, an interesting phenomenon in view of the fact that he neither posts nor comments here. It got so bad in the past that I intentionally avoid quoting him or even mentioning him lest a brouhaha ensue. I also rarely comment on the comments of some of the other anti-Zionist Mondoweissers lest I provoke another pointless exchange. On the other hand, occasionally exchanging a few harmless insults tends to enliven the discussion, as long as it isn’t too time consuming.
“I asked MRW for just one example of Israel and the lobby throwing Wall Street under the bus to impose their Zionist game plan. His response? Angrily saying that I needed to read his archival comments, all 1.5 million words. “
(1) The Wall Street/Lobby assertion was your fantastical creation, not mine.
(2) The archives comment preceded your Wall Street/Lobby assertion.
Well said Keith – and one last thing from me: I do get a lot of useful information from MRW, McBride and others, its not that I dismiss completely what they are saying, where I get frustrated is at what you mentioned – any deviance from the informal MW orthodoxy gets you bashed as a marxist chomskyite, closet zionist or something. In any event, sometimes its good to mix it up
MRW- “The archives comment preceded your Wall Street/Lobby assertion.”
In my initial response to you on 7/26 at 6:44 pm, I said: “Please, just one example, I’m sure there must be dozens, of Netanyahu and Israel forcing Wall Street to do its bidding. How about the bond market, is that also controlled from Tel Aviv?” Your “Read the damn archives” response was on 7/27 at 5:18 am, about 12 hours later.
“The Wall Street/Lobby assertion was your fantastical creation, not mine.”
Fantastical creation? You and Sean are always giving examples of some politician in the Lobby’s pocket to show power. I am asking for some examples where the Lobby has demonstrated the ability to bend the actual centers of power to its will. I don’t see it. But you don’t want to go there for obvious reasons. Instead, you quote Philip Zelikow, an American diplomat and imperial apologist saying that it was all for Israel’s benefit. No empire here, folks! And Sean McBride? He compiles endless lists which he labels Zionists or neocons or whatever, and then uses these as some sort of rigorous analysis rather than highly contentious proof by labeling. Continuing to try to describe US Middle East policy in isolation from imperial global strategy, and to minimize imperial goals and objectives is a totally invalid approach, and one of the weaknesses of Mondoweiss.
Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson, founder of the daily and free Israeli newspaper and Likud mouthpiece, Israel Hayom (Israel Today), has lost $35-$70 million on the newspaper, which he ostensibly created with the purpose of raising Netanyahu’s popularity. He is rich enough that this did not come at the expense of his career, but from a financial perspective it is hardly a wise investment; from an Israel-firster perspective it is a brilliant investment.
“I asked MRW for just one example of Israel and the lobby throwing Wall Street under the bus to impose their Zionist game plan.
Okay, here’s one. When Obama offered the Zionists 20 free F-35s in exchange for a 90 day extension on the partial settlement construction freeze, they threw Wall Street and the US aerospace industry under the bus and went full steam ahead on settlement construction.
The Shamir government and AIPAC did the same thing on the $10 billion in loan guarantees for housing construction. They were asked to either wait until after the peace conference with the Arab states for a no strings attached deal or to agree not to use the money for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Once again they made the conscious decision to pursue unrestricted construction without US government guarantees and exposed their investment partners to higher risks and the possibility of haircuts.
Roya, that’s an israeli newspaper, which was designed to lose money, cuz its free. its a bibi propaganda rag, think of that as a campaign donation.
and hostage, those jets were in addition to 20 they had ordered already, and paid for (whatever that means) – those additional 20 wouldnt have come on line for years, after barry is out, so the israelis did the smart thing (if you’re them)
i havent followed this thread – but i will just say, i dont deny the lobby at all, in fact i think noam underestimates it ( i dont know how many times i have to say this) but I do think Mcbride and others kind of overestimate it – its all a matter of degree to me. Its a big, big part of the problem, I just don’t think its the root cause. Is that fair? I feel like Ive done a lot to show I am flexible here, and always invite new ideas, Im not dogmatic – but again, I have to look at not just US-Israel policy, but the history of US policy around the world from its beginning, and I see a “strong line of continuity” in US foreign policy especially in the “grand area” as described by US post WWII planners, all the way to the present
McBride is, in my opinion, correct when it comes to I/P and to some extent I/rest of the region, there is little doubt the lobby is the reason why palestinians are stateless and why israel enjoys support here in the US while it brutalizes its neighbors; all I am saying is, the lobby has enjoyed official sanction – will that change? I think so. but I just wont agree that the US government is Pinky to the Zionists Brain – if you all remember the cartoon.
and hostage, those jets were in addition to 20 they had ordered already, and paid for (whatever that means) – those additional 20 wouldnt have come on line for years, after barry is out, so the israelis did the smart thing (if you’re them)
That’s flim-flam. I spent years of my adult life serving as a USAF MAJCOM functional area manager. I worked with DoD Program Element managers to ensure that funding for weapons systems and the necessary support equipment, supplies, training schools, and personnel needed to make a combat capability “come on line” was included on a phased basis in the 5 year plans demanded by the Congress. Those 20 additional aircraft would have immediately provided billions of additional dollars and jobs in the US aerospace sector.
P.S. “israelis did the smart thing (if you’re them)” means they threw their Wall Street friends and their capitalist friends in military industrial sector under the bus.
HOSTAGE- “Okay, here’s one. When Obama offered the Zionists 20 free F-35s in exchange for a 90 day extension on the partial settlement construction freeze, they threw Wall Street and the US aerospace industry under the bus and went full steam ahead on settlement construction.”
I fail to see how this even remotely demonstrates serious conflict with either Wall Street or the MIC in which either one suffers serious consequences as a result of support for Israel. Neither seems to care about the settlements, surely they are not suffering economic losses because of them. Are you saying that the MIC suffered a loss of 20 plane sales because Israel kept building settlements? So what? These weren’t cancellations, merely a minor reduction in future sales likely to be more than made up for. Israel is the MICs reliable cash cow, generating consistently reliable business including massive sales to the Arabs to counter sales and gifts to Israel. Not every potential sale is guaranteed, business has its ups and downs requiring accommodation. Now if Israel suddenly abandoned militarism for peaceful accommodation, that would upset the MIC, and probably Wall Street as well. Both of which, I might add, seem to be doing quite nicely. If either is unduly suffering because of Israel, I’m not seeing it.
Here’s a blatant one.
Durign the Thatcher years, US earms manufactureres were denied permission to bid for the biggest arms sale in history to the Saudi’s, dur to pressure from the Israeli lobby. As a conseqeuenc, Britain’s BAE Systems, walked in an snatched the deal.
I fail to see how this even remotely demonstrates serious conflict with either Wall Street or the MIC in which either one suffers serious consequences as a result of support for Israel.
Someone will be happy to explain it for you in any college level Introduction to Economics course. For example, the folks at Lockheed Martin, who manufacture the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, announced in July of 2011 that they would be laying-off 1500 workers from their airplane-making business. They said they needed to cut costs due to the prospect of limited defense spending. If Netanyahu had accepted the free aircraft that were offered in November of 2010, the moratorium would have expired in February of 2011, and those 1500 people could have been kept busy producing the planes – even after the construction in the illegal settlements had resumed. See Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, maker of F-35 fighter jet, to eliminate 1,500 jobs link to al.com
Israel originally requested 24 Lockheed/Boeing F-22s, but the US refused to sell the IAF those planes. It insisted that Israel adopt the new F-35 instead.
Lockheed Martin and the US government currently estimate that the F35 will cost a trillion dollars over its lifetime. The US and Lockheed hope to recoup much of the 400 billion invested so far through high volume foreign military sales to 8 other countries. Successful Israeli and US armed forces early adoption of the F35 were essential to bootstrap those high volume sales to others.
Israel has ordered 20 aircraft, with an option for more. All of Israel’s aircraft will be paid for by the US taxpayer in any event. Israel is partnering as one of the suppliers, so Israeli firms are expected to make a 4 billion dollar windfall from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The fact that the US government can’t effectively double the Israeli fleet size, even when it’s giving the F-35 away for free in exchange for a 90 day settlement freeze, worsened Lockheed’s position at a time when other nations were already thinking about terminating their contracts to purchase the planes.
Israel obviously hasn’t run out of room or demand for Jewish communal settlements inside the Green Line, since 400,000 people took to the streets a few months later over that very same issue.
So yes, Netanyahu placed a premium value on a handful of new housing starts in the occupied Palestinian territories, during one quarter, from December 2010 to February 2011. Those housing units were more important than future sales of Lockheed Martin and its Israeli suppliers products, their corporate stock prices, and the job security of the effected aerospace workers.
Dan, first of all if you’ve ever seen an advert you’d know that not all free things are “designed to lose money.” And secondly, I know it’s hard to believe, but Sheldon Adelson is an American. American born, American citizen, American educated, the works. Why should/would a regular American make a “campaign donation” to a foreigner? You asked for an example of Israel firsting coming at the expense of a business or career and I gave you one. While I noted that this did not come at the expense of Adelson’s career (because when you have more money than the world has people, it’s hard to go broke), it is still an example of an Israel firster hindering his business for Israel’s sake. Wake me up when your denial phase is over.
Roya- Bibi Netanyahu is the PM of Israel, and will be for some time. Adelson hasnt hindered anything. I’m not in denial at all, he started a free newspaper to get bibi elected, and to get his agenda across – seems that its working
I see you’ve missed the point. Oh well.
HOSTAGE- “Someone will be happy to explain it for you in any college level Introduction to Economics course.”
This is the type of arrogant statement usually made by no-nothing businessmen who are defending economic ideological indoctrination. My original comment to MRW reads as follows: “Please, just one example, I’m sure there must be dozens, of Netanyahu and Israel forcing Wall Street to do its bidding.” I don’t see how this cancellation indicates either Wall Street or the MIC being forced to do Israel’s bidding. I don’t think this even remotely demonstrates Netanyahu pressuring the real centers of capitalist power. The closest you could say was that Obama was trying to throw some additional business Lockheed Martin’s way and Netanyahu didn’t go along. Let us keep things in perspective. Israel may be a cash cow, but our military gifts to Israel pale in comparison with the overall defense budget. As for Lockheed Martin, are you saying that they are losing money? If so, they are incredibly incompetent, what with defense spending having increased significantly following the collapse of the USSR as the US opts for full bore militarism. As for future sales of the F-35, maybe if the plane wasn’t an overpriced boondoggle, there wouldn’t be a problem. Now, what exactly was it that Israel wanted Lockheed Martin to do for them that they didn’t do, and are being punished for? After all, refusing gifts is an odd example of throwing someone under the bus.
“That’s flim-flam. I spent years of my adult life serving as a USAF MAJCOM functional area manager. I worked with DoD Program Element managers to ensure that funding for weapons systems and the necessary support equipment, supplies, training schools, and personnel needed to make a combat capability “come on line” was included on a phased basis in the 5 year plans demanded by the Congress. Those 20 additional aircraft would have immediately provided billions of additional dollars and jobs in the US aerospace sector.”
Let me respond to this. It is my opinion that when someone touts their credentials it usually indicates that they realize that their argument can’t stand by itself. So, Obama promises 20 planes and the federal budget immediately increases? By how much? Or would other parts of the budget need to be reduced to accommodate this gift to Lockheed Martin? Congress have any say? Our current military budget is astronomical and should be reduced, yet, in your opinion, Wall Street and the MIC are being thrown under the bus because we don’t increase defense spending by 20 planes? We haven’t given Wall Street enough money? “Defense” spending too low? Well, you certainly are loyal to your old friends in the military.
This is the type of arrogant statement usually made by no-nothing businessmen who are defending economic ideological indoctrination.
Actually you are the one who is defending an ideological indoctrination. You keep insisting that we accept your thesis, even in situations where it doesn’t apply and fails to make accurate predictions. Zionists like Netanyahu, Shamir, and Sharon couldn’t care less about their friends on Wall Street or in the military industrial sector when it comes down to a choice between their goal of redeeming and Judaizing all of Eretz Israel. Eric Cantor made it perfectly clear that funding for Israel is utterly sacrosanct. At one and the same time he also made it clear that he could less about making payments on the debt to Wall Street bondholders or protecting our own government’s credit rating.
America, and it’s Congress is the center of capitalist power and it is a thing that Zionists can easily move, go argue. In fact, Israel has repeatedly thrown its friends in the US intelligence and military industrial complex under the bus by transferring our weapons and satellite technology to the Soviet Union and China and competing against US corporations that export arms to other nations with it’s own products that are bootstrapped off foreign aid or US R&D.
As for future sales of the F-35, maybe if the plane wasn’t an overpriced boondoggle, there wouldn’t be a problem.
The price per unit of any item depends on the volume of sales. The problem with the F35 is that roll-out has been delayed. From a performance and armaments standpoint, it’s less capable than some of the non-stealth weapons systems it was designed to replace. That trade-off was only acceptable because it was intended to be a low cost replacement. I think the government bought the wrong plane from the wrong supplier in the first place, and then made a bad situation worse (as usual) by inflicting many of it’s own cost increases, delays, and budgetary problems. For example, in 2005 the government suspended Israel from participating in the program and imposed other restrictions on procurement and cooperation because of Israel’s plans to upgrade Chinese Harpy Killer drone aircraft. Israel eventually caved-in, but it came back with demands and proposals about integrating its own technology that led to more delays, engineering feasibility studies, and fruitless negotiations.
Historically speaking, the Congress and DoD have used major procurement programs to assist domestic corporations as part of a national strategic plan to avoid reliance on foreign suppliers. Many of these firms simply don’t have a viable commercial business. Boeing has been forced to subcontract or merge with less successful companies just to get defense business, precisely because it had a viable commercial airplane manufacturing business. The companies involved don’t pay a very heavy price for these debacles, they pass their cost through to the taxpayers and the early adopters.
Let me respond to this.
No you’re just trying to score points with rhetorical questions and insults. Israel’s military aid is disbursed from the U.S. Treasury to an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank. My “former friends in the military” have no say in the matter.
HOSTAGE- “Actually you are the one who is defending an ideological indoctrination.”
How? By asking for some examples of Wall Street and/or MIC subservience to Israel? Your initial response was to bring up the additional 20 F-35s which weren’t acquired as an example of Netanyahu ‘stiffing’ the MIC. You claimed an elimination of 1500 jobs and production lines being shut down, concluding that “Those 20 additional aircraft would have immediately provided billions of additional dollars and jobs in the US aerospace sector.” You are creating a bogus picture of dramatic impact for the failure to obtain these 20 extra freebie aircraft. You fail to mention that Lockheed Martin had net sales of $45.7 billion in 2010, $46.5 billion in 2011, and estimates $45 to 46 billion in 2012, hardly being thrown under a bus. You have yet to show any subservience from either the MIC or Wall Street. You never respond in a substantive way to my points, instead changing direction to avoid responding. Your latest diversion? “Israel’s military aid is disbursed from the U.S. Treasury to an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank.” So what happened to the immediate availability and production lines?
“America, and it’s Congress is the center of capitalist power and it is a thing that Zionists can easily move, go argue.”
Wall Street and the corporations are the center of power of global capitalism. Through numerous treaties and organizations which I have already mentioned, the corporations, led by Wall Street and global finance establish the overall framework of governance. Congress is pretty much bought and paid for by the economic elite. This is one reason why the Lobby, however defined, has so much influence over a relatively small portion of official policy. The Lobby also functions as a de facto imperial lobby, particularly in regards to the MIC which benefits greatly from Israel. I am not aware of any instance where the Lobby has overwhelmed serious opposition from the overall consensus regarding imperial policy, Israel conforming to the standards of neoliberalism along with your own example of Israel being forced to accept F-35s instead of their preferred F-22s suggest otherwise.
Here is where you and I fundamentally differ. In my view, Wall Street and the MIC have thrown the 99% under the bus. And, yes, if I could I would like to switch positions. Wall Street should be thrown under the bus! They are screwing the rest of us big time. We need a public, not private, banking system. We need sovereign money, not private bank credit money. We need to eliminate financialization and exotic financial instruments, and service the real economy instead of engaging in rampant financial speculation. As for militarism and military Keynesianism, we need to dismember empire and transition to a just and sustainable peacetime economy. Rather than preserve aerospace jobs in war making, we need to fund education, health care, mass transit, renewable energy, pollution cleanup and carbon emissions reduction, with an emphasis on local autonomy. We need to eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us. We are but one miscalculation away from Armageddon. Keeping the F-35 production lines full is part of the problem, not the solution, and is irrelevant to the question of Israeli influence over global capital.
Our two recent exchanges have been highly revealing. You are not who I first perceived you to be. Initially, you came across as an advocate of international law and peaceful conflict resolution. Now, however, I see that your military roots and service to empire run strong and deep, something you take pride in. I now associate you with Chas Freeman and Wesley Clark. Am I wrong?
Keith,
You stil haven’t addressed the fact that the US defense industry lost out on the world’s biggest arms deal in history becasue of the Israeli lobby.
Look up the Al-Yamamah arms deal
Some people here don’t understand F-35s and its affect on Lockheed Martin. Demand for F35s exceeds supply. The reason more F-35s are not being built right now is because of supply constraints.
How? By asking for some examples of Wall Street and/or MIC subservience to Israel?
I was giving an example of the Israelis throwing Wall Street and the defense industry interests under the bus. I don’t need to hear hyperbolic sermons about Armageddon. I’ve signed so many petitions to stop arms sales to Israel for various groups that I’ve lost count. We aren’t discussing that aspect of the issue.
Your latest diversion? “Israel’s military aid is disbursed from the U.S. Treasury to an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank.” So what happened to the immediate availability and production lines?
The government acts as Israel’s purchasing agent and it’s the Treasury that puts money in their foreign assistance account at the Federal Reserve. The Congress has already ok’d spending authority of up to $15 billion back in 2008, which allows the US/Israel to exercise purchase options with Lockheed on up to 75 F-35s. If Israel wants to sell drones to China, there’s a guy in the White House who can take those options off the table by withholding a statutory waiver or certification. FYI, the Israelis re-introduced their demand to access system software and etc. to integrate their own components. They finally got DoD and Lockheed to agree. See U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s link to reuters.com
Here is where you and I fundamentally differ. In my view, Wall Street and the MIC have thrown the 99% under the bus.
I don’t disagree with that, I think the DoD functions as a “War Department” and that 80 percent of its budget has nothing to do with legitimate defense.
You fail to mention that Lockheed Martin had net sales of $45.7 billion in 2010, $46.5 billion in 2011, and estimates $45 to 46 billion in 2012, hardly being thrown under a bus.
Sales are not net profit. The amounts you mentioned probably wouldn’t help Lockheed get over its trillion dollar F-35 headache. The Dutch, Canada, Italy, the UK, and other partners have cut back production orders. The relevant point is that there were not enough F-35 orders in the pipeline at the time. So, they needed to shutdown that part of the manufacturing business and lay-off workers due to delays in the scheduled rollouts. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands just got their first planes under the program:
*Lockheed Martin Begins F-35 International Rollout link to nbcdfw.com
*First F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility
link to lockheedmartin.com
There are many other examples where Israel has cost the defense sector enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs. The Saudis wanted to purchase enough AWACS, F-15, and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (STARS) to be totally self-sufficient. But the US Air Force had to augment them with our own planes and personnel, because Israel and AIPAC put a stop to sales of the systems, demanded that only stripped-down Strike Eagles be sold, or kept the number of radar systems well below what was necessary.
So the US taxpayers picked-up the tab for defending the Saudis and deploying and rotating personnel and planes out of Saudi Arabia on 179 day temporary duty (TDY) cycles for 8 years and for establishing field maintenance facilities there. AIPAC targeted key members of Congress who had supported the sales during subsequent election campaigns. link to globalsecurity.org
Now, however, I see that your military roots and service to empire run strong and deep, something you take pride in.
I’ve mentioned my own personal experiences in a very few cases where I actually have some first hand knowledge about the decision making process or the prohibitions contained in the foreign assistance statutes. The readers here know perfectly well that I consider the resort to war to be irrational and illegal. I’ve commented about the fact that I think the US has been guilty of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in many instances. But that doesn’t mean I accept crimes that are invented out of thin air and conspiracy theories.
The demand is entirely artificial. For example, the US State Department fought tooth and nail for the tendor to supply Norway with F35s. The Norwegians were about to purchase from Saab in Sweden, but Hillary stepped in and did a number of dirty deals to win the sale.
The reason more F-35s are not being built right now is because of supply constraints.
The supply constraints are based on the fact the F35 cannot meet the spec it promised to deliver. It’s going to turn out ot be a failure, just as the F22 was.
HOSTAGE- “Sales are not net profit.”
Lockheed Martin’s net earnings in 2010 were $2.9 billion, in 2011 they were $2.7billion. Your comment was yet another red herring to imply financial hardship which doesn’t exist. Lockheed Martin and the rest of the MIC have profited immensely from our special relationship with Israel. To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
“The amounts you mentioned probably wouldn’t help Lockheed get over its trillion dollar F-35 headache.”
It is intellectually dishonest to hold Israel responsible for the F-35 boondoggle and whatever consequences follow.
“There are many other examples where Israel has cost the defense sector enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs.”
You are intentionally avoiding the big picture to make a bogus argument. The US spends almost as much on “defense” as the rest of the world combined, wildly in excess of legitimate needs. It also is by far the leading arms merchant on the planet. The MIC is awash in money and you are pissing and moaning about “…enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs.” Once again, intellectually dishonest and completely at odds with you’re your claim that you feel that the “…DoD functions as a “War Department” and that 80 percent of its budget has nothing to do with legitimate defense.” It is rather obvious that you are talking out of both sides of you mouth, on one hand lamenting lost arms sales and potential losses for Lockheed Martin, on the other defensively claiming us that you are really not the militarist you appear to be.
“But that doesn’t mean I accept crimes that are invented out of thin air and conspiracy theories.”
Unless you can demonstrate how this applies to me, I will assume that this is another dishonest attempt at bogus labeling.
Which brings me back to my final question on my last comment. “I now associate you with Chas Freeman and Wesley Clark. Am I wrong?”
Lockheed Martin’s net earnings in 2010 were $2.9 billion, in 2011 they were $2.7billion. Your comment was yet another red herring to imply financial hardship which doesn’t exist.
When Lockheed idles its own production lines, and it is not due to termination of the contract by the US government, it can be held liable for payment of liquidated damages to its own materials and other suppliers and subcontractors. It also can be held liable for late delivery or delivery of planes that are non-conforming to the specifications. In the 2011 annual report to its stockholders Lockheed reported potential exposure to approximately $23.2 billion in liquidated damages related to existing contractual commitments entered into as a result of contracts they had with their U.S. Government customers. link to annualreports.com
It is intellectually dishonest to hold Israel responsible for the F-35 boondoggle and whatever consequences follow.
LOL! I didn’t say that Israel was the only party responsible for that situation, just that Lockheed’s interests were sacrificed when Netanyahu turned down a $3 billion gift from Uncle Sugar in order to pursue the construction of illegal settlements for 90 days. You are going to appear intellectually challenged if you keep claiming that the interests of Lockheed, its investors, workers, and suppliers aren’t affected by a $3 billion purchase order.
” Once again, intellectually dishonest and completely at odds with you’re your claim that you feel that the “…DoD functions as a “War Department” and that 80 percent of its budget has nothing to do with legitimate defense.”
I think it’s perfectly obvious that American taxpayers are paying for unnecessary wars and thousands of bases and operating locations overseas that have nothing to do with their domestic security or defense. Americans should not be paying for AWACS crews, planes, spare parts, and support equipment and placing them at the disposal of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for 8 years at a stretch, when the Saudis have volunteered to buy a full squadron of their planes from the Boeing Military Airplane Company and handle their domestic defense needs all by themselves.
It’s intellectually dishonest to claim that the Saudis are beholden to the IMF or World Bank, or that we should look past the obvious public opposition of AIPAC and the Zionist State to explain why that happened. It’s just preposterous to claim that turning-down the largest military equipment sale in history, in order to conclude a much more modest deal, was all part of a sinister Capitalist/Military Industrial Complex plan to create wealth. To insist that the Zionist agenda has always played second fiddle to capitalism is just not historically accurate.
The MIC is awash in money and you are pissing and moaning about “…enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs.”
Surely, those operational costs are still part of the federal deficit. Boeing is so awash in revenues that it’s closing its sprawling manufacturing facilities in Wichita after 80 years. It’s permanently laying off 2,100 highly skilled employees due to government defense budget cutbacks, future market prospects, and lack of sufficient work to sustain the defense engineering, maintenance, modifications, and upgrades departments.
Unless you can demonstrate how this applies to me, I will assume that this is another dishonest attempt at bogus labeling.
I’m still waiting for an actual example of a violation of the Congressional prohibition on foreign assistance funding to coup regimes committed by General Zinni in connection with the Musharraf government.
P.S. Which brings me back to my final question on my last comment. “I now associate you with Chas Freeman and Wesley Clark. Am I wrong?”
I’ve never quoted or cited either man. So the basis of your association is probably imaginary, like my record of support for the empire.
I’m familiar with the standard thumbnail sketches of Clark’s military career and his Presidential bid. I was never a fan or supporter. I’d never heard of Freeman at all, until his failed appointment. I still wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a line-up. I think the US should end its special relationships with oppressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. My impression is that Freeman would not back any reforms that would jeopardize relationships with the Saudi and other “royals”. He also applauded the killing of Bin Laden. I don’t approve of any government policy of targeted assassinations. Bin Laden was nowhere near a battlefield, and after the Guantanamo debacle, I think the government had an obligation to presented its evidence against him and the other so-called masterminds in Court.
Keith,
What’s your deal exactly? Your main argument and agenda? How do you want to restructure American politics and global society? Which political thinkers and politicians do you most admire? Which policies do you most care about?
Again: which Fortune 500 CEOs have been in the forefront in promoting American wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. (and the Israeli/neoconservative Clean Break scenario in general)? What would you imagine they expect to gain from those wars? How many of them share the same values and agenda as Dan Senor, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Sheldon Adelson and Benjamin Netanyahu? Do you have any hard data on that subject?
Kevin,
I think that neoconservatives (Likud Zionists) and Christian Zionists represent such a grave threat to Americans and the world that I will gladly support nearly any influential American who opposes them — and that includes Chas Freeman, Wes Clark, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Zinni, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, Brent Scowcroft, etc. And with no apologies whatever. I am into lesser evilism as a general philosophy of life, not utopianism (especially not crytpo-Marxist utopianism, which has been tried and failed miserably).
Right now the number one item on the American agenda should be to avoid getting sucked into a war against Iran that is instigated by Israel and the Israel lobby.
You seem to be on a mission to take down the entire American empire — and replace it with what?
Edit: Kevin > Keith (regarding lesser evilism)
I think that neoconservatives (Likud Zionists) and Christian Zionists represent such a grave threat to Americans and the world that I will gladly support nearly any influential American who opposes them — and that includes Chas Freeman, Wes Clark, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Zinni, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, Brent Scowcroft, etc. And with no apologies whatever.
I think he was obviously trying to suggest that I hold views identical to Clark or Freeman on issues unrelated to Israel in order to score debating points.
I obviously agree with Colin Powell’s statement on the wrongfulness of building a wall that crosses into someone else’s territory. I’ve cited and quoted it, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net
At the same time I would never associate myself with Powell’s views on the Strategic Hamlet Program, an effort to forceably transfer the population and destroy entire villages in Vietnam in order “to drain the swamp”. It amounted to a form of collective punishment in many cases. His remarks justifying unprovoked summary executions of civilian “military-age-males” are simply despicable. Concerns over those sort of views raise legitimate suspicions of a deliberate cover-up in connection with his initial investigation of the My Lai massacre. link to mondoweiss.net
HOSTAGE- “You are going to appear intellectually challenged if you keep claiming that the interests of Lockheed, its investors, workers, and suppliers aren’t affected by a $3 billion purchase order.”
Here you go talking out of both sides of your mouth again. You claim that you “…consider the resort to war to be irrational and illegal.” Yet, you apparently feel that gargantuan military spending is just fine, that it was bad not to increase military spending by yet another $3 billion. God forbid we should actually reduce it, or transition to a sustainable peacetime economy. You pretend to be opposed to militarism yet advocate for increased military spending. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Perhaps it traces back to your military career where you soldiered for empire. How did a peacenik such as yourself deal with implementing imperial strategy? A member of the MIC right from the get go. You say that you “…worked with DoD Program Element managers to ensure that funding for weapons systems and the necessary support equipment, supplies, training schools, and personnel needed to make a combat capability “come on line” was included on a phased basis in the 5 year plans demanded by the Congress.” Sounds like a lot of interface with defense contractors and equipment acquisition. When you retired from the military, were you able to put that experience to good use? Hey, a defense contractor could probably use a sharp guy like you.
“It’s intellectually dishonest to claim that the Saudis are beholden to the IMF or World Bank, or that we should look past the obvious public opposition of AIPAC and the Zionist State to explain why that happened.”
Straw man and forked tongue combined in one. As far as I know, the Saudis are not beholden to either the World Bank or IMF. That is you talking, dishonestly implying that I said such nonsense. As for the rest of your Saudi example, although you claim to love peace, you seem to love weapons sales more. God forbid the Saudis should be denied the weapons with which to repress their own people and “assist” Bahrain in repressing theirs. How much defense industry stock do you own anyway? Yes, let us sell more to the Saudis, requiring us to give more to the Israelis. Why? Because a Middle East arms race is good for business. Got to look out for “…Lockheed, its investors, workers, and suppliers….”, right?
“It’s just preposterous to claim that turning-down the largest military equipment sale in history, in order to conclude a much more modest deal, was all part of a sinister Capitalist/Military Industrial Complex plan to create wealth.”
Ah, a straw man on steroids! I never said any such thing and your fabrications are becoming outlandish. I don’t doubt for a minute that Lobby interference impacts arms sales to Saudi Arabia. What I don’t know is why you are such a big advocate of arms sales and militarism. Are you a lobbyist for the MIC?
“To insist that the Zionist agenda has always played second fiddle to capitalism is just not historically accurate.”
Hostage, here your straw man is tripping over himself. I have no idea what you mean by Zionist agenda playing second fiddle to capitalism. You appear confused. For starters, Zionism from the start depended upon imperialism and imperial support to implement its agenda. There are several reasons why US imperial support was and is forthcoming. The emphasis on Mondoweiss is some vaguely defined entity usually called the Israel lobby, whose power varies depending on what one includes in “the lobby.” I am of the uncontroversial opinion that most “lobby” influence derives from its ability to direct the flow of money to achieve its objectives. Money power. Not exclusively, of course, but the main source without which its influence would be much, much less. The investment of funds to achieve desired objectives is the very essence of real world capitalism. The Lobby is capitalist to the core, there is no conflict between the Lobby and capitalism per se. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how the lobby could function outside of capitalism and money power.
“I’m still waiting for an actual example of a violation of the Congressional prohibition on foreign assistance funding to coup regimes committed by General Zinni in connection with the Musharraf government.”
A totally irrelevant issue to this discussion and a shameless diversion. I correctly quoted Chalmers Johnson in “The Sorrows of Empire” saying, among other things, that there had been a violation which he didn’t specify. Since he has died, you feel free to challenge his version of events, even going so far as to call him a liar. I was not involved in the research and am unable to respond. He’s dead and can’t. That you see fit to resurrect this incident on this thread indicates a certain shameless desperation on your part. Personally, I place Chalmers Johnson’s integrity well above yours. Perhaps you take it personally due to your professional involvement with CENTCOM and empire, and with your continued championing of military Keynesianism, attempts to project a peace loving image notwithstanding.
SEAN MCBRIDE- “Which policies do you most care about?”
At my commenter profile there are almost 1600 comments, plus a search engine. Also, a link to “Keith’s NO EMPIRE blog” which has a little over thirty mini-essays on topics which interest me.
SEAN MCBRIDE- “You seem to be on a mission to take down the entire American empire — and replace it with what?”
I am a critic of empire with effectively zero ability to ‘take down empire.’ My focus is on social organizational dynamics. I have a new mini-essay in the works concerning the political economy of capitalism (see above). As for the American empire, it is already being replaced by the global corporate/financial empire which relies to a significant degree on financial control within the framework of a global market. This is significantly different than anything that has come before. We are living in extremely dangerous, turbulent times.
Brother Lion (Shingo) said “The demand is entirely artificial.” Not true. There is a lot of demand for aircraft that achieve the planned F-35 parameters. The problem is that mass production for the aircraft keeps getting pushed back. Many countries don’t want to wait 8 years to buy stealthy 5th generation multipurpose fighter aircraft. [The only way to get F-35s sooner is to convince a country ahead in the line to delay their own deliveries of F-35s.]
“For example, the US State Department fought tooth and nail for the tendor to supply Norway with F35s.”
You mean the Lockheed Martin lobby? I am free market and am uncomfortable with borderline socialist style “industrial policies” . . . which is what the state department promoting US exports is.
I think Norway could make do okay with the Gripen to tell you the truth. The F-35 is orders of magnitude better than the Gripen and a lot more expensive.
In my opinion (have done some cashflow analysis of this) the Gripen is by far the cheapest generation 4.5 aircraft in the world. [Some might claim the Chinese J10B. I don't agree: 1) The J10B's performance metrics aren't as good as the Gripen 2) I am skeptical that the life cycle operations cost of the J10B will be as low as currently claimed]
“The supply constraints are based on the fact the F35 cannot meet the spec it promised to deliver.” This is correct. The F-35 is taking longer and costing more in one time R&D development costs to bring to mass production. The F-35 is still one of only two Generation 5 aircraft ever produced. There is nothing in the world remotely as good except for the F-22. There are also real questions about what the life cycle operations costs for the F-35 will turn out to be.
I don’t agree the F-35 is a failure. It is the best carrier aircraft ever produced.
The F-22 was a major success. It is by far the best aircraft ever produced. Only 187 operational aircraft were ever manufactured. The assembly line has been shut down. The US DoD pleaded with the Congress to allow F-22 exports to Japan and Australia. India and many other countries around the world also wanted the F-22. But the US Congress refused and shut the production line down. They aren’t known for their intelligence. [Lockheed Martin wanted the F-22 production line shut down for good to persuade countries to buy the F-35.]
Here you go talking out of both sides of your mouth again. You claim that you “…consider the resort to war to be irrational and illegal.” Yet, you apparently feel that gargantuan military spending is just fine, that it was bad not to increase military spending by yet another $3 billion.
The Constitution envisions a legitimate government undertaking to provide for our common defense. My complaint is that a legitimate department of government assigned with that responsibility functions instead as a department of foreign wars and occupations. The United States government still lists the Kellogg-Briand pact and the UN Charter as “Treaties In Force” (TIF). link to state.gov
Those treaties are part of customary law that prohibits wars of aggression and require signatories to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The overwhelming majority of the international community of states have adopted a definition of the crime of aggression which outlaws preventive strikes, blockades, military occupation regimes, & similar aggresivve practices.
None of those laws would prevent a state from using an F35 to defend its own airspace.
Unlike Chalmers Johnson’s fictitious report about Zinni violating the provisions of the foreign assistance act regarding a military coup government, we do know for certain that Israel has violated provisions of the US and UK arms export control acts by making unlicensed or offensive use of weapons that were sold for strictly limited, defensive, purposes. They have targeted the territory and populations of other states, or used the weapons in a manner that violates the purposes of the United Nations. e.g. link to thejerusalemfund.org
For example, the government of Great Britain revoked five export licenses as a result of the illegal use of the weapons in Operation Cast Lead: See MPs call for review of arms exports after Israeli assault on Gaza link to guardian.co.uk
That doesn’t mean that Israeli use of F35s for legitimate defense of its own airspace would violate the law, rationality, or any of the purposes of the United Nations.
Rubbish.
First of all, the F-35 does not achieve them, and secondly, the parameters were always going to be inadequate anyway. The F-35 promised to be a bomber, an air to air combat plane and maintain stealth – and as such, it has fallen short all of these areas.
The high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22. The F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed.
You know you have a lemon when the plane is inferior to another proven lemon (ie. F-22).
Even it’s stealth capabilities are useless. I spoke to a member of the Australian Navy who participated in exercises to determine the stealth of the JSF and he told me the Australian Navy radar was able to detect the planes over the horizon.
There are many reasons for the production of the aircraft getting pushed back. First of all, the USAF can no longer fund the delays.
link to flightglobal.com
It is failing to meet specs and expectations such as it’s non existent vertical take-off capability. Thirdly, it is also experiencing many functional shortfalls. Last year the Air Force suspended operation of its fleet of 20 Joint Strike Fighters after they experienced malfunctions, and that was already the third time the program was put on hold. And not only is the budget for the F-35 ballooning, but the projected maintenance costs are also sky rocketing accordingly.
The US publicized in February that it was going to postpone plans for a fleet of 179 F-35s (citing budget concerns), and now other countries like Australia and Britain, are delaying or reconsidering their orders.
What the hell are you talking about? The feasibility studies and tender process for such planes can take decades.
Based on what head to head comparisons?
You might want to pull your head out of whatever hole it is stuck in an look up the summary of a simulated war games exercise (Pacific Vision) held at a Hawaiian Air Base in August 2009. 5 Australian Defence personnel took part in the exercise. The results of that exercise were scathing of the JSF. In the mock battle, two teams were pitted against one another. The Blue Team, comprised F35s. F22s and F/A – 18E/F fighters, had to defend an attack by the Red team comprised of Russian built Su-27SMs, Su-30s and Su-35s. One of the participants wrote to the Australian defence ministers that the results were disastrous for the JSF and wrote the following:
“Red Force dominated the exercise going up against two versions of Blue Force, both of which were roundly defeated. One way the Red Force summation of events has been described is that “…it was like clubbing baby seals””
“In addition to this rather blunt Red Force summation, the war gaming exercise demonstrated the JSF aircraft were next to useless, while the Super Hornets of both Blue Forces were seriously and significantly overmatched””
“Hundreds of Blue Force aircraft were lost in the first 20 minutes”
It is taking longer because it is a lemon. Google F-25 failure and you get more than 2 million hits. The navy spec’d version is an absolute disaster and it has yet to successfully conduct a vertical take off – as per it’s spec.
The Rand Corporation did a study into the F-35 and it’s ability to match Russian and Chinese jets in close range combat. The results were an embarrassment to say the least. It states that the JSF is :
“Doubly inferior’ relative to modern Russian/Chinese designs in visual range combat”
“Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability”
“Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run”
link to f-16.net
link to defenseindustrydaily.com
One of Australia’s advisors, Dr Carlo Kopp stated that:
“If Australia goes ahead with the JSF purchase, the RAAF will be inefecctive for the next 30-40 years”
Generation 5 is just a buzzword. As I already explained, there is nothing the F-35 can do that current generation planes cannot.
LOL. The F-22 is such a disaster that Lockheed can’t even give them away. The F-22 Raptor is shaping up to be the Sturmvogel of the 21st century: a dazzling piece of technology that fatally ignores some of the unbending realities of aerial combat.
Pierre Sprey — father of the A-10, co-father of the F-16, said that ““The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria”. He also says that the stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,”
That’s only part of the equation. As Sprey also pointed out, Sustainability and the number of aircraft available to fight on any given day are “vastly more important” than the quality of the F-22. “You have to have numerical superiority to win.”
Because the F-22’s and F-35’s are so obscenely expensive, states will only be able to afford a fraction of the aircraft they need. This, along with the complexity of these planes and the maintenance regimes, will also mean that pilots will get to spend precious little time in the cockpit becoming adopt at flying and operating them.
Too funny. In June, a mock battle was held at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska as part of an American-led Red Flag exercise. German pilots flying the latest Typhoon fighters shot down the F-22s in mock combat. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter manoeuvres meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.
link to wired.com
In terms of maintenance, a Pentagon study revealed that for every hour the F-22 spends in the ait, it requires 30 hours of maintenance. It experiences a critical failure for every 1.7 hours in the air. The stealth skin on the plane has what has been describes as a “vulnerability to rain”. It’s outer surface is so frail it cannot even withstand small arms fire, so they cannot be used in low altitude attack runs.
It doesn’t even have regular aviation band radios to speak with other American aircraft or aircraft from allied countries, which makes it utterly useless in a support capacity. It’s so expensive and so specialized, they don’t dare let it out of the country and certainly not to a place where it could be damaged
That’s a recipe for disaster.
And for a very goof reason. It will never see combat and will be obsolete before before it needs air in it’s tires. US pilots don’t want to go anywhere near the F-22. It’s a death trap. Congress simply couldn’t ignore the fact that the F-22 was an embarrassment and a lemon.
Google F-22 raptor failure and you get 1.6 million hits.
Seriously Anan, I have to wonder what universe you reside it. Everything you post here is an example of turning reality on it’s head.
Shingo dude, the F-22 is a failure? The F-22 was designed for very specific missions. It is not multifunction. At long range air to air, radar penetration and strategic bombing, it is beyond peer.
A lot of the operations cost challenges were worked out. If more than 187 aircraft had been manufactured, the new models would have been much better than the first 187 models. This is the reason the US congress didn’t want Australia, Japan and other countries to have them. [Stupid. America has no better friends than Japan, Australia and South Korea. They should have been allowed to buy the F-22. Maybe India, Brazil and Turkey too. Israel shouldn't have been allowed to purchase F-22s because of its propensity to proliferate sensitive technology to other countries.]
In my opinion the US doesn’t need more than 187 F-22s. The US is extremely unlikely to ever fight a near peer or peer country such as China, Japan, India, Brazil, EU or Russia directly. The US needs to focus limited defense spending on FID (Foreign International Defense or increasing the capacity of allies and providing combat enablers including embedded combat advisors to them), and FID COIN (facilitating allies and multinational coalitions successfully prosecute COIN).
The F-22 doesn’t help with this.
Regarding the F-35, it was designed to be all things. It is very expensive. High operations costs. Plus it won’t hit mass production for some time.
The F-35 has been disqualified from several competitions, including India’s MRCA, Brazil’s competition and South Korea’s competition because it won’t be mass produced in time.
I would still rate it the best carrier aircraft in the world.
The F-35 isn’t as good as a ground based aircraft. Would you rather buy the F-15SE Silent Eagle, F-16V, and newly upgraded low radar signature F/A-18 Super Hornet?
The joint Russian/Indian Sukhoi PAK FA looks like it is having significant time and cost overruns and won’t be available for export in large quantities until the mid to late 2020s, long after the F-35 becomes available.
Two other potentially better alternative platforms to the F-35 for ground based multifunction aircraft would be:
–the new redesigned Dassault Rafale. Not the first 126 models being purchased by India. But the next 74 aircraft which would likely be significantly modified and improved by combined French/Indian R&D.
–the newly redesigned tranche 3 Eurofighters (upgraded by extensive R&D)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In my opinion countries generally don’t need top of the line aircraft. Based on the best models I have, the cheapest life cycle cost high end 4.5 gen aircraft for a large airforce is the F-16.
For a small airforce the cheapest life cycle cost high end 4.5 gen aircraft is the Gripen. [Not as high end as the F-16, but most countries don't really need those kinds of metrics.]
The cheapest life cycle cost low end gen 4 fighter is the Pakistani/Chinese JF-17. This is probably more than good enough for most countries. For countries that need a little higher quality, the F/A 50 Golden Eagle.
Personally I like turboprop. I think the US should buy a lot more turboprop and save a fortune in pilot training costs, close air support costs, and surveillance costs. Only the sheer insanity and mental illness of the US congress is preventing this.
My favorite turbofan aircraft is the C-17. Talk about low transportation cost per ton and cubic meter! And range and speed compared to C-130s.
When speed, range and large payloads aren’t an issue, the C-130s are amazing.
Hostage, do you think the US was wrong to help the ARVN with their strategic hamlet program?
“His remarks justifying unprovoked summary executions of civilian “military-age-males” are simply despicable. Concerns over those sort of views raise legitimate suspicions of a deliberate cover-up in connection with his initial investigation of the My Lai massacre”
I never heard anything about this.
I never heard anything about this.
Yes, Colin Powell was put in charge of investigating Spc. 4 Tom Glen’s letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams complaining about members of his unit who “for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.” If Powell had conducted a proper investigation, the details of the My Lai massacre could have come to light much sooner, but he dismissed the allegations.
Amazingly enough Powell’s autobiography revealed that:
– Colin L. Powell, My American Journey, page 224 link to books.google.com
That isn’t a description of “combat”. That’s a description of how many of the people that he was sent there to protect from aggression were systematically murdered instead.
Dude, do you have any clue as to when the F-22 was designed? Back in the 80′s. The very specific missions it was designed to fulfill ws to The F-22, counter improvements in Russian MIGs, which have long since been decomissioned. The Soviet Union disappeared long before Lockheed Martin built the first assembly-line version of the F-22 in 1997, so it was a relic before it was even built.
The F-22 is a flying death trap. The oxygen systems are faulty and led to the death of a pilot. There have been repated incidents of such failires, which did not lead to fatalities.
A lot of the operations cost challenges were worked out.
Put down that stick and step back from the dead horse dude. The New York Times has reported that they still haven’t figured out how to fix them, let alone produce new models without the same problem.
link to nytimes.com
False again.
1. In February 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had no objection to F-22 sales to Australia.
link to nytimes.com
2. The RAAF found that the “F-22 Raptor cannot perform the strike or close air support roles planned for the JSF.” The Howard government also ruled out purchase of the F-22, because it lacked sufficient ground/maritime strike capacity.
COIN is a monumental failure and has become the object fo ridicule in Washington.
It probably never will. The orders have prettymuch all been withdrawn, and the cost blowouts will make it impractical. That’s before you consider the fact that, as the Rand report concludes, it’s a lemon.
Again, what you believe is irrelevant, especailly seeing as you have bno idea what you are talking about.
Absolutely. Not only do the F18′s and F15′s have a provben track record, but you can purchase 3 or 4 of them for the price of a single F-35.
Significant? It was reported in May that the AK-FA variant is being delayed by two years.
link to flightglobal.com
The F-35 has been delayed by how long already?
Both the F-22 and the F-35 have problems biult into their DNA. The F-22 and F-35 can only operate for limited durations. Even the F117′s used during Desert Storm flew much less than 1 sortie per day. As I have already explained, the cost for maintianing the complexity in these aircraft is huge. The current estimate for maintaining and supporting the F-35 throughout the course of its 55 year lifespan is 1.1 trillion dollars, which as is always the case with cost estimates, it probably a huge under estimate.
There is nothing that can fix the F-35 or F-22.
HOSTAGE- “The Constitution envisions a legitimate government undertaking to provide for our common defense.”
Good grief, you are attempting to wrap militarism and empire in the constitution? Have you no shame?
“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” (James Madison) He further stated that “”No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Our current “War on Terror” is exactly the type of permanent war the Founding Fathers warned against, our Republican Government sacrificed to imperial ambition. That you should continue to defend imperial militarism with contentious legal arguments tells me volumes about where true sympathies lie.
Your latest comment is the most tortured legal justification for ongoing militarism I have seen. You list a bunch of treaties designed to limit weapons for defensive purposes only, all of which have been routinely violated by Israel, the UK, and the US. If any of those treaties were other than “a parchment barrier,” there wouldn’t be an empire would there?
US/UK/NATO/Israel are all war-mongers. Legal obfuscations aside, you support ongoing militarism as exemplified by increased weapons sales. And you get mightily worked up over perceived threats to your beloved MIC and CENTCOM. Quit hiding behind a fog of legalese, admit you are a strong advocate of military Keynesianism. In my last comment, I referred to your breathtaking hypocrisy. Apparently, I underestimated you. Taken together, your comments on this thread have elevated hypocrisy into the twilight zone.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” (Dwight David Eisenhower)
““Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” (Dwight David Eisenhower)”
There is a lot of wisdom to this. And I mostly agree with this.
Many well intentioned Iraqis from the Iraqi Governing Council and Americans said these very words to justify their plan for a tiny almost unequipped Iraqi Security Force. Their plan was that the entire Iraqi Army would only have 40,000 people. Their argument was that this would mean a lot more money for Iraqi economic development.
This strategy 2003-2006 was a disaster for the Iraqi people. Many Iraqis died before finally Maliki and Bush both reversed this policy in 2006. Within less than 2 years of this decision violence in Iraq fell by about 95%. How many Iraqi lives were saved as a result?
Sometimes defense spending can sharply improve security, safety, stability, technological innovation and living standards. Sometimes higher defense spending can sharply reduce structural unemployment.
There is, though a big “BUT.” After stability and security are established, there has to be a major effort to determine sustainable ways to maintain this hard-won stability and security with less defense spending.
An example of successful defense spending is the city of New York. New York use to have 10-12 violent deaths a day. That fell to about 1 violent death a day thanks to effective policing. This in large part is what Counter Insurgency is all about. The drop in violence lead to much higher living standards and much lower unemployment.
Keith,
Are you an anarchist libertarian who supports a 0% tax rate for everyone? Many very good people have this point of view.
The concept of the legal system has its roots in ancient Sumeria (7 thousand years ago) and the ancient Aryan legal system (from Iran and South Asia 7 thousand years ago).
The judicial system makes rulings. And militarism, empire or security forces (take your pick) enforces these rulings. The great modern civilization in the last 7 thousand years has been based on this principle. Every country in recorded history was or is by definition an empire based on militarism. There are no exceptions.
Kieth,
“Your latest comment is the most tortured legal justification for ongoing militarism I have seen. You list a bunch of treaties designed to limit weapons for defensive purposes only, all of which have been routinely violated by Israel, the UK, and the US. If any of those treaties were other than “a parchment barrier,” there wouldn’t be an empire would there?”
You are very naive. The US supreme court is more powerful than the executive branch. The US government can’t break the law and get away with it.
Neither can England.
The NATO alliance and UN are so litigious, they boggles your mind.
If anyone breaks the law, they can be sued.
Do you know how many lawyers work for the US military and the degree to which NCOs and officers need legal advise? The UCMJ is extremely complicated and strictly enforced.
Other militaries similarly operate under tight legal parameters. For example the Indian military, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Europe.
However, Israel seems to sometimes act in ways that are illegal under Israeli and international law. At least to me from a distance. But I don’t know well enough how to argue the legal case. The only people I have seen that can are “Hostage”, “Finkelstein”, and a handful of others with a legal background. Hitchens was very skilled at defending the Palestinian cause, but lacked the legal background of “Hostage” and “Finkelstein.”
Good grief, you are attempting to wrap militarism and empire in the constitution? Have you no shame?
No you’re trying to restate what I actually said in your usual hyperventilated nonsensical way. I said that there’s nothing wrong with building weapons to defend this country within its own borders, but that our defense department functions more like a department of foreign wars. I’m betting that you’re the only person here who doesn’t grasp my intended meaning. It doesn’t win friends or influence your enemies when you go charging after those windmills in your mind. Since you don’t need me to argue against your own straw men. I’ll be ignoring the rest of your rants.
Hostage,
You wrote:
“I’m betting that you’re the only person here who doesn’t grasp my intended meaning.”
And I’m betting you’re right.
Keith is an overexcited “idealist” and “big thinker” of the type who probably would have been enthusiastic about the Soviet Union in the mid-20th century.
I’ve stopped trying to engage Keith in a discussion about the fine-grained empirical reality of contemporary American power elite politics because I finally decided for a certainty that his mind doesn’t work that way. He is in love with a simple theory/narrative and he cherry-picks his facts to fit it.
I am still waiting for him to name the Fortune 500 CEOs who have been ringleaders of the campaign to attack Iran. So far, no response.
seanmcbride, a good comment.
An attack on Iran by US forces is not in the American interest. America should stay neutral.
If Israel and sectarian Arabs attack Iran, don’t stop them. But stay out of it.
The reality is that America only has 18% of global income and a smaller share of global wealth. The ratio of [American % of global income/American % of global wealth] keeps falling because America loves to borrow from foreigners. Increasingly America is owned by foreigners. The percentage of America owned by immigrants, children of immigrants, ethnics and minorities keeps rising as well.
In most of the world America is not seen as a threat. Hasn’t been seen as such for a very long time. Many thousands of lobbies fight for influence in all large plural democracies, including the US. To some degree they balance each other off.
Keith lives in a dream world of his own fantasies.
The reality is that America only has 18% of global income and a smaller share of global wealth.
Huh? 18% is a huge sum, especially for onkt 5% of the population. Every countryin the developed world borrows from foreigners.
Wrong as usual. Do you ever read or reearch news sources Anan, or do you simply sput the first thing hat comes to your head?
US seen as a bigger threat to peace than Iran, worldwide poll suggests
link to guardian.co.uk
Forget Russia, forget Iran… is America the greatest threat to world peace, asks ANDREW ALEXANDER in his provocative new book
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020000/Is-America-greatest-threat-world-peace–Forget-Russia-Forget-Iran–In-brilliantly-provocative-new-book-Mails-legendary-columnist-Andrew-Alexander-poses-extraordinary-question.html
The only one living in his own fantasies is you Anan. Do the noble thing and remove yourself from this forum. Trolling is a violtion of the forum rules.
“Netanyahu represents Jews around the world”
See, Mooser. There is a Jewish Pope!
Great observation, RoHa. The Jews have a Pope…the leader of Israel. Who knew.
“The Jews have a Pope…the leader of Israel. Who knew.”
I’ve been saying that was inevitable all along.
>> Goldstein also says that Netanyahu represents Jews around the world …
Except that Bibi won’t give a flying f*ck about “Jews around the world” when the supremacist, terrorist, ethnic cleansing sh*t Zionists have stirred up finally blows back on “Jews around the world”.
And you can bet that the gates of Israel will be firmly shut to “foreign Jews” who – despite Israel being the one and only safe haven for all Jews everywhere and forever – didn’t luvvvv the Jewish State enough to merit entry when push really came to shove.
“…And you can bet that the gates of Israel will be firmly shut to “foreign Jews” who – despite Israel being the one and only safe haven for all Jews everywhere and forever – didn’t luvvvv the Jewish State enough to merit entry when push really came to shove…”
It’s kind of academic whether the gates if Israel would be open or shut in such a case.
What is the scenario where Jews are in danger everywhere else but safe in Israel? I can’t figure one out.
>> What is the scenario where Jews are in danger everywhere else but safe in Israel?
Any scenario where a scathed and weakened Jewish State survives the regional havoc it has wreaked while Jews elsewhere – denied entry to the Jewish State because of the burden they would impose upon it – are left to deal with the blowback of the Jewish State’s brutality.
>> … survives the regional havoc it has wreaked …
Correction: …survives the regional havoc it has wrought …
In all these scenarios, Israel is doomed anyway. Essentially, you are saying that Mooser in Seattle would be at more risk from his gentile neighbors who have taken to talking shit about Jews than a Jew in Israel would be from a Palestinian mob sweeping triumphantly through the streets of Jerusalem.
If I were Mooser, I’d take Seattle.
>> In all these scenarios, Israel is doomed anyway.
All scenarios? Every last possible one of them? Interesting.
>> Essentially, you are saying …
Nope. That’s just your interpretation.
eljay: This is a trap which I admit that I, in my callow youth, have fallen into.
“Wreaked” is actually a perfectly correct participle for “wreak”. Since hardly anything other than havoc and revenge gets wreaked, and quite a few things get wrought, we tend to think that “wrought” is the participle. But it isn’t.
Of course, “wrought havoc” is quite correct as well. It is what I would usually say.
link to oxforddictionaries.com
>> eljay: This is a trap which I admit that I, in my callow youth, have fallen into.
When I realized that I had made what I believed to be an error, my first thought was “I’d better correct this before RoHa sees it!” Turns out I could have left it alone. Damn! ;-)
Thanks for the clarification. :-)
Of course, “wrought havoc” is quite correct as well. It is what I would usually say.
When you stop to think of it, the English language is pretty overwrought;-)
Around here, I have never, ever heard anything except “wrecked havoc”.
Makes me feel sorry for poor June.
“If I were Mooser, I’d take Seattle.”
I live in Bummertown, out in Ketchup County. It’s right next to Poor Tortured. I avoid Seattle like the plague. I won’t even go there to “cop”.
MOOSER- Yeah, well I live in Seattle close to the space needle. From what I hear about the Kitsap peninsula, ewe turns are legal. Is that true?
That wasn’t as hard as I thought it would be.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont released a list of 26 billionaires who have contributed to Super PACs. At the top of the list is Sheldon Adelson.
From: link to politicususa.com
“1). Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Las Vegas Sands Casino, is worth nearly $25 billion, making him the 14th wealthiest person in the world and the 7th richest person in America. While median family income plummeted by nearly 40% from 2007-2010, Mr. Adelson has experienced a nearly eightfold increase in his wealth over the past three years (from $3.4 billion to $24.9 billion). Forbes recently reported that Adelson is willing to spend a “limitless” amount of money or more than $100 million to help defeat President Obama in November.
2. The Kochs (David, Charles, and William) are worth a combined $103 billion, according to Forbes. They have pledged to spend about $400 million during the 2012 election season. The Kochs own more wealth than the bottom 41.7 percent of American households or more than 49 million Americans.
3. Jim Walton is worth $23.7 billion. He has donated $300,000 to super PACs in 2012.
4. Harold Simmons is worth $9 billion. He has donated $15.2 million to super PACs this year.
5. Peter Thiel is worth $1.5 billion. He has donated $6.7 million to Super PACs this year.
6. Jerrold Perenchio is worth $2.3 billion. He has donated $2.6 million to super PACs this year.
7. Kenneth Griffin is worth $3 billion and he has given $2.08 million to super PACs in 2012.
8. James Simons is worth $10.7 billion and he has given $1.5 million to super Pacs this year.
9. Julian Robertson is worth $2.5 billion and he has given $1.25 million to super PACs this year.
10. Robert Rowling is worth $4.8 billion and he has given $1.1 million to super PACs.
11. John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made his fortune betting that the sub-prime mortgage market would collapse, is worth $12.5 billion. He has donated $1 million to super PACs.
12. Richard and J.W. Marriott are worth a combined $3.1 billion and they have donated $2 million to super PACs this year.
13. James Davis is worth $1.9 billion and he has given $1 million to super PACs this year.
14. Harold Hamm is worth $11 billion and he has given $985,000 to super PACs this year.
15. Kenny Trout is worth more than $1.2 billion and he has given $900,000 to super PACs this year.
16. Louis Bacon is worth $1.4 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.
17. Bruce Kovner is worth $4.5 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.
18. Warren Stephens is worth $2.7 billion and he has given $500,000 to super PACs this year.
19. David Tepper is worth $5.1 billion and he has given $375,000 to super PACs this year.
20. Samuel Zell is worth $4.9 billion and he has given $270,000 to super PACs this year.
21. Leslie Wexner is worth $4.3 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.
22. Charles Schwab is worth $3.5 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.
23. Kelcy Warren is worth $2.3 billion and he has given $250,000 to super PACs this year.”
And those donations are tax-deductible, aren’t they?
If they want them to be.
(yes, since Super PACs are considered non-profits).
whether or not intentional, with their insistence that pm netanyahu speaks for jews everywhere, israel firsters such as sheldon abelson stoke antisemism almost everywhere. this is because unless claims such as abelson’s are vigorously challenged, what’s to stop resentment against the zionist entity’s brutal occupation of palestine from turning into bad feelings against jews in general? which is why the recent increase in jewish anti-zionism, including but not limited to jewish voices for peace & mondoweiss, is so timely. our very existence proves israel’s claim that it represents all jews to be a lie. thus it is that our displacing abelson and like-minded israel firsters in america as spokepersons for american jewry not only will be the death-knell for the u.s.-israel special relationship, but will reduce antisemitism to a level that easily can be flushed down a toilet.
yourstruly, I hope you’re right. But who is going to Mondoweiss as far as the demographics are concerned? Maybe Phil knows. Hasn’t Phil admitted that the conversation here is “isolated?” I feel like the type of person who would go after Jews without making a distiction between the Zionist billionaires and regular Jews wouldn’t take the time to go to a site like Mondoweiss. I mean the average American has a hunch that Fox News is bias towards the Republican party, but they’ll then check into a hotel and watch the damn thing on full volume during the holidays and forget about the bias because they’re being entertained. I am just pessimistic that we have enough time. Who reads Salon by the way? I mean Salon is progress no question, but a Sunday morning talk show would be PROGRESS.
Hasn’t Phil admitted that the conversation here is “isolated?”
admitted? that’s payroll lingo.
When Merkel and Sarkozy shared a laugh at Silvio Berlusconi’s expense, he wasn’t just the prime minister of Italy. He really represented all of us–Catholics, Italians, pathetic ageing billionaires, Sopranos fans and people throughout the world who love pasta. They were disrespectful to him to a point I had never seen.
And don’t forget us Boinga! Boinga! enthusiasts Shmuel
It’s “bunga bunga”, and I hear your pain, Dan.
@Shmuel,
While this may appear OT to your comment, it isn’t. It’s worse than you think. It is enshrined in the Euro. Italy gave up its sovereign currency when it joined the EU to its great detriment.
Listen to these audios, or at the very least, skim the transcripts.
An Italian journalist asked these economists to present in a conference room in Rimini, Italy last February. The Italian response to their appearance was so great the venue changed to a stadium.
These are links to a few of the presenters.
_________________________________
EDIT: WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT PART OF THE BLOCKQUOTE above, which I got in an email. I don’t know what’s wrong with the html.
Shmuel, you will be interested in the tagline of Kelton’s second talk. Italy is paying for Germany’s success. No wonder they can sneer. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland should have listened to Wynne Godley’s warning about the Maastricht Treaty in the early 90s (in the London Review of Books).
Throw these audios on while you’re doing KP duty.
Thanks, MRW. I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, and will certainly have a look at the links. The unified currency has had disastrous results for the PIGS (as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are collectively known – add another I for Ireland). These little PIGIS went to the Common Market and cried UE UE UE all the way home!
I like PIGIS so much better than PIIGS, but it never crossed my mind to write it that way.
Here’s another:
link to neweconomicperspectives.org
Goldstein is cut out of the same cloth from where Liberman, Miller are cut out of
You know what’s funny? And by funny, I mean tragically sad? That I’m simultaneously fending off crazy angry anti-Zionists here and crazy angry Zionists where the video above is posted on YouTube. You all truly deserve each other because you all fall into the same trap. You would all rather attack each other than accept the reality of past injustices (on both sides!) and try to find a compromise. In the end, neither side will get everything it wants. But if you don’t accept that, there will be no end to this.
@terrylevine,
Read Hostage’s posts:
link to mondoweiss.net
Every regular here is familiar with them and their contents. You’re not. You need to get up to speed.
[And just so you don't have to search, Hostage is Jewish and retired military involved with the events he discusses with authority.]
EDIT: start at the beginning of his posts.
Terry,
I used to work in the Jerusalem bureau of a large daily, and I regularly defended my paper by saying that its coverage must be balanced if both Israelis and Palestinians had complaints. I was wrong. Just because you feel under attack from “both sides” doesn’t mean you are necessarily right, balanced or moderate. Truth is not the mathematical average of (ostensibly) opposing positions; justice is not a matter of assigning equal value to wrongs; and there’s a lot more to fair and viable compromise than simply not giving either side “everything it wants”.
There will certainly be “no end to this” unless both sides (not just the stronger side) are given solutions they can live with. Merely making them both unhappy is obviously not the answer. On the Palestinian side, this entails (at the very least) a kind of minimum dignity and recognition that the liberal Zionist vision of two states fails to provide.
See Magnes Zionist on the subject: link to jeremiahhaber.com
Just because you feel under attack from “both sides” doesn’t mean you are necessarily right, balanced or moderate. Truth is not the mathematical average of (ostensibly) opposing positions; justice is not a matter of assigning equal value to wrongs; and there’s a lot more to fair and viable compromise than simply not giving either side “everything it wants”.
Very well said.
A fair and viable compromise would be to have one country with equal rights for all. All people can remain living where they live now (including the settlers). All refugees get a right of return. All people who got their property stolen or destroyed get reparations.
As someone said a few days ago: A two-state solution would mean ethnic cleansing for all. However, the goal should be to end ethnic cleansing instead of having more of it. With a two-state solution, there’s also the border problem. And where should all the refugees return?
I completely agree with the notion that both sides are not necessarily equally wrong or right. But neither can claim to be 100% right. For a long time, it was Israel menaced by its surrounding Arab neighbors. Now it’s largely the reverse.
I don’t remember hearing bleeding hearts talking about dignity for Israel when its athletes were being murdered in Munich or Saddam Hussein was lobbing SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv.
Both sides deserve dignity. And the liberal Zionist vision of two states is the only feasible one. If you seriously believe that a binational state is possible in this part of the world, good luck with that. Name one Muslim country where minorities are respected. Then compare that with Israel, with Arabs in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court and the language of “the enemy” on street signs and currency. For all Israel’s faults, it has no lessons to learn in tolerance from its Arab neighbors.
I don’t remember hearing bleeding hearts talking about dignity for Israel when its athletes were being murdered in Munich
excuse me?
And, btw, where’s the dignity when the IOC refuses to commemorate the Munich Massacre’s 40th anniversary?
oh please, the IOC is not in the business commemorations. period. with every post you’re just slamming hasbara.
Really? I don’t remember any other athletes being murdered at the Olympic Games.
Terrylevine, Iraq like Israel is a free democracy with many large minorities.
How does Israel treat its minorities compared to how Iraq treats its minorities?
For example, half of all officers in the Iraqi Army are Sunni Arabs even though Sunni Arabs are only 18% or less of the population. [This is allowed by PM Maliki to alleviate Sunni Arab paranoia about the Shia punishing them.]
Arab Israeli citizens are about 23% of the population of Israel. What percent of the IDF’s officer core are Israeli Arabs? What percent of the Israeli business community, senior corporate officers, VCs, entrepreneurs, sports players, models, actors, playwrits, entertainers, tenured professors, researchers, scientists, etc. are Israeli Arabs? I don’t know the answer, that is why I am asking this questions.
Terry, no one should ever forget 1972. All violent attacks against Jews anywhere in the world are always completely wrong. All racism or sectarianism against Jews is immoral. Anti Jewish prejudice is a cancer on our species that needs to be rooted out by whatever means are necessary.
“I don’t remember hearing bleeding hearts talking about dignity for Israel”…terry
Dignity is not an attribute of Israel. You don’t ‘demand’ dignity, you act with dignity or you don’t. Israel and zionist have no concept of dignity or honor or fairness.
The very act of “demanding” to be “recognized” or specialized” at the non political Olympics is undignified in itself.
“And the liberal Zionist vision of two states is the only feasible one.”
Nonsense. The “liberal Zionist vision” is not even of two states. It’s of one Jewish state, fully armed and unimpeded, and a Palestinian polity, stripped of all ability to defend itself from the predations of the Jewish state, and unable to even engage in the type of foreign relations that a state engages in. That’s the current Judeo-supremacism wrapped in a new package.
“Then compare that with Israel, with Arabs in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court and the language of “the enemy” on street signs and currency.”
Except that the system in that state is designed so that those token Arabs are not permitted to have any effect on the polity if the Jews oppose it. Indeed, it doesn’t even prevent official and unofficial discrimination against the Arabs.
“And, btw, where’s the dignity when the IOC refuses to commemorate the Munich Massacre’s 40th anniversary?”
Why would they? The Olympic games is no place for a political statements, which this would be. Do you think that a commemoration for all the Palestinians athletes who’ve had their potential quashed by the zionist beast would be appropriate? Or is only when the israelis get to play the eternal victim card that the world has to bend over backwards and make exceptions to the rule of keeping politics out of the Olympics?
“I don’t remember hearing bleeding hearts talking about dignity for Israel when its athletes were being murdered in Munich or Saddam Hussein was lobbing SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv. ”
And if israel weren’t still in the generations-long process of holding another people as stateless serfs, under the boot of oppression, based on a racist ideology of zionism, then perhaps it might be more sympathetic to the bleeding hearts.
But so long as the actual hearts which are bleeding are predominantly innocent Palestinian civilians who only “crime” is living in their homeland while not being Jews, I can see why people can’t gather much sympathy for those responsible when they suffer retribution for their actions.
Israel has been menaced by its neighbors. I’d be interested to know when you think that was. I’d also be interested to know how many times you think Israel has attacked its neighbors. And also how many times do you think the territory of Israel been attacked?
Don’t you play the victim here Terry. You haven’t expressed one bit of sorrow for all the Palestinians who have been murdered or ethnically cleansed from their homeland for your ideology and their only “crime”? For being on land you believed you had a sense of entitlement to. Can you see how delusional that may sound to a partial observer who is not buying the invisible?
If any team’s athletes had been killed in an Olympic…
Well, I pray that we will never find out the answer to that.
I assume that if any team’s athletes had been killed at an Olympics that there would be a minute of silence. But Israel is politically isolated and therefore such a minute of silence would be a political act.
But the lover of films says, that the two greatest images from olympics were jesse owens in 36 causing hitler to leave the stadium and ski masked terrorist/freedom fighter in 72. when’s the next olympics in germany?
Only five were athletes in 1972.
Then you don’t remember the bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia (Centennial Olympic Park). One killed. 111 injured.
One person was murdered by a terrorist bombing at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. If Richard Jewell hadn’t spotted a suspicious bag, the death toll would have been much greater. But I guess that doesn’t count since the terrorist was a white American and not one of those foreign swarthy types.
Interestingly, that idea that Hitler left the Olympic stadium to avoid Jesse Owens’ appearance is an urban myth.
He didn’t.
And if you watch the Nazi film Olympia you’ll see that the Germans don’t seem to have had any problem with Black participation at all. Indeed, they focus on some of the contests as a rivalry between ‘the white race and the black race.’ I forget how they portray the results — but obviously, they felt no need to omit or somehow obscure the fact that blacks were competing.
Now, I doubt if the Germans would have wanted any blacks on their team — but then, there are no Arab Israelis on the Israeli team either. I wonder if there’s any other country with a 20% minority of some group that has no representatives of that group on its Olympic team?
You reap what you sow. Illegal immigrants & their zionist terrorist gangs went to Palestine and after ethnically cleansed 80% of them out of their country they proceeded to oppress the rest and have been dong so for 64 years whilst slowly taking what’s left of Palestine. Did you expect to be liked after all your infinite crimes against humanity?
I really think I can do it better with fewer words, Terry, what do you think of “Scratch a Zionist, you’ll find a settler, every time”? Seems succinct and accurate to me.
“crazy angry anti-Zionists here”
Oh really, crazy angry? Who have we spit on, lately? Who have we shot? WHose fields and trees did we burn? Which UN resolutions do we flagrantly ignore? Whose land do we pump our sewage on to.
And di it over occur to you, TerryLevine (as if that is your real name!) that the old ‘Us Zionists saved your life, give us everything we want’ schtick isn’t selling any more? That’s what got you upset, Terry. Nobody who sets themselves up as a hero likes to be exposed as an embezzling fraud.
Yes, I know TerryLevine, you aren’t like that. Well in that case, it sdhould be easy for you to go to Israel and convince the Israelis to change. C’mon TerryLevine, jokes over. It’s been sixty years.
@Mooser
Amen. ;-)
If you really think Israel’s been the problem for the last 60 years — or the last 80 to be more accurate — you’re smoking something good. Who occupied the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967. Hint: it wasn’t Israel.
Regardless, plenty if not most Israelis are open to compromise and leaving the West Bank. But you think Hamas launching rockets from Gaza after Israel left there is an incentive for Israel to leave the West Bank, yes, you are crazy.
All I’m saying and all I’ve been saying is there is no shortage of blame and stupidity to go around on both sides. But you anti-Israel types who don’t recognize the mounds of foolishness on the other side are as bad as the wide-eyed settlers on the crazy Zionist side. You’re two sides of the same coin.
You do realize “Amen” is a Hebrew word, right? ;)
“If you really think Israel’s been the problem for the last 60 years”
No, chump, I said I’m sick of Zionists telling me Israel is the solution for the last sixty years. Okay, get it? I’m sick of Zionists telling me that Israel should not be judged by the same reality I use to judge anything else.
And TerryLevine, you are making it much, much too obvious that what you are defending is the loss of status and self-identification you feel is imminent when Zionism is discredited. Who do you think you are fooling?
.. do you realize Amen is a hebrew word…
That proves the world got something important from you!!
Other cultures left us the pyramies, temples, beautiful arabic architecture like Granada in Spain, the chinese wall, etc., etc.
We got from you “Amen”.
Hamas rockets are almost always a feeble attempt at retaliation for Israeli rockets fired from aircraft at Gaza or other acts of violence by the IDF. These Israeli rockets come from Israel – not from settlers in the Occupied Territories. Israel has no agenda to leave those Territories – if it had it would not be permitting further settlement on almost a daily basis.
Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. This was not regarded as acceptable to other Arab countries but was supported by the UK. Jordan established no settlements there as far as I am aware.
How many homes were dmolished during that time? Hint: None. Another thing you have no idea about is the fact that the annexation of the West Bank were per a referrendum.
No they’re not. Any reference to the 1967 borders is taboo in Israel.
If you thnk firing 7,700 shells into Gaza as Israel withdrew from Gaza was any kind of incentive for Hamas to be nice to Israel, especially when Israel then imposed a vice like siege?
Yes you do, but you you keep ignoring is that the overwhelming share of it belongs to Israel. You keep avoiding that detail, obviously hoping that you will be allowed to get away with the unspoken suggestion that this is a 50/50 proposition.
At the end of the day, when all your liberal face is stripped away, you and the Zio crazies are one and the same.
Exactly. How is it that 8,000 relatively harmless and useless rockets are an outrage but the 30,000 bombs and shells (which are infinitely more deadly and destrcutive) Israel have dumped on Gaza in the same period goes unmentioned?
terrylevine July 27, 2012 at 11:03 am
“Who occupied the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967. Hint: it wasn’t Israel”
Indeed it wasn’t Israel. The Arab States prevented Israel from some non-Israeli territory. BTW Jordan occupied the West Bank by AGREEMENT with Israel via the Armistice AGREEMENT 1949. The Arab States AGREED that Israel would occupy the non-Israeli territories it held under military control under the Armistice AGREEMENTS.
Jordan legally annexed the West Bank by AGREEMENT with the Palestinians, as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950)
“plenty if not most Israelis are open to compromise and leaving the West Bank.”
This ‘compromise’ consists of keeping big chunks of Palestinian territory Israel has acquired by war and never legally annexed.
“All I’m saying and all I’ve been saying is there is no shortage of blame and stupidity to go around on both sides”
The Palestinians and Arab States have taken NO THING of Israel’s. The Palestinians demand only their rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel AGREED to uphold. Israel demands Palestinian territory, illegal under the laws Israel obliged itself to uphold.
“Hamas rockets are almost always a feeble attempt at retaliation for Israeli rockets fired from aircraft at Gaza or other acts of violence by the IDF. “
Yeah. One can pretty much predict when Hamas is going to fire rockets. It’ll come at a point when Israel’s provocations have been so egregious that Hamas simply cannot ignore them without opening itself up to the accusation that it is failing to stand up to Israel.
Israel controls the faucet here. They turn it on and off as the spirit moves them.
and i suppose you could scratch an anti-Zionist and find what? A terrorist? An anti-Semite? As I said, if all you want to do is name calling, I can introduce you to the settlers. You sound just like them.
“and i suppose you could scratch an anti-Zionist and find what?”
A decent human being is one possibility.
“You sound just like them.”
Really, can they say this: “I bought my house legally, and paid for it with the sweat of my brow, and I believe all men are created equal, and entitled to equal rights. I don’t steal, neither do I terrify people, and I follow the law”
Let me hear a settler-choir sing that song.
Wow, scratch a Zionist, and after you get past the other things I mentioned, you find the arguments and standards of a little spoiled boy. ‘Mommy, he called me a name!’ In the immortal words of Putney Swope….
And of course, no Zionist has ever said an unkind thing to me, or gratuitously threatened to get me kicked out of The Jews.
TerryLevine, I realise that you live with the heartbreak of Ziocaine amnesia syndrome, but the rest of us don’t
“You sound just like them.”
Yeah, and all I do is open my mouth, and house get demolished, fields and trees ruined, people get imprisoned, and UN Resolutions ignored. I’ve heard the settlers have to actually do those things by hand, or with the help and protection of the IDF! So yeah, I’m even more powerful than the settlers.
It’s such a pity when you see the Ziocaine syndrome in action. Can’t wait to see what’s on TerryLevine’s blog in the next couple days. Should be interesting. No doubt he will welcome comments from anti-Zionists, especially if they are Jewish.
And when you scratch a liberal Zionist you find a right wing Zionist.
Settlers are Zionists doing today what the other Zionists did in 1948.
Exactly. The cancer has simply spread to other parts of the body – so to speak.
Yes, we just have tpo plead with those Zionists to let bygones be bygones and let go all of all those injustices perpetrated against them. While we’re at it, let’s free all the murderers and rapists from prison, because of the injustices perpetrated by their victims against them.
Presto – perfect world!!
Hey Terry, try sticking your head a little further into sand – you might just hit oil.
I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew.
“I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew.”
Shrug. And I’m sure it wouldn’t be too difficult to scratch up dozens of Arabs who’ve been tortured by the zios for no reason but being Arab in a land the Jews covet.
“I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew.”
And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Yes, I know it’s a problem that only Jews have ever been unjustly imprisoned or tortured.
Terry
That was because he cheated his customers, or anything like, not because he was a jew.
Jews had no problems in islamic societies, what you cannot say the other way around.
When did i say that? I’m the one asking for both sides to understand each other. You only want to believe the Palestinians suffered and ignore any injustices perpetrated by Arabs against Jews. My damn point is there are no shortage of injustices to dredge up on both sides. You somehow think you’re going to find a solution to this problem by blinding yourself to one POV. Pathetic and delusional.
Another lie repeated by Arab apologists. Jews had no problem in Islamic societies as long as they shut their mouths and knew their place. If Jews had it so good in Arab countries, why didn’t they all stay?
Yes, no Palestinian ever blew up a bus or or shot a Jew, or killed an Israeli athlete. So innocent.
Some did leave because of persecution – but mainly after Israel had been formed and taken its stance against the native population. Many left because of false flag operations by the Israelis – google the Lavon affair. And many left because they were paid to do so by Israel.
He wasn’t part of Unit 131 was he?
You are applying 21st century standards to conditions that were initiated hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
And seeing as how you’ve revealed yourself to be another two-bit Islamophobic anti-Arab racist by your choice of words, ‘Arab apologists’, it’s not surprising that you’d make such a fallacious argument.
The Jews of Islamic societies had to live under Islamic law, just as they has to live under Christian law if they were living under Christian rule. A good example is the cultural oasis of Al-Andalus. There was a period of great cooperation and tolerance, followed by intolerance and persecution and inevitable downfall, precipitated by internal Islamic politics and external Christian aspirations (the Crusades and the spread of Christianity versus the spread of Islam in the East).
Jews did not have it perfect under Islamic rule, but they did enjoy a relatively more tolerant existence. That is history and when you look back at history you put it in context, not out of context by politicizing it for your own modern-day machinations and ideological agendas as you’re doing now.
And don’t even bring up the violence during the Mandate period. Jewish terrorists killed more Palestinians and committed more atrocities and got away with it. Furthermore, today – in the present – while Nazis are still being hunted down all over the world, Jewish terrorists (as well as other war criminals we could mention as an example of more modern relevance like George Bush or Rumsfield or Rove or etc.) such as Begin and Shamir and etc. as well as minor criminals like the assortment of settlers and IDF goons who routinely get away with all sorts of depraved behavior – are honored in Israeli society.
They get medals and ribbons and streets named after them. They get positions in government. They get their story whitewashed and they get lenient sentences and ‘commissions’ who find them not guilty, while the world says otherwise.
So put a sock in it, Zionist. Go back to your one-entry blog that no one reads and keep calling yourself a ‘liberal’.
This was a question about Terry’s grandfather.
Poor Terry, he pulled his poor grandfather out to shake in our faces and nobody was impressed. Well, he’s pretty much shot his bolt, and he’s out of here. But oh, will he give it to us on his blog, after remembering to close comments, of course.
BTW, Terry, thanks for the compliment about me being just like a settler. Nice to know you think I’ve got what it takes. Nobody in Israel seems to have the guts to do anything but grovel before them, and use them. Gosh, to think that the fourth largest Jewish community is composed entirely of criminals. Of course, as a liberal Zionist, one who sees the problems of “both sides” you do know they are criminals, right, and you are ready to state that, plainly, right?
“Yes, no Palestinian ever blew up a bus or or shot a Jew, or killed an Israeli athlete. So innocent.”
So when are you going to give us the factor by which we should multiply Jewish lives and property so we can reach this equivalence you seem in prursuit of. Now I (thank God) do not know all the details, but there are certainly people here who might make a stab at it. Should I use a multiple of 100, would that be about right?
And anytime, Terry, you want to tell me about the Palestinians who came halfway around the world to take, by organised force homes and neighborhoods (as a start) from Jews, I’m eager to here about it. Was it on Long Island, or have they been chasing the Jews out of Brooklyn and seizing their buildings and assets? Anytime you want to talk about that, we can talk about equivalency, and the “problems on both sides”.
Yeah, and no Jews ever killed a Nazi. Are you seriously going to suggest that is a credible line of argument?
If Jews have it so good in Israel, why do half the world’s JEws refuse to live there?
Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel, but Israel is small, and as long as Jews can live in peace where they are and anti-Semitism don’t force them to live, they are also content to love and help her from a distance.
>> I’m the one asking for both sides to understand each other. You only want to believe the Palestinians suffered and ignore any injustices perpetrated by Arabs against Jews. My damn point is there are no shortage of injustices to dredge up on both sides.
Yes, it’s important that we ask for both the rapist and his victim to understand each other. Sure, he may have mugged her, dragged to some remote location, chained her to the wall and repeatedly raped her, but he’s not the only one who suffered injustices! She called him lots of nasty names, and frequently punched, slapped and even bit him!
(without typos:)
Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel, but Israel is small, and as long as Jews can live in peace where they are, and anti-Semitism doesn’t force them to leave, they are also content to love and help Israel from a distance.
If Jews had it so good in Arab countries, why didn’t they all stay?
Thanks to the 30-year declassification rule, it’s a matter of public record that the government of Israel instigated deliberate exodus from the Arab and Muslim states as part of its state building program. Here is one example:
– Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Jones), Secret [WASHINGTON,] August 2,1951.
Subject: Israel’s Concern Re Peace With the Arabs and Other Matters.
Participants: Mr. Theodore Kollek, Embassy of Israel and Mr. G. Lewis Jones, NE, Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, page 815 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
I bet the Nazi leades are kicking themselves for not using that argument when they were in the doc at Nuremberg. There’s no shortage of injustices and seeing as there is plenty to go around, they should have been let off with a fine and a warning.
Hostage do you have more examples?
Yes they do. As was the case before 1948, most Jews woudl rather not live there and moret thna half admit they woudl leave if they could afford to. Even the 25,000 Iranian Jews turned out largel cahs bribed to move to Israel.
Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel
I know plenty, including myself, who refuse to even consider the prospect – not even at gunpoint.
Carol Fink provides a more realistic description of the Zionist project:
– See Carole Fink, Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, And International Minority Protection, 1878-1938, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 161 link to books.google.com
terrylevine July 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
“I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew”
By Palestinians? Relevance?
“…I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew…”
When you work out exactly how your grandfather being tortured in a prison in Egypt gives other Jews the right to expropriate Palestinians in Palestine, you be sure and let me know.
“Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel, but Israel is small, and as long as Jews can live in peace where they are, and anti-Semitism doesn’t force them to leave, they are also content to love and help Israel from a distance.”
Like Little Peggy March sez:
“but Israel is small”
The 2 million living on 22.96 square miles of Manhattan have no problem.
They don’t need to be convinced with bribes, the situation must only worsen in regard to Israel and they will be kicked out with one way ticket (at best).
Hostage do you have more examples?
I hope you don’t mind me answering that question.
Tom Segev’s book, 1949: The First Israelis, particularly in chapter 4, The First Million, has several examples of Israeli officials being more concerned with increasing the number of Jews in Israel than “saving” individual Jews, and, in that respect, using propaganda, bribery and pressure in order to increase immigration.
When I have more time I could quote from some of the chapter for you if you would like.
Also, Marion Woolfson’s Prophets in Babylon: Jews in the Arab World, which covers the Jewish exodus from the Arab world after 1948, discusses the same topic.
I’d recommend reading either or both of them.
Also, Hanna Braun, a German Jew who emigrated as a child to Palestine in the 1930′s to escape Hitler, has written about her experiences teaching the new non-European immigrants to Israel here:
Her whole article about her experiences is well worth a read.
link to kawther.info
Thanks for the info tree.
Thanks tree. I will definitely check out the books and would appreciate quotes from Segev if you wouldn’t mind.
Ouch Jonah. Must really hurt to think that not all Jews worship Israel. I’d recommend watching this (Jews in Iran –Australian TV) but that would be like adding acid to a wound, especially if you fast forward to 2:48 where an Iranian Jew says, “we are comfortably doing everything we want to do here” or 5:30 where the narrator notes, “In modern day Iran, there are virtually no cases of anti-Semitic violence of the kind you hear about in some parts of Europe.”
Iranian Jews have been offered $50,000 cash per person to move to Israel and they said thank but no thanks.
Hostage : You deserve a medal. Have to hand it to you. Always there with the facts patiently giving pearls to the swines.
Hostage do you have more examples? . . . I hope you don’t mind me answering that question.
Not at all.
They don’t need to be convinced with bribes, the situation must only worsen in regard to Israel and they will be kicked out with one way ticket (at best).
That’s been the Zionist party line for decades. The memo recording the State Department’s conversation with Teddy Kolleck about Iran establishes that and the fact that the government of Israel was responsible for the earlier mass exoduses, like the one from Iraq. We know from other sources that they did that by worsening the conditions and recruiting Sayanim, like Eli Cohen or Naeim Giladi, to assist in black flag operations.
In the Egyptian case, Livia Rokach writes that Sharett’s diary confirmed that a major war against Egypt aimed at the territorial conquest of Gaza and the Sinai was on the Israeli leadership’s agenda at least as early as the autumn of 1953, almost a year before Nasser ousted Neguib. She also explained that the Operation Susannah spy ring originally was setup to serve as a fifth column during the next war and that they had been sent a coded cable asking them to relay information on targets in the Suez Canal zone:
The US government realized that Israel’s words didn’t match its deeds and that the talk about the inevitability of a conflict with Egypt was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The actions of the Israeli government were guaranteeing it would come to pass
link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
Then as in the case of Iran, Israel was waging a war of words and using Israeli owned vessels, Mossad, local Jews, and members of the opposition to carry-out sabotage, espionage, and assassination missions in the run-up to a general war with no regard for the consequences its own actions for other Jews.
The US seized an Italian cruise liner in the Panama canal during WWII and interned the passengers and crew for the duration of the conflict. A few years later it insisted that the Egyptians should release the Bat Galim and allow Israeli flagged ships passage, although everyone knew that Israel was operating spying rings and bombing targets in Egypt and deliberately testing the Egyptians. It’s doubtful that the US or Canada would agree to a similar deal that would allow a Taliban-backed regime to send armed ships through the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
Roya,
… and would appreciate quotes from Segev if you wouldn’t mind.
I’m on my way out the door so I don’t have time now to transcribe quotes from the book, but I’ve included similar quotes in the past. If you click on my name it will take you to a list of all my comments here since a certain day when MW added that feature. You can put “Segev” in the search field and come up with all my comments that include that name. There’s 38 of them. Not all deal with this issue but several do. Here’s the link directly.
link to mondoweiss.net
The search feature here is great, BTW. You can click on any commenters name and get a list of all their comments and the ability to search for words or phrases.
When I get a chance latter tonight I’ll try to transcribe a few Segev quotes, and maybe even a few from Woolfson.
terrylevine says:
July 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
I’ll be sure to ask my grandfather about his time tortured in an Egyptian prison for being a Jew.
——————-
Sounds fishy to me. As long as you don’t cite the case I have no reason to believe that he was tortured for just being a Jew. Sounds like an awful lie my friend.
“You would all rather attack each other than accept the reality of past injustices (on both sides!) and try to find a compromise. “
I don’t see why we need to try to ‘find a compromise.’
There is a compromise. The UN looked at the competing claims, came up with a compromise, and issued it. Israel accepted it.
That was in 1947. Maybe we should ask the Palestinians (since now they have some groups that can speak for them) if they accept it as well (I’m optimistic they might).
Assuming they do, we’re set. All Israel has to do is honor the terms she agreed to honor sixty five years ago.
@Colin Wrong: Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian: “My own research shows that it was Palestinian side which was willing to reach a compromise according to UN guidelines which were very simple: Divide Palestine into 2 states, allow refugees to return to their homes & internationalize city of Jerusalem. Pres Truman supported Palestinian position & for a while exerted pressure on Israel to accept what Americans deemed at time was a very sensible solution. Israelis refused. Opportunity for peace was missed mainly for Israeli intransigence.”
Those were not the findings of Ilan Pappe only but of other Israeli historians like Benny Morris, Shlomo Sand, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Hillel Cohen, Simha Flapan amongst others.
For which country? Israel or the US?
Shingo
It makes no difference, they all get their orders from the same place!!
I wonder, did Obama get an israeli passport, just in case?
Theo, they wouldn’t have him. Always remember, Israel is for the white man (so said the not very white looking man from Tunisia).
Relevant point Shingo, especially considering that now it is easier to cast a vote for the U.S. president from Israel than from the U.S..
Roya, it is good that America makes it easy for expatriot Americans to vote in American elections.
I’m out of here. Apparently this site is just FoxNews/NEWS MAX for crazies on the left. Both of you deserve each other.
I’m out of here.
That was fast. One would think that an Israel supporter coming to a site such as MW would have a little more stamina. I guess you should have paced yourself.
Apparently this site is just FoxNews/NEWS MAX for crazies on the left.
Funny (again). Only one of us was claiming to be “fair and balanced”, while bombarding the site with every tired partisan argument in the handbook.
Bye.
@ Terry:
Don’t give up so easily. Besides, nobody here tries to justify Palestinian violence against Israeli Jews.
“Besides, nobody here tries to justify Palestinian violence against Israeli Jews.”
Not true. Do you think everybody here really shares your insane belief that people have no right to resist an invader? That people have no right to resist an occupying power?
What do you think, German Lefty? The Palestinians should just sit back and wait for the Israelis to have a change of heart?
So you think we should make a blanket condemnation of Palestinian resistance so that you can attract more Zionists to the site?
And why are you unable to see that what TeryyLevine is doing has nothing to do with the violent act Palestinians may have done in resistance. What he’s trying to do is justify Zionist violence against Palestinians.
German Lefty, I felt bad after I wrote that comment, so I’ll make you a deal. I’ll hold my comments at the same level that Zionists, the Israeli Government and those representing it, hold theirs. So I guess I won’t be able to endorse population transfer, violence against Israelis, segregation of Jews from others, educating Palestinians to hate Jews and urging them to have nothing to do with them, urging people not to marry Jews, having roads only for non-Jews, a legal system in which Jews are second class. No. I won’t endorse any of that stuff against Israel, just like Israel never endorses those ideas, and worse, against Palestinians Muslims or Arabs. Is that fair (if very clumsily expressed)?
Pretending violent provocations don’t exist is no way to hold on to your pacifism.
“Nobody here tries to justify Palestinian violence against Israeli Jews.” – Do you think everybody here really shares your insane belief that people have no right to resist an invader? That people have no right to resist an occupying power?
Mooser, where did I write that people have no right to resist an invader or occupying power? My statement about Palestinian violence refers to Terry’s comment “no Palestinian ever blew up a bus [...] or killed an Israeli athlete.” I’ve already said in previous posts that I tolerate violence when it happens during self-defence (or resistance). However, what Terry described in his comment are (terrorist) attacks, not self-defence. And I hope you agree with me that terrorist attacks are unjustifiable, regardless of the ethnicity or religion of perpetrators and victims.
And why are you unable to see that what TerryLevine is doing has nothing to do with the violent act Palestinians may have done in resistance. What he’s trying to do is justify Zionist violence against Palestinians.
Mooser, I wasn’t born yesterday! I know that this is what he tries to do. That’s what all Zionists try to do. Their strategy is to distract attention away from their own crimes by pointing fingers at others and saying, “Look at the Nazis. What they did to Jews was much worse.” or “Look at the Palestinians. They are just as violent as Israeli Jews.” However, the appropriate answer to such statements should not be, “The Nazis didn’t do anything wrong.” or “The Palestinians don’t do anything wrong.” What we should reply is, “That’s irrelevant in this context. Other people’s (actual or supposed) wrongdoing doesn’t justify YOUR wrongdoing. So, stop casting the blame for your own crimes on others.”
I won’t endorse any of that stuff against Israel, just like Israel never endorses those ideas, and worse, against Palestinians Muslims or Arabs.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me with this. However, I think that anti-Zionists shouldn’t stoop to the level of Zionists. Otherwise, we aren’t any better than them.
Lady Lefty
If you were a man I would say you have lost your cojones!!
You cannot fight a sword with love and understanding, it will cut you to pieces. If you want to win, you must find an equal or greater power to use against your enemies.
The zionist invaded Palestine starting a good 80 years ago, first slowly with money, after 1947 with military power and took away the land, property and freedom of its historical inhabitants. The days of “Völkerwanderung” are long gone and colonialism is a past.
Those poor subjugated peoples have the right to fight this military hegemony anyplace with any methods they can use.
Israel sends kill-teams all over the world to assasinate palestinian political leader, you must remember Dubai?
Do you want to fight this kind of aggression with the pen, writing nice pleading letters? Good luck to you.
@ Theo:
If you were a man I would say you have lost your cojones!
Yeah, too bad. I don’t have any “Eier”, only “Eierstöcke”. Besides, not all men have testicles. There are trans men, too.
The days of “Völkerwanderung” are long gone and colonialism is a past.
That’s true.
Those poor subjugated peoples have the right to fight this military hegemony anyplace with any methods they can use.
So, you still support death penalty or – more general – killing in revenge?
Israel sends kill-teams all over the world to assasinate palestinian political leader, you must remember Dubai?
No, I don’t remember this. I am a newbie regarding this topic. Just looked the incident up.
Do you want to fight this kind of aggression with the pen, writing nice pleading letters?
Well, I can’t escape my skin and my convictions. I’m a pacifist.
Those poor subjugated peoples have the right to fight this military hegemony anyplace with any methods they can use.
Theo, do you think that Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in Israel and abroad are justified? For example the killing of the Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics.
“Otherwise, we aren’t any better than them.”
I’ve never said I was any better than them, nor do I have any illusions that being anti-Zionist makes me any better.
@ Sweet Little Mooser:
I’ve never said I was any better than them, nor do I have any illusions that being anti-Zionist makes me any better.
And I have never claimed that you said that you were better than them. However, I think that anti-Zionists are indeed “better” than Zionists, in the sense that anti-Zionists respect other people’s human and civil rights as well as support equal rights.
By the way, your username reminds me of the German verb “mosern”, which means “grouse”. A “Moserer” is a “grouser”.
Try me.
See ya!!! You won’t be missed!
But if you leave now do you still get to collect on your $2,000? :O
That’s a real shame Terry.
Mooser gave me a good kicking when I first started here. My comments were moderate and I was attempting to see both sides. I got what I deserved, sat down and did some learning. The thing is, when it comes to this subject, there really is one side as only Israel can seriously solve this issue, but it doesn’t want to. It wants the land, but not the Arabs who live in it, so it has to spew anti Arab propaganda and lie about what it’s done and what it does. That’s indefensible, has to stop and will indeed stop one day hopefully soon.
The most interesting thing I’ve found out about you is that you haven’t once acknowledged correction of any of the false statements you made that have been proven so by the community here. Doesn’t that tell you something? Because it speaks volumes to me.
You’re not in the slightest bit interested in the truth unless of course those truths support Israel’s position. I hate to break it to you, but you’re going to find very slim pickings. As far as the corrections to your comments go, I hope you take one thing from this:
You have been lied to. The deconstructions of your comments have factually proven this. I’m not talking about the opinions posted, but sourced and referenced facts. How does that feel to know you wholeheartedly believe in something that simply isn’t true? Coming from where you are now two years ago, I can tell you I was pretty pissed off.
You’ll probably never read this if your last post is anything to go by, but I hope this interchange has given you pause for thought.
FreddyV,
Hmm.
@MRW:
‘Hmm’
Please explain. I’m a little perplexed at that.
Cheers
Fred.
“Mooser gave me a good kicking when I first started here.”
Only because I instinctively liked you. Sure it’s a little-boy kind of thing, but all my friendships start with a fight. If you win, you become my best friend. If you lose, I start screaming “it was all self-defense”.
” If you win, you become my best friend. If you lose, I start screaming “it was all self-defense”.”
You’re sure it’s not the other way round?
Hi fellow Mondoweissers! I just saw that terrylevine wrote about his experience with us on his website:
link to terrylevine.com
I’ve found myself over the last few days in a strange hellish place, managing to piss off uber-Zionist Jews and anti-Zionists at the same time. [...] I discovered [Mondoweiss], run by left-wing anti-Zionist Jews who blame Israel for all the world’s and the Middle East’s problems. Palestinians had no role to play at all in their ongoing misery and Arab countries’ general fuckedupedness — well let’s just ignore that. No need to criticize fascism, tribalism and religious fundamentalism in 20 Arab countries when we can just talk obsessively about Israel’s failings. “Enough about why I hate Israel. Why do you hate Israel?” So I started defending Israel on this site too only to be attacked for doing so. Literally, within any given hour over the last few days, I was fending off rabid Jewish Arab-haters and rabid Israel-haters. It’s been a trip.
The reader comments below are interesting, too.
Yes, the one and only reader – Ruth. I guess that makes his blog more successful than Witty’s anyway.
Yeah, I got the impression from the start that he was on a field trip. Sasoon gives me the same impression.
I started defending Israel on this site too only to be attacked for doing so. Literally, within any given hour over the last few days, I was fending off rabid Jewish Arab-haters and rabid Israel-haters. It’s been a trip.
What a brave, brave man. He was with us only a short while but oh, how he suffered – anti-Zionists AND Zionists at his heroic heels – the horror! Can the (temporary) boost in his (lagging) blog stats ever make up for the hell he went through? I reckon he thinks it can.
Gee, from Terry Levine’s post, one would think the commenters run the blog. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the articles and the comment threads. I wonder why?
And I think he would have been at pains to point out how the articles in Mondoweiss completely contradict the letter and spirit of the “about” page.
Did we treat him badly, after he went through all the trouble of bringing his Grandpa out to meet us?
Well, to be earnest and sincere, sometimes the lynch mob mentality here when it comes to Zionists is a bit much.
They are revolting and all — but I don’t see anything positive about some of the gratuitous verbal abuse. Not that I’m not among the sinners — but I’m pretty sure it’s not accomplishing anything.
Terry Levine is a typical ZioBot hypocrite who has deluded himself into thinking he’s liberal.
The ‘both sides’ meme he expresses here and over at his blog which has lower readership than Richard Witty’s, is your standard Zionist lip-service Brand Israel garbage.
Meaningless ‘peace industry’ verbiage.
Here he is using the term, ‘Arab apologists’:
Terry Levine is a typical ZioBot hypocrite who has deluded himself into thinking he’s liberal.
The ‘both sides’ meme he expresses here and over at his blog which has lower readership than Richard Witty’s, is your standard Zionist lip-service Brand Israel garbage.
Meaningless ‘peace industry’ verbiage.
Here he is using the term, ‘Arab apologists’:
link to mondoweiss.net
Oh and questioning whether Palestinians really exist:
link to mondoweiss.net
Another phony liberal, pretending to be a liberal Zionist – something that is phony in and of itself.
And look who he’s talk to – Ruth. LOL
Let’s review grandma Ruth’s comments:
link to mondoweiss.net
Go to her page 1 and onwards ~ observe.
Like I always say, none of these ZioBots have any moral standing. The proof is in their own comments.
You can’t blame him, because ultimately, he will have to chose between being a liberal or being a Zionist when he figures out that the 2 are mutualyl exclusive.
Which proves the point that Zionists are ultimately racist, and that liberals are park the liberlaism at the door when it comes to Israell.
Right on, Shingo. John Mearsheimer gave a speech at the Palestine Center a couple years ago about the inevitability of the one-state solution. He titled the speech, “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs the New Afrikaners” and stated that American Jews will soon have to choose between being liberals (righteous Jews) or ardent Zionists (the New Afrikaners) as Israel goes farther and farther down the apartheid road and as more people wake up to this reality. He predicts that most will choose being righteous, hence the inevitability of the formation of one binational state for all. I’m not so optimistic about Levine though…
Here’s the speech for those interested: link to thejerusalemfund.org
We’re truly sorry that your mind is closed to the truth and wish you well.
We should start Zionist indoctrination on the same day as the bris. Only somebody who was born yesterday can believe the stuff they peddle.
“Goldstein also says that Netanyahu represents Jews around the world: “When he had the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, to the White House, he wasn’t just the prime minister of Israel. He really represented all of us–Jews, Israelis, people throughout the world who believed in the state of Israel. And he was disrespectful to him to a point I had never seen.”
I posted that once, but I found a good literary model for the relationship of USA and Israel. USA is most powerful and should respect Israel. In the comic opera Mikado, Emperor of Japan is an all-powerful and (so-so) benevolent absolute ruler, and fiancee of his son deserves even more respect.
MIKADO:
In a fatherly kind of way
I govern each tribe and sect,
All cheerfully own my sway
KATISHA
Except his daughter-in-law elect!
As tough as a bone,
With a will of her own,
Is his daughter-in-law elect!
MIKADO
My nature is love and light
My freedom from all defect
KATISHA
Is insignificant quite,
Compared with his daughter-in-law elect!
Bow Bow
To his daughter-in-law elect!
CHORUS
Bow Bow
To his daughter-in-law elect!
The love for Katisha shall not be disturbed by any minor considerations:
KATISHA
And you won’t hate me because I ‘m just a little tey .
weeney wee bit bloodthirsty, will you ?
KO-KO
Hate you? Oh, Katisha! is there not beauty even in bloodthirstiness?
Our magnanimous visitor consedes: “All I’m saying and all I’ve been saying is there is no shortage of blame and stupidity to go around on both sides. But you anti-Israel types who don’t recognize the mounds of foolishness on the other side are as bad as the wide-eyed settlers on the crazy Zionist side. You’re two sides of the same coin.”
If USA supported both sides of the coin to the same degree, say by providing F16 and cluster bombs to both IDF and PA, or to none of them, or by vetoing UNSC resolutions disliked by either Israel or PA, or making no vetoes, one could perhaps agree that there is some symmetry.
Or if political bigshots in USA were making big stink whenever there is insufficient respect shown to Palestinian leaders. Which started the discussion in this thread. Obama, even though Netanyahu is “equally stupid”, shown the esteemed PM insufficient respect. What degree of respect is adequate to “equally stupid” people?
For those reasons I cited “Mikado”:
KATISHA
And you won’t hate me because I ‘m just a little tee weeney wee bit bloodthirsty, will you ?
KO-KO
Hate you? Oh, Katisha! is there not beauty even in bloodthirstiness?
We love Israel! is there no beauty even in …
Question: I remember someone saying a while back that they have this feeling that Chomsky knows about the Zionist lobby, but fears talking about it due to a backlash against Jews in general. I kind of believe this too. He seems too knowledgable not to know. Maybe Phil can go knock on the prof’s door during his office hours and say “Professor we have a mission for you. You need to speak directly to the American people about the danger of Zionism,etc.” Think about it. The professor is getting up there in age and he might want to cement his legacy and stay relevant in the 21st century and this task can give him the opportunity to do so. What do you think?
“Question: I remember someone saying a while back that they have this feeling that Chomsky knows about the Zionist lobby…”
His motives might not be as elevated as you suggest. It’s possible it’s just that ol’ not wanting to run down your own cousin yourself shtick.
I mean, yeah, you know he’s been arrested three times for credit card fraud, and you can see he beats his wife, but he’s family. Others may criticize him, but you’re reluctant to join in.
Even if you’re a morally elevated post-nationalist progressive and all.
“Question: I remember someone saying a while back that they have this feeling that Chomsky knows about the Zionist lobby…”
People waste a lot of time misrepresenting Chomsky’s position. He agrees that the Lobby is responsible for US policy on some issues like the settlements and Palestine, but that it does NOT dictate Middle East policy on issues like going to war with Iran. In the latter case it remains a significant, but secondary factor. AIPAC’s efforts to start a war with Iran have been unsuccessful for more than a decade. He does not deny that the Lobby exists; that Mearsheimer and Walt present relevant facts that cannot be denied; or that the Lobby is dishonest and will aggressively attack or discredit their detractors.
Chomsky does not oppose BDS. He was an early adopter. He simply says that it should be targeted properly at the state and corporate interests responsible for the policies in Israel, the US, and elsewhere – and that unless and until it takes on the US government role in protecting Israel, it won’t be effective. He also calls for opposition to similar government and state policies elsewhere in the world as a matter of consistency.
Chomsky does not agree with blanket boycotts directed against supporters of Palestine in Israeli academia. If that upset’s you, please remember that Barghouti carved-out exemptions for himself and others to avoid the effects of the academic boycott and that Barghouti does target US and other industrial supporters of Israel like Motorola, HP, and Caterpillar. Several of the groups that I support, like US Campaign to End the Occupation, call for an end to arms sales and military aid to Israel. So no one thinks the US government can be ignored.
Here for example is Chomsky’s commentary on the initial Israel Lobby article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt:
–http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm
So he is actually saying that all agree that the Lobby is one of the factors that determines state policy.
P.S. He also calls for opposition to similar government and
stateindustry policies elsewhere in the world as a matter of consistency.Hostage, Chomsky doesn’t understand the degree to which the interplay of special interests and industries dominate global policy and interstate policy.
He speaks of America as too much of a “monolith”, and other countries as monoliths too that quite frankly makes him look like he lives in an alternate universe.
Whereas Anan, who lives in his own hermetically sealed bubble safe from erality, has real grasp on reality. What a clown!
Hostage, Chomsky doesn’t understand the degree to which the interplay of special interests and industries dominate global policy and interstate policy.
Plenty of people share his “anti-globalist” views. I’m no disciple of Chomsky or Finkelstein. But I have read what they actually have to say on a variety of subjects. I notice that many commenters either have not, or that they deliberately misstate their actual positions in order to argue against a straw man.
It isn’t too difficult to track down interviews online in which Chomsky expresses typical anti-globalist views on the insider roles played by transnational corporations and their investors in controlling global policy.
He discusses transnational corporations and their investors as “de facto governments” or “virtual senates” that tend to destroy democracies through deregulation in order to facilitate capital movement or capital flight that the old post WWII currency fixing schemes were deigned to prevent. He explains that when states don’t control capital movement, there’s always a huge explosion of currency and commodity speculation (based on price purchase variances) that accrue benefits to transnational corporations and their investors or investment banks. See State and Corp. link to zcommunications.org
HOSTAGE- “Several of the groups that I support, like US Campaign to End the Occupation, call for an end to arms sales and military aid to Israel.”
What? You support ending sales/gifts of F-35s to Israel? Jeez, you sure had me fooled!
What? You support ending sales/gifts of F-35s to Israel? Jeez, you sure had me fooled!
I believe Dan Crowther asked for an example of the Zionists throwing their Wall Street and defense industry friends under the bus to pursue their own agenda. I cited the example where they would not extend their partial settlement freeze in exchange for an additional 20 free F35s and the instances where they would not delay construction of housing in the occupied territories for four months, until after the Madrid Peace Conference, in exchange for loan guarantees that would protect their investment partners from defaults.
I obviously don’t support arms sales or loan guarantees for the Zionists. They’ve routinely violated our arms export license restrictions by waging wars of aggression and they’ve constructed illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories with US-backed loans. I suspect that you’re the only person here who’s surprised by my anti-war or anti-Zionist positions.