Total number of comments: 298 (since 2010-10-06 04:27:13)
irishmoses
Mondoweiss.net supporterI'm a semi-retired attorney whose interest in the Israel-Palestine issue came from my father's involvement flying Jewish refugees from around the world to the new state of Israel in 1948-49. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister called my father "the Irish Moses" because of his exploits, hence the name of my blog site.
Website: http://www.irishmoses.com
Taxi,
Your post inspired me to hear about Palestine's history through Palestinian voices, fiction and non-fiction.
I just ordered Kanifani's Men in the Sun and Palestine's Children. I also ordered I Saw Ramallah by Bargouti, and Wild Thorns by Khalifeh.
I'm also looking at samples of Mornings in Jenin by Abulhawa, and The Lemon Tree by Tolan.
I'd like to hear Taxi and others' recommendations on these and other books about the Palestinian experience.
Hi Pamela,
Just bought the E-version of your book. I'm writing a novel about the Israel-Palestine conflict (Exodus Betrayed) and its effect on the US and its female president. I need more insight into the day-to-day lives of Palestinians and Palestinian culture. I think your book will be helpful.
If you can recommend other sources on Palestinian culture, I'd be grateful.
Good luck on your book tour and please include a stop or two in Southern California (population 23 million vs the Bay Area's 7 million).
Why no stops in Southern California? I would think it would be a huge market.
Great idea. It might attract college students and concerned adults from all over the state. They could have side-of-the-road demonstrations and maybe random traffic slowdowns with stickers slapped on the sides of car windows with catchy slogans like:
"46 years of apartheid, but who's counting", or "Israel: a Blight unto Nations", or the simpler "Fuck Israel; Free Palestine".
With the right organization and publicity, it could really catch on. Media would have to cover it.
I can dream can't I?
"Israel does not kill its opponents..."
How about Lord Moyne, Count Bernadotte, not to mention Yitshak Rabin?
Annie,
Is Burnat speaking in Southern California? The link covers NoCal only.
Mondoweiss should have a calendar to keep readers up to date on events like this one. This type of thing needs publicity to be effective.
thanks,
Gil
Yonah,
Let me address your concerns about the threat Iran poses to the US with an excerpt from my recent novel Armageddon: Prelude to Disaster in which US President Hailey Corrigan is arguing with her National Security Advisor, Jon Harmon about why the US shouldn't attack Iran:
Harmon: “But Madame President, Iran is not a rational actor; it will use the bomb once it gets it.”
“Jon, the same arguments were used about the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, and lord knows both of those countries acted irrationally from time to time. Yet, because we had a large nuclear deterrent, neither was ever willing to use a nuclear weapon. Iran is no different, and considering it hasn’t attacked a neighboring country in over 250 years, it seems a lot more rational than a lot of countries that have nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or North Korea.”
“Well, Madam President, we still have a moral obligation to protect our ally Israel from the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.”
“Jon, what about our moral obligation to protect Japan and South Korea who are under a direct existing threat of a nuclear armed North Korea? If you are looking for countries for us to attack Jon, why not start there? North Korea has already tested nuclear bombs, it’s currently testing delivery systems and it has acted extremely irrationally and aggressively in the very recent past. Instead of being a thousand miles away, it shares a border with South Korea and is less than 300 miles from Japan. In terms of relative importance as allies, Japan and South Korea have about 175 million more people than Israel, do seven times more trade with us, and have GDPs about 25 times bigger than Israel’s. Our entire Pacific strategy hinges on these two vital allies. So Jon, before we do Iran, shouldn’t we be taking out North Korea’s existing nuclear weapons stockpile? There’s no question that we could if we wanted to.”
“We’re not as close to those countries socially and culturally. They don’t have the emotional ties we have with Israel.”
“Jon, what you seem to be saying is that the lives and welfare of about 180 million Japanese and South Koreans are less important than less than 6 million Israeli Jews because they are somehow socially and culturally inferior to Jews and therefore less worthy of our protection. I think you need to rethink your argument. We need to move on. You can continue with your briefing Ms. Murphy.”
With apologies for my outrageous self-promotion, the above interchange is fictional but fact-based and I think provides a realistic depiction of how a US president might analyze the threat a nuclear-armed Iran poses to the US.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
link to amazon.com
Yonah,
Hagel was a credible potential candidate for the Republican party in 2008 but decided not to run. The idea that he might decide to run for that office in the future is hardly silly.
For the Republican party to survive it has to disassociate itself from its loony tea party and "values" fringe. The perfect leader for a new Republican party based on traditional Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan conservative values is Chuck Hagel. SecDef is a steppingstone for Hagel which is why the Greater Israel Lobby is fighting so desperately to prevent his nomination.
Hagel has a track record of saying it like it is and being willing to resign rather than violate his principles. I suspect he will be vocal about Israel, about Iran, and about the loonies of the Republican party and the need for change. If confronted by pressure from the Greater Israel Lobby on Iran or I-P, he, like Eisenhower, would be willing to go public and tell the American people why we should not attack Iran, or why resolving the I-P mess is vital to US security interests. You would not see Chuck Hagel going to Israel to kiss the ass of Adelman and/or Netanyahu as did Romney in his campaign.
Piotr:
“Foreign policy based on ideology is a recipe for disaster.”
I think "liberal interventionism" a la Vietnam suffers from the same poorly defined ideological rationale for foreign policy decisions as does neocon ideology. Both may be less ideological and more political in origin. In any case neither is rational or realistic. George Kennan, the archetypical foreign policy realist, thought our Vietnam adventure was insane because Vietnam had nothing to do with maintaining a balance of power in Asia, and in fact was contrary to that goal. i.e. We should have sought to ally ourselves with the Vietnamese whose historic enemy was China.
Good points American.
I think the actual realist position is that there is a hierarchy of American interests, a few, at the very top are defined as "vital US interests", those that are so important that we must be willing to go to war if they are threatened. A college poli sci professor gave us the short list of key vital US interests, circa mid 60s: 1)maintaining the territorial integrity of the US; 2)maintaining a balance of power in Europe; 3)maintaining a balance of power in Asia; and 4)maintaining our hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. This is largely the George Kennan-ish realism of the Cold War. Notice the absence of ideological terms like promoting freedom and democracy.
Interestingly, President Obama publicly defined solving the Israel-Palestine conflict as a vital US interest at the very beginning of his first term. Several top level people like Hilary Clinton publicly repeated this early on. But, once the Israelis and their Greater Israel Lobby got rolling, talk of an I-P solution as a vital US interest disappeared and has not been mentioned since. How did it suddenly become non-vital?
Most realists would say we go wrong when we fight wars over interests that are poorly defined and not vital because we squander our resources, our reputation and good will, and our military. Vietnam and Iraq are certainly two prime examples. Fighting an amorphous War on Terror is another. This is the reason the approach of the neocon ideologues is so flawed. They fail to address and protect the primacy of US vital interests, and instead fritter away vast resources waging unnecessary wars under the guise of promoting freedom and democracy. The pro-Greater Israel wing of the neocons fails to define and take into account Israel's vital interest, let alone those of the US. The Iraq war did not enhance Israeli vital interests, it severely damaged them by stirring up a hornet's nest. Ditto an Iran war.
Foreign policy based on ideology is a recipe for disaster. Chuck Hagel, a realist, knows this and is willing to stand up and say so. That is why he poses such a threat to the neocons and particularly to the Greater Israel branch.
My personal view is the Israel and its Greater Israel lobby are trying to prevent Hagel from gaining a step that would enhance his qualifications as a presidential candidate. They desperately want to stop him pre-appointment because they fear his willingness to tell it like it is during hearings. I would love to see him take on Lindsay Graham and others of that ilk over issues like Israel and Iran. He would gain a lot of valuable exposure and publicity even if his appointment as SecDef is not approved.
The Great Israel lobby folks are likely very worried about that scenario. I don't think they are all that worried about Hagel being Secretary of Defense. They just want to screw up his presidential chances before he can gain any traction from holding and succeeding in such a high office.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
I too was incensed by Goldberg's slur of Walt so I immediately sent him this long email, beginning with the quote of his outrageous accusation that Walt doesn't like Jews:
________
"Do you think Stephen Walt is going to suddenly like Jews when Jewish groups lose whatever political influence they have?"
Jeffrey, what exactly makes you think Stephen Walt doesn't like Jews (i.e. is anti-Semitic)? He certainly is a critic of Israel's policies and of the Greater Israel Lobby's influence over US Middle East foreign policy, not to mention US politics, but that's not evidence he doesn't like Jews. That was a scurrilous comment unbecoming of someone possessing the intellect and influence you have. You owe Mr. Walt an apology particularly since your comments show you agree in large part with Mr. Walt's criticisms of Israel. e.g.:
" I think Israel is heading down a dangerous path, toward its own, eventual dissolution, because it refuses to contemplate even unilateral half-measures that could lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state. I've been arguing for years that the settlers are the vanguard of binationalism, and now they're closer to the center of power than ever before."
and,
"Today's path leads, eventually, to pariah status, and a small state like Israel can't survive as a pariah"
Finally, comments like " There are many people around the world with their knives out for the Jewish state, because it's a Jewish state. That's just the way it is. Israel has to figure out the smartest way to counteract the ancient, bestial urge to eliminate to hurt Jews" are counterproductive even if partially accurate. Israel's status as a pariah state stems directly from its behavior toward the Palestinians, not some "ancient, bestial urge to eliminate and hurt Jews".
If you care about Israel's future, your focus needs to be on Israel’s behavior. Snarky comments about Mr. Walt may play well to your peanut gallery but they undermine your ability to influence and change minds that need to be changed if Israel is to be saved, and you are fast running out of time.
Jesus, Jeffrey, don’t you think Walt and Mearsheimer’s “Lobby” thesis has proven out since they wrote it? Look at the undermining of Obama’s attempt to resolve the conflict. Look at the Republican primaries. Look at the undermining of Hagel. That’s all the work of the Greater Israel Lobby (Andrew Sullivan’s characterization is spot-on and brilliant). You clearly recognize the importance of having competent people with guts who will stand up to the Israelis, such as Hagel. Yet, his nomination is toast because people of influence like you aren’t organizing and screaming bloody murder about the harm the Greater Israel Lobby is doing to Israel by hobbling the US from using its power to make it change course.
The only power capable of stopping Israel’s suicidal march toward religious extremism (a threat you have recognized) is the US government. But, it cannot act unless people like you create enough noise and space so people like Obama, Hagel, and Kerry feel they are free to act and use the immense power available to them to force Israel into a fair agreement with the Palestinians.
The Greater Israel Lobby has made toast of President Obama’s attempts at resolving the I-P issue, and has now made toast of his desire to appoint Chuck Hagel. But, if people of influence like you don’t organize and stand up to the Greater Israel Lobby, Israel itself will be toast, a fact you well realize and have written about.
You and other people of influence like you, need to quit weaseling around by throwing sops to the Greater Israel apologists and draw a firm line between you and them. If you don’t do it, its all over for the Israel you love. Soon it will become the religious extremist state you fear, and a nuclear power at that.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
________
Jeffrey has yet to respond, but he is a busy man writing vital pieces like today's on how women who carry guns have small penises.
Tokyobk,
"Cultural Zionism"; that's a new one on me. I find it fascinating because it opens the door to an Abrahamic revival in the Holy Land whereby Christian, Muslim, and Jew can share in their common "real connection to Israel (Palestine) and live there safely as equals". I am presuming of course that you agree that Christians and Muslims also have a real connection to the Holy Land that also entitles them to safety and equality. Come to think of it, that equality was spelled out in the Balfour Declaration.
Tokyobk, you give me hope, but I need a few more details. Does the "real connection" of the Jews to Palestine entitle them to a separate and exclusive part? If so, aren't Christians and Muslims also entitled to separate and exclusive parts based on their own cultural "real connection" to Palestine (or Israel, or the Holy Land)? Or, are you suggesting that all three Abrahamic faiths share the Holy Land equally since all three have a cultural real connection that entitles them to safety and equality?
Cultural Abrahamism; what a fascinating concept. This would lead to the A1SS: the Abrahamic one state solution.
Elliot,
I think we have a definition problem. The desire (or commandment) to spread the faith by Protestants and Catholics, whether in China or the Holy Land, had nothing to do with Judaism or its aggressive Zionist offshoot (which was in its infancy in the late 19th century). Palestine was not seen as some exclusive redoubt for the Jews that Christians felt compelled to defend. They were crusaders for their own faith, not Judaism. You seem to be attaching the label Zionism to any Christian attempt to return to the Holy Land.
Perhaps you could define what you mean by Christian Zionism. You seem to be equating it with any religion's urge to return to the Holy Land which would mean we could also have Islamic Zionism. Wikipedia treats Christian Zionism as a modern phenomena associated with some evangelistic Christian groups who support Israel solely because they think it will be the cause of the final confraglation resulting in the End of Days they yearn for. They may be on to something.
Elliot,
Mark Twain's (or Lincoln's) interest in Jerusalem had nothing to do with Judaism or promoting Palestine as a homeland for the Jews so it was not a form of early Christian Zionism. Twain and Lincoln's interest derived from their Christian roots. After all, Jerusalem and other sites in Palestine are holy to all three Abrahamic religions. Unlike Jewish Zionism, the modest Christian attempts to return and have colonies in Palestine were never intended as some sort of modern crusade to return the holy lands to exclusively Christian inhabitants. Pre-Zionist Jews lived without problem in Palestine until the advent of the Zionist waves when it became clear to the Palestinian inhabitants that this new group of Jews wanted Palestine all for themselves.
I haven't seen the film yet so I can't comment on intent.
Adam,
The donation page is confusing as you are told you are donating to the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE INC. No mention of Mondoweiss is on the form. I suspect some potential donors will wonder who they are actually donating to and what that organization represents. You could lose donors because of this confusion and uncertainty.
WHY DONATE TO MONDOWEISS?
I can think of no better organization to donate to than Mondoweiss. It’s influence on the Israel-Palestine issue has increased dramatically in the last few months with more and more mainstream blog and article comments referencing Phil and Mondoweiss. I suspect its influence will grow exponentially in the coming year as Israel-disaffected Jews and non-Jews look for a reliable source of news, commentary, ideas and discussion on this vital issue. The years of hard work and dedication of Phil, then Adam, and now Annie, Allison, Kate, and Alex (not to mention Scott, our new publisher, and all who volunteer with articles and comments) deserve our encouragement and support. Given a choice between donating to NPR and PBS with their feckless commentators on all issues involving Israel, or to Mondoweiss, the choice for me is clear. I cheerfully donate my $100 to this noble and worthy organization.
Pledge drives for public radio and television always stress the personal value of the free programing, and urge listeners and viewers to reciprocate by donating. The same rationale applies even more to Mondoweiss which provides all of us 24/7 detailed coverage of the I-P issue including up-to-date news, commentary, learned and spirited discussion of the topics and issues, and a forum for each of us to express our own views. Mondoweiss provides us intellectual stimulation and discussion of the highest order.
So donate both because of the benefits you personally receive and because your donation will help this vital organization to grow and gain even greater influence on an issue so critical to us all.
BUT WAIT, WAIT, THERE’S MORE
During this year’s Mondoweiss pledge drive, I will donate a copy of my new e-book novel Armageddon: Prelude to Disaster to anyone who contributes. For those who contribute $60 or more, I will also donate its upcoming sequel, Armageddon and Redemption. Prelude has just been published and is now available on Amazon in Kindle, as well as in iPhone, iPad, Mac, PC, and Android tablet and smartphone configurations. Contact me through my blog at http://www.irishmoses.com or through Mondoweiss if or when you have donated to request your copies.
My Armageddon in the Gulf novels are about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict told in the context of a failed attack by Israel on Iran and the chaotic and disastrous results which US president Hailey Corrigan is forced to deal with.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
Chris Hayes? Chris Hayes? Ohhh, you mean that young fellow who dominates the 5am to 8am prime time slot on Saturday and Sunday mornings here on the West Coast. I suspect his ratings numbers, even on the East Coast starting at 8am on weekend days are not worth mentioning. You wonder why he can remain on showing such courage? Simple; the Hasbara crowd knows nobody or at least very few are awake. Too bad they don't switch his three hour slot with the likeable woman (name escapes me) who follows him on weekend days. Chris provides the best analysis of any news show in the MSM.
I don't think he ever regretted being part of Operation Magic Carpet. The emotionial reactions of the Jews arriving in Israel was so powerful that I think he felt he'd done a good thing. He was really caught up in the Zionist narrative at the beginning. It was what Israel "turned into" that bothered him. He saw and felt they had taken advantage of a good thing and were now strong arming the US and everyone else to get more, more, and even more. He hated the welfare payments they were getting and he had several high up military friends who detested the Israelis for their attitude and arrogance.
An aside: At the Simon Weisenthal Medal of Valor presentation, we met a Yemeni-American guy who had been born on one of the C-54's on the flight from Yemen to Israel. Most of the Yemenis were illiterate and had seen a plane before let alone fly on one. To them, seeing these big silver birds that were to fly them to Israel was literally a biblical event.
My dad thanked them for the award but refused to give a speech. There were a couple of movies about Israel and the operation. Lots of talk about the glories of Israel. Never did the word Palestine or Palestinian get uttered.
This thread about Exodus resonates with me in another way. Part 5 of Exodus, "With Wings as Eagles" is the story of Operation Magic Carpet which was about the flying operations that flew Jews from all over the world back to Israel in 1948-49. My father led and was in charge of that operation. He personally flew Jews from as far away as Shanghai, as well as Yemen back to Israel as did dozens of his pilots, all of whom were World War II veterans.
Here is an excerpt from my blog, http://www.irishmoses.com , that discusses that connection:
"Irish Moses, my blog, is named in honor of an American Episcopalian who played a crucial role during the founding days of Israel. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, called the American who directed and led Operation Magic Carpet, “the Irish Moses” because he and his fleet of silver C-54 transport planes and pilots flew tens of thousands of Jewish refugees from all over the world to the new homeland for the Jews, the state of Israel. That American was my father, Robert F. Maguire.
In 2004, just a year before his death, he was awarded the Medal of Valor by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for “his heroic efforts that helped to rescue tens of thousands of Jews” during 1948-49 after the founding of the State of Israel. Paradoxically, my father, the “Irish Moses” for Israeli Jews, became very critical of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians in his later years, and refused an invitation to attend ceremonies in Israel celebrating the 50th anniversary of its independence in 1998. His refusal and criticism of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians sparked my interest in the current Israeli-Arab conflict over Palestine and was the motivation for my blog.
As the youngest son of the Irish Moses, I hope my blog will contribute to a greater understanding and empathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, and the re-creation of a promised land and a homeland of their own they too can return to and live peacefully in alongside the existing Jewish homeland of Israel.
Palestine is the Promised Land for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. It is time that Promise is fulfilled for the Palestinians who, like the Jews, are deserving of their own Moses, be he or she Irish or other."
There are links in the above quote to a NYTimes and an LA Times article about my father. In the event they don't appear in my posting, here are the links:
link to articles.latimes.com
link to nytimes.com
Well put Kathleen. I think your experience was shared by millions of Americans. I too read Exodus when I was 15. I'd read Lord Russell's classic on the holocaust "Scourge of the Swastica" when I was 12 and read every non-fiction and fiction book on World War II I could find (and still do). Ironically, my favorite novel on World War II was Leon Uris' "Battle Cry", his only decent novel IMHO. The fact that my stepfather had served in the South Pacific as a Marine in WWII probably had something to do with it.
In 1967 when I was in college (after 4 years in the Air Force) I remembered being very envious of my West LA Jewish friends who were all about to volunteer to fight for Israel at the start of the Six Day War. Unfortunately for them (or fortunately) the war was over before they could even buy their plane tickets. Those were heady days and time for Israel which filled many of us with pride at her exploits, particulary compared to the unfolding disaster of Viet Nam. Little did we know that the truth was buried to all the clever propagando efforts.
I have just completed a two book novel (duology?) about the Israeli-Palestine conflict that is centered around an Israeli attack on Iran. In doing research for it, I decided to reread Exodus. The high-point for me was Uris' rendition of the Balfour Agreement (p.247):
"His majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object."
That's it! He conveniently left out the comma at the end (not a period) and the critical next clause:
"..., it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, ..."
I guess admitting that under Balfour the non-Jewish communities in Palestine (then 90 percent of the population) had equal rights to the incoming Jewish minority didn't quite fit into the theme of Leon's novel which after all he was under commission to write.
Notwithstanding the propagandistic nature and poor quality of Exodus, its impact, when coupled with the movie and haunting theme, was monumental. It turned all of us who grew up in that generation into lovers of Israel, its noble Kibbutzim, its brave warriors, and its tan and comely (hot) young sabra lasses who wore tight shorts and loose fitting shirts with the top three buttons unfastened (the number one fantasy of my sordid teenage mind).
Exodus created in all of us an image of that tough little Jew who would not back down whatever the odds and who, though bloodied and beaten, would ultimately triumph over the hordes of Arab savages. The tough little Jew metaphor began in Uris's first novel, "Battle Cry" which was about the Marines in World War II. In Exodus he cleverly extended the metaphor to a tough little Jewish country who fought back against all odds. Sure had me fooled for a lot of years!
I decided about a year ago that fiction (and art in general including movies and music) may have much more persuasive impact than logic and rational discourse. Exodus certainly provides support for that belief. Rather than continue what I saw as largely futile posting of articles and comments on Mondoweiss, I decided to try writing a novel, an anti-Exodus if you will. It's now complete and called "Armageddon in the Gulf". The first book is called "Prelude to Disaster" and the second is "Armageddon and Redemption".
The main character is Hailey Corrigan, the first female US president. While there is a lot of talk in it about the I-P conflict and its origins, including US politics and the Lobby, it also has a lot of Tom Clancy-ish action centered around Israel's attack on Iran, plus some passionate romance ("50 Shades of Goy"?).
I would be delighted if any of you regulars (even the irregulars like Mooser) would be willing to review it and provide me with suggestions, corrections, and ways of bolstering the narrative I provide about the I-P conflict and its origins and history. If interested, let me know via email or by comment on my blog at http://www.irishmoses.com. I'll email you a PDF copy.
I'd also be happy to post a synopsis of it and even excerpts on Mondoweiss if Phil and Company think it would enhance the I-P discussion. In any case, I've high-jacked this thread shamelessly (although it is about Exodus which is a novel) so I'll stop while I'm ahead.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
Danaa said,
"When I hear a nice jewish joke now I can’t stop thinking of the palestinians whose olive harvest is disrupted, homes taken and children hauled off in the middle of the night. I see, in front of me – always – that sad eyed palestinian girl sitting outside her demolished home (you know which one, right?). And what chuckle I had coming at some nice Jewish joke is frozen stiff in my throat. Instead of feelings of warmth, I shiver."
______________
You have hit on something that has been troubling me more and more in the past six months or so: how I now tend to identify or attach Jews I encounter to the Palestinian problem even though the encounter generally has nothing at all to do with Palestine. It's a very subtle thing, a tiny momentary thought or feeling, barely conscious. It's like a quick rebuke that flashes through my mind, a "how could you" as in how could you be discussing your accomplishments, how could be talking eloquently about the election and Obama, how could you be telling funny jokes, how could you be talking about the latest sports news, how could you..., how could you..., all while people who share your religious belief and who you have the closest cultural and kinship ties, continue to oppress another people in your name?
I've tried to suppress this reaction feeling it was the beginning or maybe a sign of latent anti-Semitism in me. At one point I was going to write about it hoping that Phil would publish it as a valuable look at the reaction of a non-Jew to what was happening inside himself. I decided not to, I guess because being a non-Jew in this discussion is to be alien, tolerated but not really welcome. But Danaa, what you have noticed in yourself, as a Jew, is now showing up in the non-Jews as well. I'm not sure if that is healthy or scary.
I began to talk around this issue in the earlier "If only one it was just one tweet" thread, also in response to a posting by Danaa (10/18, 11:58pm). My point was that the Palestine problem is not a Zionism problem, it is a Jewish problem and an American problem because the latter two groups enable, fund, equip, and protect the Zionists (Likud version) to do what they do (10/19, 2:19pm). My argument, which drew virtually no responses, was that there was a collective guilt attached to this issue (10/20, 1:21am).
So Danaa, once again you have framed a critical issue. Hopefully some useful dialogue will spring from it.
Agreed. I think it can be said that generalizations, on the whole, are generally useful.
W.Jones,
I thought I made it clear that Greta, because of stellar on-the-ground contributions toward actually helping the Gazans, deserved some slack, maybe a stern rebuke, but not banishment.
While there is a certain value and enjoyment in all the pontificating we are doing (myself included) I am beginning to feel like I'm part of a group of medieval monks debating the area available for angels on the point of a pin.
A comment I made earlier in this thread (10/20 1:21am) but on a separate string (see Danaa at 10/18 11:58pm and me at 10/19 2:19pm) seems apt:
___________________
"The problems in Palestine are not just a Zionist problem, they’re also a Jewish problem and an American problem. The degree of culpability may diminish with distance but it’s still there and it needs to be faced, not glossed over out of fear of crossing the line into the dreaded anti-Semitism.
The thousands of words devoted to this and the prior threads concerning the transgressions of Greta into the depths of anti-Semitism by a host of articulate commentators seem more than a little overwrought when compared to the collective guilt we all share for the reality of what is happening every day in Palestine.
Please excuse my untimely interruption. I’d forgotten how important it is to decide just how those deck chairs should be arranged before we all have to dress for the Captain’s dinner."
________________
While I enjoy the discourse and find much of it stimulating, at the end of the day I doubt it matters much in the lives of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, someone who actually has made a difference by a couple of decades of on-the-ground (and sea) efforts on their behalf, lies trampled and senseless at the feet of those who don't contribute a fucking thing other than lip service.
I think that is a sad commentary on all of us (with very few exceptions).
Oops, I'm out of time. Gotta put on the old tuxedo for the Captain's dinner. Sure seems foggy all of a sudden.
American,
I thought my humorous response made clear I did not believe you were intentionally misrepresenting me. I guess my attempt at humor escaped you and for that I apologize. To be clear, I do not think you are a "despicable scoundrel" but instead think you are "a (generally) likeable fellow" whose comments I enjoy reading.
As to your point, I would agree that generalizations (even accurate ones) can be misused (intentionally or negligently) to formulate and justify bad policies. But that does not mean that generalization itself is bad. It fact, it is an essential tool of life, logic, science, etc.
Walker,
Unlike the former, outrageous conclusion ("Jews are traitors") drawn from a hypothetically accurate factual statement (71 percent support Israel) the one you propound seems reasonable (although I don't see how yours could spring from the hypothetical statistic unless you equate support with campaign donations).
The point I was trying to make to Klaus was that an accurate factual basis for a generalization can still be used in ways that raise questions about the motive and ethics of the one making the generalization. I was using an extreme example to clarify my point about misuse of facts upon which generalizations are based.
American,
"Generalizing about zionist responsibility might be dumb but it isn’t anti semitic…unless you yourself are generalizing about the zionist movement at the time being approved of by all Jews."
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the likely possibility that an outrageously "anti-Zionist" statement is really a disguised anti-Semitic statement. While it is certainly true that most anti-Zionist statements are not motivated at all by anti-Semitism, IMHO the more outrageous the anti-Zionist statement the more likely there lurks a closet anti-Semite.
Having said that, I also think the anti-Semitism card is dangerously overused so I am very reluctant to apply that label except in the case of 'beyond the pale' types of commentary. I have no problem applying it in cases of blatant Holocaust denial or statements that Zionists caused the Holocaust, neither of which is anti-Semitic on its face.
American,
You cut off the first word of my sentence which was "ANTI-SEMITIC generalizations are unfair and should not be tolerated" thus telling a reader that I believe all generalizations are unfair.
I am sorely tempted to generalize and brand you as a despicable scoundrel but as you generally seem a likeable fellow and as the collateral damage from your misquote can quickly be repaired, I will temper my generalization by saying it seems more likely you just made a careless error.
That all generalizations contain exceptions seems obvious, but that does not mean all generalizations are inappropriate or flawed. Here's some Wikipedia examples of faulty generalization:
Inductive fallacies
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena.
The opposite, Slothful induction, is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence" when it is very likely not to be.
The overwhelming exception is related to the hasty generalization, but working from the other end. It is a generalization which is accurate, but tags on a qualification which eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume.
Biased sample – When the above happen because of (personal) bias of the sampling entity.
Misleading vividness is a kind of hasty generalization that appeals to the senses.
Statistical special pleading occurs when the interpretation of the relevant statistic is "massaged" by looking for ways to reclassify or requantify data from one portion of results, but not applying the same scrutiny to other categories.
W. Jones,
While I take your point, I think in the real world it is a matter of degree: The more outrageous the generalization, the greater or stronger the evidence confirming the suspicion. Some statements or generalizations about race, religion, etc. can be so outrageous that immediate denunciation is appropriate. Others might best be handled by further inquiry and dialogue.
In the example I cited, I wouldn't have much patience for further inquiry and dialogue with a person making such a statement. I suppose you could argue that the person might just be ignorant and not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism or Judeophobia.
In the case of Greta Berlin, it's not clear to me what her motivation in tweeting the offensive material was. Again, based on her stellar record in the I-P movement, I think she should have been rebuked but still entitled to the benefit of the doubt as two whether her unfortunate tweet was motivated by anti-Semitism, or was a negligent mistake or a momentary error in judgment. I guess I'm arguing for a balancing test.
While I might be willing to cut Greta some slack, under that test, the author of the offensive material certainly seems more than worthy of outright denunciation.
Klaus,
If one uses false data to make a generalization that would seem to be both unfair and unethical. I agree that factual statements are true or false (e.g. "71 percent of American Jews support Israel") but the generalization (or conclusion) that is chosen from that fact does go to motive and does raise ethical questions (e.g. "Therefore American Jews are traitors").
Good post Walker; the ability to generalize or speak in generalizations is important so long as the generalizations are fact-based, fair and reasonable (I wish I had a precise definition of what an acceptable generalization is). What's not acceptable is generalizations that are factually deficient and based on or motivated by racial, ethnic, religious prejudice which is the problem with anti-Semitic generalizations.
I think the problem lies in the dividing line between fair and unfair generalization. What appears to have gotten Greta Berlin in trouble was posting information on a topic right on the margin between fair and unfair (whether there was some Zionist cooperation with the Nazis--a topic I know almost nothing about). It is apparently fair to say there was some minor cooperation at the margins, it is certainly unfair (outrageous) to say that Zionists caused the holocaust. Saying so is pretty much prima facie evidence of anti-Semitic motivation.
By posting a connection to a link that unfairly (outrageously) generalized that minor connection into Zionist responsibility for the holocaust Greta impliedly tarred herself with the same anti-Semitic brush. Whether she posted this anti-Semitic link accidentally or negligently is hard to know. Her stellar credentials in the I-P movement would seem to entitle her to some slack and maybe a sharp rebuke, not instant banishment. On the other hand, if you willingly engage in dialogue about or with those who are prone to outrageous, anti-Semitic generalization you put yourself at risk of banishment by those who have little patience for such marginal discourse. Fairly or unfairly, we are judged by the company we keep.
To return to Walker's point, the ability to generalize in a fair and fact-based manner is critical. Anti-Semitic generalizations are unfair and should not be tolerated. But, just because one subset of generalizations are unfair and intolerable, does not mean all generalization is unacceptable.
Fair point M-P, it's important not to generalize the crimes of a few to an entire race, ethnic group, religion, nationality, etc. On the other hand, people in a democracy have some collective responsibility for the actions of their leaders, and the more egregious their actions the greater the responsibility. If we still permitted slavery in the US it would be difficult to argue that we didn't have some collective responsibility for permitting it. The fact that a significant minority might not support slavery wouldn't relieve us of some collective responsibility for its continuance.
I think Americans have more than a little collective responsibility for what is happening to the Palestinians, and American Jews even more so because what is happening is being done in their name by a country they support and feel a strong attachment and kinship to. When you live in a democracy you have a responsibility to be aware of what is being done by those you elect and those who act in your name. You can't hide behind the excuse that you didn't know or weren't aware of what was going on.
Collective guilt is slippery slope as your example above shows with regard to the vast majority of Muslims. But just because it can be misused or misapplied doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some situations.
And when it does, calling it that doesn't mean you are an anti-German or anti-American or anti-Semite bigot.
The problems in Palestine are not just a Zionist problem, they're also a Jewish problem and an American problem. The degree of culpability may diminish with distance but it's still there and it needs to be faced, not glossed over out of fear of crossing the line into the dreaded anti-Semitism.
The thousands of words devoted to this and the prior threads concerning the transgressions of Greta into the depths of anti-Semitism by a host of articulate commentators seem more than a little overwrought when compared to the collective guilt we all share for the reality of what is happening every day in Palestine.
Please excuse my untimely interruption. I'd forgotten how important it is to decide just how those deck chairs should be arranged before we all have to dress for the Captain's dinner.
Danaa,
Your comment about "The Jewish question" was spot on and deserved a lot more attention and discussion than it unfortunately got. The worse the Palestine situation gets, the more people will look toward Jewish culpability, not Zionist, not Israeli, but Jewish as well. That will be to some extent unfair, but I think it is happening and will only get worse. How can Jews escape culpability for an outrageous situation that was and is being committed in their name?
The parallel that comes to mind is Germany in the mid-30s. What were all those cultured, educated, productive, articulate, democratic middle class Germans thinking as the oppression before their eyes got worse and worse? It was easy: they ignored it because it was too painful to confront, or they minimized it, or created elaborate rationalizations for it. Couldn't they see they were on the precipice of barbarity? Apparently they weren't willing to look at that ghastly possibility and their descent into hell soon followed.
So who do we blame today for the holocaust? Certainly the Nazis, but also the German people, who, after all had elected Hitler and did virtually nothing to stop his growing oppression of their fellow Jewish citizens while there was still time.
Is it unfair to blame all Germans for the holocaust? Of course, but they certainly played a role in what happened and must share part of the blame. Does saying that make me an anti-German bigot? I don't think so. So will attributing part of the blame for what has happened to the Palestinians to inaction by American Jews make me an anti-Semite? I don't think so. I am certainly more and more disappointed at the self-imposed cluelessness of American Jews to the reality of what is happening in their name in Palestine, but that doesn't make me an anti-Semite.
I am reluctant to make analogies to Nazi Germany, particularly where Jews are concerned, but this particular analogy seems more and more appropriate as the situation in Palestine deteriorates and American Jews remain largely silent and uninvolved.
The question is whether there is still time for Jews to step up and put a stop to this situation. One of the great ironies or paradoxes in the current situation is that American Jews more than any other group, stood up and sacrificed for black Americans during our civil rights struggle in the 1960s. Where are those folks today? What can they possibly be thinking? How can they remain silent?
Thanks Danaa for your perceptive comment. Hopefully it can still get the attention and discussion it deserves.
Dan,
Don't think you're stupid; do think you have a habit of redefining an argument to suit your own conclusions. You also have an annoying habit of falling back on ad hominems. e.g. Phil and I drink the same kool-aid. While I appreciate the indirect compliment, Phil and I are not in the same league so its unfair to equate my arguments with his.
Containment was designed to avoid direct war with Soviet Union, which it did. China was tacked on when it became a nuclear power. Containment theory was also misused a lot. Kennan himself felt both Korea and Vietnam shouldn't have been fought because they had little to do with the goal of containing Soviet Union (Korean War) or China and Soviet Union (Vietnam War). I think Kennan would have agreed with you that a lot of the CIA-sponsored peripheral wars (e.g. Central America) were unnecessary but some of that was generated by post Cuban Missile crisis fears (hysteria).
As to Iran, not sure how you could have any more hot wars around it than we have already created, both of which have ended up strengthening Iran. Containment in terms of Iran means accepting its right to have nuclear weapons while making clear any use would bring annihilation, rather than preemptively attacking its nuclear weapons potential. This is essentially the same policy used with Soviet Union and China even though there were discussions internally about taking preemptive action.
Our nuclear weapons containment policy worked for Cold War adversaries, and would work equally well with Iran.
"Containment" refers to US strategy during Cold War vis a vis Soviet Union and China first described/recommended by George Kennan. Worked pretty well I'd say in terms of avoiding wars although fact that both sides possessed nukes probably added a lot of stability and actually prevented some potential wars (Cuba, Egypt/Israel).
Krauss,
Outstanding post. Great analysis.
I admit I am not up to speed or as down in the weeds as some of you on this. My main area of inquiry is whether there really is first amendment protection for this type of speech. It seems more like intentional incitement to me. Hopefully I'll get some time over the weekend to do a bit of 1A research.
As to this thread, I heard an eye witness interview this morning on NPR. This woman described what she saw as first an angry demonstration in front of the consulate. Then she heard some gunfire from the consulate, then some return gunfire. She said that at that point lots of the male participants went home to get their big guns (including a few machine guns and some RPGs). She said the problem in Benghazi (and perhaps most of Libya) is that a lot of guys found weapons during the revolution and have kept them. She also talked about different groups, like Salafi, etc. being better organized, but other smaller ones not so much, but still very well-armed from warehouse-seized weapons.
This sounds to me more like a demonstration/riot turning into a full-on battle when everyone went home and brought back their big stuff, not some well-planned al Qaeda-like op. This makes more sense to me particularly since Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation resulting from a fire.
So, my preliminary theory is the above rather than dark conspiracy/al Qaeda, etc. We shall see in the days ahead.
MRW: "Wolfowitz was in it up to his ears."
The problem is that your above cites do not connect Wolfowitz to Clean Break. As far as I can tell, he wasn't involved and did not sign off on that document or that group. While he was involved in PNAC, that group justified and promoted the invasion on the grounds that it enhanced US interests (I can find no reference to Israel in PNAC). True, Wolfowitz was promoting the invasion of Iraq from day one in the Bush administration. But, was he doing so because he felt it was good for US interests or for Israel's or for both? I suspect both because of his strong ties to Israel. But I can't put him in the Pearle, Feith, Wurmser camp as strident Likudnik neocons because I have no evidence he was involved in Clean Break. I think that is an important distinction when you attempt to "connect the dots" between Israel and the Iraq invasion.
I see Wolfowitz as another whiz kid jerk like his predecessor Robert McNamara. Both so bright that they felt their opinions were immune from error and any opponents beyond contempt. Wolfowitz played a key role in structuring the invasion and preventing the use of sufficient troops to be able to successfully occupy Iraq. His savaging of Shinseki who told Congress it was insane to invade and occupy with so few troops was one of the great blunders of that war, second only to the decision to invade in the first place.
So, I agree Wolfowitz "in it up to his ears" but I don't agree that he was necessarily part of the Clean Break crowd. At least I've seen no evidence of that.
Keith, Bob, Toivo, Krauss, Colin, et al:
There is a tendency to look for a single cause for the Iraq war. Different players such as Big Oil, Likudnik Neocons, etc. had their own agendas and motives for wanting the Iraq War, and each made attempts at using their influence to insure that the decision for war was made.
Even though we know the Likudnik neocons came up with the original war on Iraq idea (see Clean Break) which was to promote Israel's power and influence, and just because many of the upper level people in the Bush administration were either middle of the road neocons or strident Likudnik neocons, that does not lead to the conclusion that the war on Iraq happened because of the pro Israel Likudnik neocons.
The ultimate and critical question is why did Bush decide to approve the war. What motivated Bush? Was it a desire for Iraqi oil, was it the belief that democratizing Iraq would cause all the ME dominos to fall in our favor, was it to protect Israel, was it revenge for the assassination attempt on his father, was it some freudian desire to eclipse his father's accomplishments, or was it a combination of all or some of the above or some totally different reason? Who knows. I doubt Bush would have done it just to enhance Israel interests, after all he refused to go along with Israel's desire to bomb Iran in his second term. I doubt it was to gain ME oil since invading Saudi Arabia would have been a lot easier and got us a lot more oil. I suspect he probably bought into the democratizing Iraq argument and maybe felt the other reasons were icing on the cake.
From what I've read, I think the neocons, particularly the Likudnik version, had the most direct influence on Bush. I suspect they knew they needed a compelling reason for him to decide to go to war and Israel as a reason was not going to cut it. So, they concocted one or more other reasons that they could sell him on, like the democratization/domino theory. But ultimately, that's all speculation on my part.
I think it is a mistake to confuse neocon, and particularly pro-Israel Likudnik neocon motives and influence with causation. I think there was a mixture of motives among the major players who were pushing for the war and trying to convince Bush to pull the trigger: Wolfowitz probably was influenced by his Israel ties (but he wasn't involved in Clean Break and he seemed pretty moderate on the I-P issue); Cheney and Rumsfeld probably saw oil as a big reason but more likely wanted to do it because they thought it would enhance US interests and because the US was the only superpower and damn well could do it.
The real shame is that nobody who knew what a disaster it would be (and there were many) came forward to fall on their sword, go public, resign, and tell why. Colin Powell comes to mind but maybe he drank some of the kool-aid along the way.
Fortunately, everybody has learned a valuable lesson and we will never make such a disastrous mistake again.....
Kathleen,
I think it was far more than "major and primary" force. I think it was foundational. It starts with Clean Break which is all about enhancing Israel's power and influence in the Middle East. It then morphs into PNAC which was a major neocon move where the motive is supposedly to enhance US interests. Ultimately, the major pro-Likud neocons end up controlling all or most of the shots in the Bush administration, including the three originators of Clean Break, Pearle, Feith and Wurmser, plus Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby, Cheney and Rumsfeld, et al. So the connection between enhancing Israel's power and influence and the Iraq invasion is not just "major", it's foundational. The other reasons or justifications all came later.
The key question is what motivated the post 9/11 decisionmakers (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld)to invade Iraq. I suspect it was the later justifications (e.g. a democratic Iraq will cause all the dominos to fall) not Israel that motivated the actual decision to go to war.
It's also important to note that this was not a "Jewish" show or plan. It was the pro-Likud, Greater Israel, branch of the neocons that came up with the idea then managed it until a clueless Bush and 9/11 gave them the shot to try out their hare-brained scheme.
What is SSCI (Phase I and Phase II)? Do you have a link?
re: //ColinWright: tokyobk says: “The most interesting article I read about Mohamed Atta, leader of the Sept 11 attacks, was about his career as an architect and city planner." Colin replies: “This does shed new light on the attack. Aesthetically, he just couldn’t stand the Twin Towers.... "The hatred for our freedom was only a pretext."//
Colin, your "hatred for our freedom" comment troubled me. Do you actually believe Atta, el al, were motivated by a hatred of our freedoms? How about hatred for our military, diplomatic and economic support for Israel in its seven decade campaign to gain all of Palestine for itself? Per the 9-11 Commission investigation, virtually every Islamic terrorist act against us, foreign and domestic, for the past several decades, has been expressly motivated by the latter, never the former. The former ("they hate us for who we are...") provides a basis for likudnik hasbarists to claim Israel and the US are fellow victims/allies in the war on terror. Bush, unfortunately, bought into that narrative post 9-11. Then the 9-11 Commission deliberately avoided any finding or conclusion re overwhelming evidence of the direct connection between Islamic terrorism and Israel's anti-Palestinian actions and US support of those actions. Not a minor oversight, even if you were being ironic.
With all due respect, that is kind of a cheap shot against the LA Times. Its coverage of the the IP issue is an order of magnitude better than either the NYT or WP. The fact that it published an op-ed from Israel's president reflects balancing viewpoints not an adoptation by the Times of Peres' views. Here's some recent examples of articles, op-ed and editorials published in the LA Times. The first two are Peled's op-ed on the consequences of the 6 Day War, a hasbara letter in response, and then a long reply by Peled to the hasbarite. There is also an excellent review of Peter Beinart's book. The Times Washington bureau chief, David Lauter, and Times reporter Edmund Saunders do some very good work. The Times seemed to turn a corner last year on the I-P issue as have many of its readers as reflected in the many letters opposing Israel's actions. I've been surprised at the Times independence on this issue as Los Angeles has a huge and vocal Jewish population from which voices of dissent are rarely heard.
LA TIMES ON ISRAEL
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to opinion.latimes.com
The Ilan Pappe speech at UCLA ("The False Paradigm of Parity and Partition") that I referred to above (sorry about the double posting) can be found at the link below. It is well worth listening to as he shows that Israel was making detailed preparations for the occupation of the West Bank two years before the war and accelerated those preparations in the months just preceding the war. This included the establishment of military law, division into districts each with a chief administrator who had unfettered power. Before the 1967 war had even started, Israel had appointed all the officials who were to administer the West Bank.
link to international.ucla.edu
Thanks for the link Henry.
Los Angeles has become more tolerant of voices critical of Israel’s apartheid-like treatment of the Palestinians. I attended a speech by Ilan Pappe at UCLA a few months back that packed an auditorium most of whom were in agreement with his position. Even the Los Angeles Times now encourages contrary views on Israeli policy, both in its own editorials and in its op-ed section. Just this morning the Times printed an op-ed by Miko Peled, “Six Days in Israel, 45 Years ago: My Israeli general father knew the 1967 war was an opportunity for peace” showing that Israel’s own government records demonstrate that it chose to start the 1967 war to acquire more territory and that it had no fear whatsoever of Egypt’s military.
link to latimes.com
Peled just published a new book, The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.
Thanks for the link Henry.
Los Angeles has become more tolerant of voices critical of Israel’s apartheid-like treatment of the Palestinians. I attended a speech by Ilan Pappe at UCLA a few months back that packed an auditorium most of whom were in agreement with his position. Even the Los Angeles Times now encourages contrary views on Israeli policy, both in its own editorials and in its op-ed section. Just this morning the Times printed an op-ed by Miko Peled, “Six Days in Israel, 45 Years ago: My Israeli general father knew the 1967 war was an opportunity for peace” showing that Israel’s own government records demonstrate that it chose to start the 1967 war to acquire more territory and that it had no fear whatsoever of Egypt’s military.
link to latimes.com
Peled just published a new book, The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.
I don't get this. Why is there no showing of this important movie anywhere south of San Jose? Did Southern California fall into the ocean? 60 percent of California's population resides in Southern California; 22 million people. Hollywood, the film industry and the freaking Oscars are located in Southern California. Two thirds of California's Jewish population live in Southern California. You would think the promoters of this film would want to show it in an area which has the greatest potential influence on whether it gets considered for the Oscars.
What am I missing here?
Re: ToivoS says:
May 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm
"Azerbaijan is playing a very dangerous game."
You've got that right but the threat is also from the Russians who are saying they will invade through Georgia to Azerbaijan to put a stop to Israeli meddling in the Caucasus once and for all. Israel could get a very bloody nose from the Russians and the US would be largely powerless to intervene. Meanwhile, the clueless Azeris promote rock concerts apparently not realizing the danger their new Israeli friends are putting them in.
RoHa says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“which is flaunting and violating modern international laws it agreed to abide by. Ironically, Israel flaunts and violates international laws ”
I don’t see Israel flaunting international laws, but it certainbly flouts them often enough.
1. FLAUNT
- link to merriam-webster.com
to display or obtrude oneself to public notice . 2. : to wave or flutter showily ...
2. FLOUT–
link to merriam-webster.com - Similar
to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn . intransitive verb. : to indulge in scornful behavior. See Usage Discussion at flaunt. — flout•er ...
3. FUCK –
As in Dumb: Person clueless about the Queen’s English but who likes to flaunt his impressive vocabulary.
I've only been using flaunt for flout for about 30 years. Live and learn. The wonders of Mondoweiss.
Thanks for the attempted defense eljay, but his was an inadvertent typing error, while mine was lazymindedness.
Please, enough of the guilt for the acts of our forefathers.
Slavery was legal at one time. Pushing indiginous people out of the way of modern "progress" was acceptable back then (though not to everyone). Does the logic of "others did it before so we can do it too" provide justification for Israelis to subject Palestinians to a holocaust, to slavery, or to a future mass ethnic cleansing?
Of course not.
More importantly, as a direct result of what happened to the Jews and others during and prior to WWII, a set of international laws were set down in writing to prevent such actions in the future: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which were signed by Israel but violated repeatedly since.
What is being judged here are the actions of a modern nation, created by the United Nations, which is flaunting and violating modern international laws it agreed to abide by. Ironically, Israel flaunts and violates international laws created because of the oppression of Jews and intended to prevent future oppression of Jews and others who might be subject to oppression (like the Palestinians).
Whoa,
This guy is outstanding. Former republican who has all the major issues, including I-P, absolutely nailed. I would vote for and support him in a second. Where did he come from and why haven't we heard about him before? Stupid question.
Donald,
I too was a bit put off by your original post as it seemed far too broad a brush for MW which I find pretty temperate compared to most blogs. I think the existing moderator/censor system works pretty well as it stops the way over the top comments by those whoseviews are extreme, or whose emotions are getting away from them. Even so, once in awhile comments venture into the cringe factor zone, even a couple on this thread, so I know what you mean. The problem is where do you draw the line. Some of the examples you cite demonstrate that problem:
You want to exclude comments about attacking Israel militarily yet Zbiginew Brezenski (sp?) said that the US had the right to shoot down Israeli aircraft that were en route to attacking Iran. He was criticized and he recanted a bit, but his point was well-taken. If the US thought an Israeli attack on Iran would create a monumental mess against US vital national security interests, it, hypothetically could take such an action. The same could hold true for Israel's Samson option. It might also hold true if an extreme far right Israeli government decided to use force to evict every Palestinian from Israel and the territories. So, why would you want to ban that topic?
I also think some of your subsequent criticisms of American's explanation for his comments regarding the hypothetical ability of one American boomer submarine to successfully attack Israel were unfair and taken out of context. Some of our MW commenters are edgier than others; American's comments tend to be pretty edgy at times but are also thought provoking.
I also take issue with your anti-Semitism limits. That charge has been so misused and overused that we should be very hesitant to employ it ourselves. Much of the time loose language is the problem (e.g. using Jew instead of Zionist, etc.). I commented recently on that problem and was critical of Phil and someone else for their use of loose language with regard to American Jews and Zionism. Again, some of the thread discussions do get into the cringe factor zone but weak comments get hammered and the blatant ones censored.
My main complaint has to do with important threads getting hijacked by extraneous comments (like attacks on our Hasbara trolls, or 9-11 diversions). I know it is necessary to contest Hasbara nonesense, and I know the 9-11 subject is entitled to be heard, but good, important threads often get destroyed by the diversions. I wish I had a solution. I no longer think censorship should apply for either of the above.
Finally, I agree that as Mondoweiss becomes more mainstream it is important to protect its image and prevent attacks against it based on over-the-top comments. Phil, Adam and most of us want Mondoweiss to be influential so protecting its image is critical to gaining greater influence. But again, where to draw the line is the problem. I personally don't feel that the current comment screening guidelines need to be changed. At most, the screeners might be directed to issue warnings and require comment rewrites for ad hominem attacks, and require more civility for those who tend to excess.
This particular thread (now over 250 comments!) is a good case in point. It was a very good read with lots of valuable discussion. I wouldn't censor a word from it even though a few of the comments made me cringe a bit.
Donald, while I didn't agree with your article, I admire your courage in posting it and hanging in there to do battle to the end, and even modifying your beliefs along the way. Most important, your article allowed us to thoroughly address a very important topic.
Gil Maguire
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't dignify what happened in Gaza as 'war'. What happened in Gaza was more akin to genocide than war. What happened in Gaza, as reported by Judge Goldstone, was the wanton massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and mass killing of civilians with virtually no opposition. It was not war in any justifiable sense, but an example of wanton violation of the laws of war. It was not in any sense a proportional response to desultory and largely ineffective rocket attacks by militia groups, but instead was a deliberate attempt to use massive force against Gazan civilians to teach the entirely of Gazans a lesson. In short, in revenge for ineffective resistence by a few Gazan militia groups, all of Gaza's Palestinians needed to pay a severe price. Collective punishment of civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. It continues to this day.
"Mr. Santorum, Hitler conquered France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Norway. Are you saying Britain and the US should have minded their own business because 'might makes right'?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, since you apparently are unconcerned about the oppression of Palestinians by the Israelis as that is just an internal matter for Israelis, does that mean German oppression of the Jews, including their near extermination in the holocaust was also just an internal matter for the Germans?" "Mr. Santorum, doesn't your argument of 'might makes right' justify the holocaust?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, since you apparently believe Israel has the right to conquer neighboring states, would you extend that right to Russia and China? Should we just stand by if Russian decides to reconquer and reclaim the various countries now independent from the old Soviet Union?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, do you believe Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians are somehow inferior and unworthy of states of their own, and therefore can be justifiably conquered by Christian and Jewish countries?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, you and many American Jews believe they have a right to take Arab land because of their claim that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews. Does that mean you believe that Italian Americans have a right to claim part of Italy as their ancient homeland? What about Irish Americans?"
Obviously these responses need honing, but hopefully, in the coming debates, moderators and other participants will be prepared to better respond to Mr. Santorum's simplistic but very effective argument.
Avi,
Why is it you are always so quick with the ad hominems? On MW ad hominem argument is rarely seen, except by you, and frequently by you. Are you insecure? I suggest you count the ad hominems you have tossed out on just this thread alone.
Why do you waste your obvious fine intellect in creating tortured "mental exercises" to criticize me which, I think not coincidentally ended with a scurilous accusation of antisemitism (you could have called me a closet Neocon or a mental midget)?
Should I call you a bozo or a hack for your describing the NORAD deployment to Alaska incorrectly as Operation Able Danger? I suppose I could but it probably was just an honest mistake so I let it pass. If I had chosen to respond it would have been with the correct name of the operation and a link.
Why do you feel a compulsion to destroy with ad hominems anyone on MW who makes a weak argument or, god forbid, has the termerity to disagree with you? Do you think it enhances your stature?
It doesn't. Lighten up for god's sake.
American,
My main problem is I don't like to see important threads hijacked by 9-11. It's like an off-topic diversion that frequently replaces the subject the original thread was about. I have no objection to separate threads in which the entirety of 9-11 can be discussed. I thought I had made that clear in my 5:56pm comment above: "I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. " So, I am not trying to ban the topic, just prevent thread hijacking. Fortunately, this particular thread has managed to keep going (whether Zionist Neocons caused the war in Iraq). That's not usually the case.
I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say "what does it do for me..." I think what happened was pretty clear and we all saw it; Two planes crashed into WTC 1&2, both buildings burned for awhile, then each collapsed starting from the upper floors and proceeding downward. The original explanations seemed valid to me but when I saw there was some controversy, I again became interested. I've read government reports, several detailed articles about the various theories, listened to some of the transcripts, etc. I've discussed most of this in great detail in earlier threads where the 9-11 issue arose.
I hold no brief for the government in this; there were a lot of mistakes made leading up to 9-11 that were avoidable. I also don't think all the billions spent since have made us safer. Instead, we've given up some key civil rights on the altar of homeland security. That is a huge loss.
I accept the results of the 9-11 investigation, including the NIST reports on WTC1-2 and WTC7 because they seem plausible and were done by both government structural engineers as well as a team of very distinguished engineering consultants. I've looked at the counterarguments and I haven't been impressed. For instance, people typically say that WTC 7 suffered no damage and had only a small fire so it shouldn't have come down. That's not true. WTC7 suffered massive lower floor damage from debris from the WTC collapse closest to it (about 100 feet away). The small fires that initially started grew much larger and burned most of the day unfought due to the lack of water pressure and the fact that the building had been totally evacuated. The collapse was predicted by one of the fire chiefs on site. A major US engineering magazine published a long article describing why the building collapsed. NIST published a full study of the collapse of WTC7 including an analysis of whether it could have been brought down by controlled demolition. These explanations (and there are more from a variety of credible sources, including the private sector) seem genuine and valid to me.
Now compare that with the alternative explanations, the government conspiracy theories. I would have to believe that a major portion of the US government, including the executive branch, the FAA, Norad, the CIA and even the Israelis (let along private controlled demolition companies, the NYPD, and countless others) somehow concocted a monumental false flag operation to bring down the towers to justify an invasion of Iraq. To accomplish this they would have had to send huge teams of controlled demolition guys into all three buildings over several weeks in which they wired hundreds of floors, opened up huge sections of drywall to gain access to beams that need cutting and weakening, placed massive amounts of demolitions, etc. -- all without the knowedge of the thousands of people working in and using these buildings which are occupied 24-7. Miraculously, not one of these thousands, many or most of whom survived, has come forward expressing their concern about all the work being done in the 10 years since the 9-11. Nor have any of the thousands of government workers in a wide variety of agencies come forward to reveal this conspiracy.
I could go on and on as I have in previous threads you can review. It simply doesn't add up. This becomes immediately obvious if you attempt to create a complete factual scenario for the conspiracy. I urge you to try it. You will end up with a scenario so bizarre that even Hollywood wouldn't touch it. The problem is nobody on the conspiracy side wants to do that. Instead they pick and choose different events and offer a counter-factual explanation: Like WT7, NORAD, free fall, no steel buildings ever destroyed by fire, etc. When plausible, factually consistent explanations for each of these is offered, the explanations are ignored, or ridiculed and then the same lame argument are repeated, again and again. Again, its like arguing religion.
Another example (my last): Ari and others allege that NORAD was intentionally weakened on 9-11 by an exercise that transferred most of our interceptor aircraft to Canada and Alaska. In fact, it was not an exercise but a deployment in response to a Russian long range bomber exercise being conducted in the arctic area. The deployment was immediately cancelled once 9-11 started and even the Russians cancelled their own excercise as well.
The aircraft tranferred were not ones used for NORAD US air defense. Pre 9-11 NORAD kept 14 aircraft (F16s, I believe) in ready status to protect the entire US. None of these were sent north and all were available on 9-11 (they are manned by air force active reserve units). More importantly, finding and shooting down the 4 hijacked airliners was a near impossible task for a variety of reasons. First, there was very little warning. second, the plane transponders were turned off making identification by ATC almost impossible. Finally, it takes quite awhile from the time an emergency is identified to notify FAA, who notifies the military, who then scrambles the jet which then has to find the aircraft in question. A good example in the Payne Stewart incident in which his plane lost oxygen, killing all aboard, but the plane continued on autopilot until the fuel ran out. This plane had its transponder on yet the first interception didn't occur for well over an hour.
All of this is readily available in various government reports and transcripts. Its no mystery and there was no NORAD conspiracy to divert intercceptor aircraft away from the US.
So, I hope this helps explain my position as well as my frustration and anger when forced to readdress issues or claims that have previously been dealt with. This is not an example of two competing scientific claims. Instead, it is more akin to attempting to defend evolution in the face of claims by creationists. You can never win the argument because it is a religion to them.
I made it clear at the beginning of this 9-11 discussion that I was not going to repeat all the 9-11 arguments I had made in prior 9-11 threads and I referred people to those threads which are easy to search. Yet, I venture to say none of those who have expressed their anger at me for my views have actually done that. Instead, I've been labeled arrogant, condescending and, incredibly, even anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic? Incredible!
So there you have it. Earlier in this thread I offered to continue the dialogue but only if I was first presented with a complete alternative theory of what happened, including all the evidence in support of that theory. I believe anonymous is taking me up on that offer. Feel free to join in. I will respond as time permits.
Gil Maguire
Pulling out the old anti-semite card eh Avi? You're a real class act.
Avi_G, Shingo, Chauncy and Anonymouscomments:
See my response to MRW and others above at Jan.2, 1:51am. In any trial, both sides are required to provide their full version of the truth and all the evidence in support of their version. The jury then gets to weigh the evidence and decide which version is "the truth".
We have the government version of the 9-11 truth and all their evidence. What we don't have is your full version of what happened on 9-11 and all the evidence you think supports your version.
It's time to lay it all out for us; start to finish. Enough of the sniping and nit picking. If you think you got a conspiracy, tell us the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.
Gil Maguire
MRW (Avi and others):
I've posted quite a bit on the 9-11 conspiracy theories on prior threads, and spent a lot of time researching the various claims. While many of the claims sound valid at first glance, they all fall apart on detailed scrutiny of the various reports and investigation of 9-11. In other words, there are reasonable explanations given by trained investigators, structural engineers, etc. for each of the apparent anomalies.
If you want to see more detail about why I don't buy the conspiracies you'll need to check my prior postings. I'm too exhausted by this topic to discuss it any further as I've found that any report or site I provide as evidence for my belief is immediately ridiculed as flawed or tainted by the conspirators. In essence, there really isn't any useful dialogue between the two sides. That's why I see it as similar to trying to argue religion, and why I no longer will participate in the futile exercise of trading sources.
I think the main problem in the debate is that the 9-11 investigation, which included highly detailed reports on every aspect by NIST engineers and many outside consultants, provides an explanation that the conspiracy theories can snipe selectively at. No amount of factual rebuttal seems to stick. The same bogus claims about WT7, NORAD, etc. keep coming back, as they have in this thread.
I place the onus on those who claim conspiracy to offer their own full explanation and timeline of what they think really happened. Not something vague like a 'false flag' operation, but something detailed that provides counter explanations for each of the parts or events of 9-11 they dispute.
For instance, try to explain in detail how all three buildings could have been torn apart and wired for 'controlled demolition' without anybody's knowledge. Try to explain how the conspirators managed to crash two planes into the buildings without screwing up the controlled demolition wiring job and charges. When you actually make the effort to lay out the details necessary to make the conspiracy work, it is mind boggling in its complexity and sheer fantasy in terms of explanation.
So, if you want to make the effort to provide your complete theory of how it all came down (pun intended) on 9-11, from start to finish, have at it. I promise to review it with a neutral and careful eye so long as you first provide me with your complete version of the 9-11 event, and all the evidence that supports your version.
Gil Maguire
p.s. The usual response to my suggestion is: "No, no, we don't know what really happened; all we want is a new investigation." That, of course, is nothing more than a convenient cop out. If you are claiming conspiracy the onus is on you to provide a complete version and all the evidence that supports your claim.
Well, the obvious reason would be that since the fires only engulfed a few floors but the entire buildings collapsed, all the paper from those unburned floors would be present throughout the debris. That analysis required no research and less than 2 seconds of brainpower, diminished though it might be.
MRW, you are a bright guy whose comments and opinions on IP issues I greatly admire. Why is it that you couldn't immediately see the flaw in your paper debris question? Answer: cognitive dissonance. You want so desperately to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy that your brain is closed to the obvious flaws in your own reasoning.
Avi_G and others, whose opinions on MW IP issues I genuinely respect, have, to my horror, also quafted deeply from the Kool Aid in the 9-11 conspiracy chalice. What is with you guys? It is garbage, pure and simple. You can easily find the flaws and reasonable responses to all the 9-11 conspiracy claims on the web at a wide variety of websites, government and non. But, you must be willing to start your inquiry with an open mind and read both sides' claims with balance.
Would that you would do so my friend. It distresses me deeply to see good minds burying themselves in the endless machinations of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. We at MW have far more important fish to fry.
teta mother me: "The fact that one of Rumsfeld’s first political tasks involved writing a letter to Robert Kennedy’s DoJ Foreign Agents Registration Act group on behalf of “valued constituents” questioning published statements about the basis for determining whether American Zionist Committee would be required to register as foreign agent, suggests Rumsfeld has long had close connection to Jewish constituents.
He attended a seminar of Milton Friedman’s and was influenced by Friedman — and also Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz, as noted above."
The Rumsfeld letter to RFK could be read either way. It looks to me like he is questioning whether DOJ is about to bend to pressure from Jewish groups not to require FARA registration. Remember, this was 1963 when anti-Semitism was much more mainstream and overt, particularly among WASPs like Rumsfeld.
I also don't think Rumsfeld's prior connections to Friedman, Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz are unusual or nefarious in themselves. Rumsfeld is a Republican conservative who would be expected to have connections to these guys.
Because someone has connections to Jews having influence does not necessarily mean that he or she is under their influence or control. Moreover, even if Rumsfeld was influenced by the economic teachings of Friedman, so what? Friedman may have been Jewish but that had nothing to do with his economic theories. Friedman was a very accomplished economist, period.
I think it is important to be careful of how we frame these issues. It is very easy to slip from attempting to find a connection between Zionist Neocons (or 'Greater Israel' Neocons) and US foreign policy, to finding "connections" between US Jews and US foreign policy. The former is a valid inquiry; the latter crosses the line and can bring on justifiable claims of bordeline anti-semitism.
I think this usually happens inadvertently. For instance in teta mother me's comment he sees relevance in Rumsfeld's connection to Wohlstetter and Friedman. Even Phil, in his earlier comment, saw relevance in Cheney's connection to AEI and Bernard Lewis. Yet, I don't see how any of these "Jewish" connections are anything more than coincidental and normal considering how accomplished and prevalent Jews are in many professions.
If our tentative working hypothesis is that the power and influence of Zionist Neocons may have caused the US to invade Iraq to further the interests of Israel even though it was clearly against US vital interests to do so, then we should limit our inquiry to Zionist Neocons, not Jewish economists, Jewish nuclear weapons experts, Jews on Team B, Jews on First, or Jews in general.
There was an interview of someone who wrote a book about Chalabi's influence on Bob Edwards weekend on NPR yesterday. He claims Chalabi was the guy that convinced the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Interesting interview. He claims Chalabi told the Bushies to invade but not occupy and that he would be able handle the rest using the existing Iraqi army.
Phil,
This confuses me. I think of AEI as a conservative think tank that has strong connections to the neocons, but not as one directly connected to AIPAC and Israel as say W.... (I can't remember the full acronym--WIMEA or something). I would expect Cheney and Rumsfeld to be adherents of AEI and Bernard Lewis, but none of this makes the connection to PNAC or a desire on the part of Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Bush) to start wars to enhance Israel's interests.
I guess my point is that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush may have just been US foreign policy GOP hardliners who, still basking in the easy victory in Kuwait, decided to push US power and influence into the middle east militarily. That's Pillar's view. Still, the heavy presence of Zionist Neocons in the Bush administration suggests they may have had a major, influential role in guiding that policy. I'd like to know why and how they were given that role, and by whom.
I think you are spot on about the role of money plays in this mess, but I'm doubtful money bought the support of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why did they ally themselves so closely with Wolfowitz/Feith/Wurmser/et al? Why did they buy into such a risky move as destroying Iraq when it was clear that tribal chaos would follow and the Shia would likely triumph. Saddam was a bulwark against Iran. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld supported elder Bush's decision not to invade Iraq after Kuwait for those very reasons. Why the total conversion in just 10 years.?
Then, after the total disaster of Iraq, the new Obama administration is salted with the same neoconish true believers and anyone with a valid independent view (such as Chas Freeman) is kept out. Why, after that disaster do they still have any influence, let alone the ability to draw us into a new war?
Truly baffling.
MRW,
Have the engineers that conducted these tests now concluded that WTC 1-3 came down for reasons unrelated to fire and impact? There are real world examples of other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to fire. See the link I provided in a subsequent comment on this thread. There's a whole section devoted to that subject.
Once again we have a great debate about an important IP issue hijacked by the 9-11 conspiracy crowd. While I don't begrudge these folks' right to believe in this nonsense, I do object to their ruining the debate concerning the thread IP topic at hand. Typically, once the 9-11 conspiracy talk starts, most of those engaged in the thread's IP topic leave in disgust.
I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. There are loads of sites concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy--both pro and con. The proper place for that debate is on those sites, not MW which was created to discuss IP topics.
Don't waste your time responding to this post with all the bogus arguments about why there was a conspiracy. I've addressed those at great length as have others more competent than me. See my MW comment history for examples of my own and others' responses.
A good website to review if you are interested in getting up to speed on this topic is:
link to debunking911.com
However, I warn you that no amount of debate will dissuade the 9-11 conspiracy true believers who carry their torch with true religious fervor. Read my comments on this topic in prior threads and you will quickly see the problem.
I think you are conflating two different issues: The threat of Iraqi WMD was used and promoted to sell the American public (and Congress) on the Iraq war but it was not the motive for the war. The separate and key question/issue in my mind is why Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush bought into the Iraq war concept; what was their motive? I suspect 'imposing democracy on Iraq to save/reform the ME' was likely the motive they believed in but I also think they may have been sold on that motive by the Neocons as a ruse to hide a more questionable motive of getting the US to take out Iraq to enhance Israel's interests. Admittedly, I don't have any direct evidence of that and I may well be wrong, but I would at least like to see that possibility explored and discussed.
As to the Iraq national Congress/Chalabi connection, as you yourself say, it also grew out of the PNAC Perle/Wolfowitz connection and was really just another neocon tool used to sell the public and congress on the need for an Iraq invasion.
The real question in my mind is how did Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush get sold on an idea that was so clearly contrary to US vital interests, and who did the selling? It may well have been nothing more than a continuation of a century or more of the American ideal of 'saving the world for democracy' (Pillar's ‘assertive nationalists’ view of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush) but I suspect the same phenomenal neocon skills and efforts aimed at selling the war to the American public and Congress, were also first used to sell the war to the key US political players who would have to make the final calls.
Interesting debate except for Mr. Kampeas' assertion that the debate itself is anti-semitic because it enhances or furthers 'toxic myths attached to the Jews'. Since this debate is not about 'the Jews' but rather about a very small subset of Israeli and American Zionist Jews, perhaps best described by Andrew Sullivan as the 'Greater Israel' crowd, it would be nice if Mr. Kampeas acknowledged that the debate is not between just him and the antisemites, but perhaps also between people of good faith some of whom disagree with him.
I and most of the commenters at MW are neither antisemites nor 'fellow travelers' of antisemites. While the likes of the David Dukes of this world may gleefully adopt or latch onto the questions I and others raise, that does not mean that all those who raise these questions are motivated by antisemitism. Mr. Kampeas is too bright a guy not to know the difference.
P. Weiss: "... and in this instance, the idea that was relentlessly promoted by the neoconservatives was the claim that by imposing democracy by force on an Arab nation of importance, democracy would take hold across the region. This was a very powerful and very stupid idea. It held sway."
This 'mposing democracy' argument could also have been a ruse to conceal the less palatable motive of getting the US to take out a major enemy of Israel. Certainly the Zionist Neocons knew that Cheney/Rumsfeld and Bush as well as the non-Zionist Neocons couldn't be sold on the latter argument so perhaps they crafted and promoted the 'imposing democracy' argument or motive as it better fed into the egos of the hard-line Republicans and Scoop Jackson Democrats.
I think it is important to remember that the 'take out Iraq' concept grew out of the 1996 "Clean Break" strategy which was devised by the Zionist Neocons to 'secure the realm' of ISRAEL, not protect the US. That this strategy then morphed into US policy and that the major designers of 'Clean Break' ended up in key positions in the Bush administration helping to influence and instigate this policy is no mere coincidence in my mind.
The following is excerpted from my comment in the earlier thread on this topic, "You don’t write, you don’t call (Ron Kampeas version)":
Paul Pillar, in his new book, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, does a pretty thorough analysis of the motivations behind the Iraq war. He shows how the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from day 1 in its first staff meetings. He also shows how neocons use faulty intelligence on WMD as a smokescreen for their true motives which preceded the whole intelligence stove piping games. In other words, the motive for the war was never based on the supposed existance and threat of Iraqi WMD, but instead was aimed at recreating Iraq as a democratic show horse to undermine ME totalitarianism, and to assert and demonstrate US power to potential adversaries (according to Pillar). Or, if you follow the trail from 'Clean Break', the motive may have been to protect Israel and enhance its interests.
Pillar thoroughly covers the Zionist Neocon connections: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Kristol, et al, from PNAC through the Bush administration, but then fails to connect the dots and concludes:
“Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator in the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role. Images of a foreign problem such as Iraq that are most important to U.S. interests are not necessarily those most important to the interests of Israel or any other foreign state. Thus, some policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the postinvasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart.” (p. 24; Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition).
Pillar seems to feel that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush came up with the Iraq invasion on their own and that the Zionist Neocons had little direct influence:
“But the concept did not solely belong to the neocons. It probably was a major motivation for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who are best labeled not as neoconservatives, but instead, according to one study of policymaking in the Bush administration, as ‘assertive nationalists’.” (p. 19).
I suspect Pillar is covering his bets here and shrouding his beliefs behind some well-crafted weasel words. This seems to be a common CYA position, that the Israel connection to the Iraq war is only indirect and that the Zionist Neocon influence is overstated.
There are several problems with this position: The first is that the Iraq war concept came initially from the Zionist Neocons (via the 'Clean Break' strategy letter in 1996) who were then joined by the rest of the Neocons (1998). The pressure for an invasion then grew by leaps and bounds.
The second problem is that the key drafters of the original Iraq war policy documents were Zionist Neocons who then were awarded positions of high influence in the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc.). To suggest this is coincidental seems quite a stretch.
I think the key to this puzzle can be found in finding who influenced and convinced Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush on the need for an Iraq war. I suspect it must have been a very heavy effort on the part of the Neocons, and particularly those who were promoting the war primarily or even secondarily for Israel’s sake, but I have not encountered any discussion of this in my readings. This, to me, is the one remaining big mystery. Maybe there is no connection and the war was a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gambit, but I remain a sceptic. I hope others, more informed than me, will continue this discussion.
Gil Maguire
Paul Pillar, in his new book, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, does a pretty thorough analysis of the motivations behind the Iraq war. He shows how the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from day 1 in its first staff meetings. He also shows how neocons use faulty intelligence on WMD as a smokescreen for their true motives which preceded the whole intelligence stove piping games. In other words, their motive was never based on supposed WMD, but instead was aimed at recreating Iraq as a democratic show horse to undermine ME totalitarianism, and to assert and demonstrate US power to potential adversaries.
Pillar thoroughly covers the Zionist Neocon connections: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Kristol, et al, from PNAC through the Bush administration, but then fails to connect the dots and concludes:
"Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator in the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role. Images of a foreign problem such as Iraq that are most important to U.S. interests are not necessarily those most important to the interests of Israel or any other foreign state. Thus, some policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the postinvasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart." (p. 24; Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition).
Pillar seems to feel that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush came up with the Iraq invasion on their own and that the Zionist Neocons had little direct influence:
"But the concept did not solely belong to the neocons. It probably was a major motivation for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who are best labeled not as neoconservatives, but instead, according to one study of policymaking in the Bush administration, as 'assertive nationalists'.” (p. 19).
I suspect Pillar is covering his bets here and shrouding his beliefs behind some well-crafted weasel words. This seems to be a common CYA position, that the Israel connection to the Iraq war is only indirect and that the Zionist Neocon influence is overstated. There are several problems with this position: The first is that the Iraq war concept came initially from the Zionist Neocons (in 1996) who were then joined by the rest of the Neocons (1998). The pressure for an invasion then grew by leaps and bounds.
The second problem is that the key drafters of the original Iraq war policy documents were Zionist Neocons who then were awarded positions of high influence in the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc.). To suggest this is coincidental seems quite a stretch.
I think the key to this puzzle can be found in finding who influenced and convinced Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush on the need for an Iraq war. I suspect it must have been a very heavy effort on the part of the Neocons, and particularly those who were promoting the war primarily or even secondarily for Israel's sake, but I have not encountered any discussion of this in my readings. That, to me, is the one remaining big mystery. Maybe there is no connection and the war was a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gambit, but I remain a sceptic. I hope others, more informed than me, will continue this discussion.
Gil Maguire
p.s. The Pillar book is a great and must read. It is available on Amazon. The Kindle version is about 9 bucks and can be downloaded to a Kindle, to a PC or iMac, to a tablet, and to a smart phone (both iPhone or Android versions). For the cost of one download you get the full book on all three (or more) devices. I am finding I can easily use my Android smart phone (a Samsung Galaxy IIs) as a reader which accompanies me everywhere, and is easy to use and very easy to read, and much lighter than a Kindle or Nook.
+10. Spot on, at least as to middle east issues.
He did have some causes that he supported bravely like the plight of the Kurds. He was also physically courageous. Hitch 22 is a great read except for the neocon bits.
I think his big mistake was in moving to the states. It seemed to have made him complacent and more accepting of our politics and leaders. I suspect his failure to really jump into the I-P issue (which he certainly saw and would have been brilliant on) was due to fear of intellectual and publishing isolation.
Too bad. Brilliant and fascinating guy. Despite his faults, I'll miss him. I suspect God will find him troublesome, always quarreling with the angels, claiming Saint Peter is a fraud, wanting God to stand for elections, questioning the paternity of Jesus... typical Hitch stuff.
Erskine Childers (of Riddle of the Sands fame - greatest spy novel ever written) was executed by the Brits in 1922. Must be the son you are referring to.
Dear Phil,
I was looking forward to the interview with enthusiasm after reading your article. Your hope and optimism was misplaced, and my time wasted. The actual interview was a vacuous joke. Blitzer was in Cain/Gingrich all-the-time mode. Nothing on something of real import and immediacy like Iran, and certainly nothing about Israel or the plight of the Palestinians. Blitzer was pushing ratings buttons. Honest, inciteful, dogged? Give me a break. Blitzer is an MSM hack.
Ron Paul really missed the opportunity to raise some hell and show some rightious anger. He should have been screaming tohigh heaven about being excluded from the debate by a lobby who advocates for a foreign government and why it is dangerous to allow a foreign government to interfere in our domestic politics and presidential elections. While Paul is on the right track on many issues, he just doesn't have the chops or presence to get anywhere.
I think there is a tendency among us to take glimmers of hope gleaned from very occasional and marginally favorable statements by media players and turn these into supposed major turning points in this struggle. I see these more as random blips emerging from the overall noise. I think the Zionist Greater Israel lobby is too observant and far too powerful to expect these blips to morph into an actual alternative voice.
Keep dreaming Phil. Wish it were otherwise.
There is also evidence of "Brown-Washing" efforts aimed at aligning Israel and American Jews with US Hispanics as fellow victims of oppression/discrimination:
link to jpost.com
link to forward.com
Chutzpah is an understatement. These folks are shameless but also very, very good at what they do. I would like to see a similar history of the development of the Fundamentalist Christian/Israeli/AIPAC alliance ("Christ-Washing"?). I suspect that alliance was also instigated and developed along the same lines.
These alliances are scary because once the target group has drunk the kool-aid
they become true believers for the entire program (greater Israel, etc.).
What Bernard meant to say was "Israel, that shitty little country that gives decent Jews a bad name."
I caught that and actually wrote something about it. The head of the 911 commission was asked about the omission in an interview and said they left it out because too many commission members felt that highlighting it in the report would cost Israel US funding and support. Unbelievable.
I think that is just another example of the influence the lobby has on US politics and agencies. I don't think that omission has anything to do with claims of a controlled demolition conspiracy related to 911.
Anonymouscomments (as well as Shingo and others),
Per my earlier postings on this thread's 9-11 subtopic, I come down squarely on Keith's side of this issue. I looked over the links you provided and found nothing compelling. They seemed more like straw man arguments in which apparant anomolies are selected out, usually mischaracterized, without any context or analysis of the rebutting arguments. These are then put together to create what appears to be a compelling presentation but really is a house of cards that soon collapses under its own weight (pardon the inadvertant pun) when subjected to any half-rigorous attempt at rebuttal.
Attempting to reengage on the details of this argument is clearly a futile exercise. Keith already did a good job on that and I won't attempt to top his last posting. Instead, I suggest you take a step back and look at the big picture and the implications of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory compared to the simplicity of what what we saw before our eyes on 911: 2 huge airplanes crashing into 2 huge structures; massive fires, and a collapse of the buildings. This is soon followed by a very detailed investigation and analysis that describes the history of the highjackers, what they did and what motivated them, as well as a detailed analysis of the cause of the building collapses by NIST.
As with any investigation of a huge, catastrophic event, there were some mistakes and some unanswered or unexplained anomolies. But, the conclusions seem reasonable and consistent with what we observed on 911.
Contrast that with accepting your controlled demolition conspiracy explanation. For your "theory" to work and be a rational, reasonable, alternatiive explanation, a massive conspiracy on a scale unimaginable would have to have occurred. This conspiracy would need to include, at a very minimum, the following:
1. A very large, well-trained demolition team that worked for weeks inside the 3 buildings, ripping out drywall to gain access to beams to set shaped explosive charges, cut and weaken beams, lay massive amounts of wiring, hide all the evidence of their nighttime work before the start of the next working day, somehow avoid the security personnel and cameras and janitorial crews that are present 24/7. Yet, no one who survived who worked as a janitor or security guard, or even an employee working in an office late into the night or in the early morning hours has stepped forward to mention their knowledge of all the nighttime predemolition work (and noise) going on. Lots of the thousands of people that worked in the buildings were sick, or on vacation on 911 but none of them saw or heard anything fishy in the weeks prior to 911. Maybe they were silenced? Maybe they thought the teams working inside the walls making all the noise and mess were just doing routine maintenance? Or, maybe all of them too are part of the conspiracy?
2. The demolition team leaders must have known that on 911 these buildings would be hit by airliners and that they would need to set off their demolition charges some time after the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.
3. The highjackers could not have been al Queda, but must have been co-conspirators from the US government (or Israel, or the Tri-lateral commission) who were willing to commit suicide and kill their fellow Americans in the planes and buildings. Perhaps the crews of the airliners themselves were part of this conspiracy? Or, maybe the highjackers were trained CIA or Mossad agents willing to kill themselves for the cause (whatever that is)?
4. The NIST and 911 Commission investigations must have been rigged and their members part of the conspiracy. This would need to include not only the 200 structural engineers who performed the NIST investigation, but also all members and staff of the 911 Commission.
5. All the government agencies that participated in the investigation must have been part of the conspiracy since they provided the false evidence and testimony about the highjackers being mainly Saudis employed by al Qaeda. This would need to include the FBI and CIA as well as the US military who must have hidden the fact that they were capable of shooting down the hijacked planes but deliberately did not.
6. The President must have been involved as well as his cabinet.
Now, assuming all the above were part of this grand conspiracy to crash airplanes into buildings and then destroy them with controlled demolitions, you would think that someone out of the thousands who must have been involved in this grand conspiracy would have leaked, talked. Yet, 10 years later, there has been not a peep to be heard from any of the conspirators, any of the janitors, any of the building security personnel.
In your eloquent rebuttal of Keith's last entry you chide him for not being balanced, not being willing to keep an open mind, to accept the possibility that there might have been controlled demolitions of the buildings and that there might have been a huge conspiracy behind it all. In other words, Keith, me, and other conspiracy sceptics are failing to balance two alternative, reasonable theories or explanations, the NIST/911 Commission's or the Controlled Demolition theory, and failing to be intellectually honest in not admitting the possibility that it all could have been an "inside job" on the massive scale I described above.
Nah, sorry. I refuse to attribute reasonableness or logic to what amounts to a truly mind-bogglingly preposterous, outlandish fantasy. If you and your fellow team of 911 Truthers wish to piss away your valuable intellects on nonsense like this I can only shake my head in sorrow at the waste of such promising talent that could and should be devoted to truly important causes, like the IP issue. I can only hope you will stop, reconsider and take a long hard look at the fantasy world you have created and decide "No, I really don't belong among these folks and their wacky conspiracy theories."
Shingo,
Here are just couple of specific responses to your arguments:
1. Free Fall speeds: link to debunking911.com
2. WTC7. Here is a long explanation of what happened to WTC7 including the "pull" issue and the "fell vertically" argument. First, no one on the non-conspiracy side claims that the building was pulled down by cables. Second, as the photographs show, WTC7 did not collapse vertically but fell gradually in the direction of the massive damage to one of its sides caused by the falling columns from WTC1.
link to debunking911.com
3. First Time Steel Building ever collapsed due to fire claim:
This gives examples of other steel buildings collapsing after fires. link to debunking911.com
4. "There are more scientists and engineers rejecting the NIST explanation than those supporting it(1,400 to 200)."
There are over 1.5 million licensed engineers in the US, 300,000 of whom are civil/structural engineers. 200 of those were picked to do the NIST analysis of the WTC disaster. They concluded the buildings collapsed because of airliner and debris impact plus fire. The 1400 you mention are from a wide variety of engineering and scientific fields most of which are unrelated to civil/structural engineering. A better survey would be of the 300,000 licensed civil/stuctural engineers.
link to bls.gov
Shingo, I could go on and on but I'm trying to work on an IP article so I am going to call a halt to my further participation on this issue.
Anybody, including Pabelmont and Shingo, interesed in the WTC Truther issue should start with Andrew Cockburn's Counterpunch article on “9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left”. It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.
The link is at my Nov. 6, 2:31pm comment above. Please read that and the other links cited before jumping to conclusions that the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy theories are valid. Look carefully at links and evidence from both sides, including the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports. Finally, apply William of Ockham's famous "Occam's Razor" to your analysis.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Lysias,
I think you are spot on. Winning a war requires conquering, occupying and then changing the government.
The US was able to do that in WWII. Every attempt since (with the possible exceptions of Gulf War I, Grenada and Panama) have largely been failures (Korea--infinite stalemate; Vietnam--lost; Iraq--lost; Afghanistan--lost). No one in NATO has either the stomach or resources to invade and conquer Iran. That means we are left with air power which has proved to be a weak tool at best. Air power was largely a failure in Korea and Vietnam. While it seemed to be decisive in Gulf War I, the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have both shown it has limited impact and is extremely expensive.
At best, an air attack on Iran will take out a few obvious sites, and maybe not even those since the Iranians have been digging deeper and hardening every likely target. Many potential targets are simply not known. So Israel, with its dinky little airforce that has NO strategic bombers, is going to try to attack a country a huge distance away in which its planes and fighter escorts will require multiple aerial refuelings, based on little if any real time intelligence. At best, it hopes the US will be drawn in to finish the job. But, I doubt the US has the capability to locate and take out all the known targets.
Iran, on the other hand, has a whole host of effective counters to an Israeli attack which I try to list here.
DBroncos, the bottom line is that air power really doesn't work all that well; there are too many effective countermeasures, and it certainly doesn't come close to winning wars.
I have thought this was a last ditch bluff to con the Iranians into stopping their nuke program, but based on what I've read in today's New Yorker, I think Netanyahu may be a meglomaniac with a Churchill complex who would actually be willing to start down that road.
Hope not. Very scary situation if he does.
Here is a link to NIST's very comprehensive FAQ section on the 9-11 WTC investigation. Also a must read for anyone genuinely interested in getting a balanced view on whether there was a conspiracy or alternative explanation for the collaspse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7.
link to nist.gov
Here is a link to Alexander Cockburn's article on "9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left". It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.
link to counterpunch.org
Here's a link to good website on debunking the 9-11 conspiracy claims. I spent a lot of time on this issue on a previous thread and looked at the 'evidence' the conspiracy folks offer. When you look at counter-non-conspiracy evidence, the conspiracy stuff just doesn't work.
Those that want to believe there is a conspiracy glom on to each bit of 'evidence' supporting each of their claims while refusing to look at careful descriptions of why that particular bit of evidence or claim has been refuted. There is no way in hell you will change their minds. Their belief is as religious as those of the birthers or intelligent designers. That said, I have great respect for several of those on MW who ascribe to the conspiracy theories. Their analysis of IP issues is well thought out and balanced. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to 9-11 conspiracy theories, they've lost it. This has also happened to at least one well known IP commentator (I forget his name) whose IP commentary is now tainted by his propounding of 9-11 conspiracy nonsense.
link to debunking911.com
ToivoS,
American carriers have smallish refueling tankers to extend the range of their fighter aircraft which can also be refueled by much larger Air Force tankers. In any case, as I mentioned, in any conflict with Iran, much more capable US aircraft would stage from several Saudi bases built specifically for the US for that purpose.
The F16 is not a Navy plane. It's an Air Force plane.
US aircraft carriers don't typically operate in the Persian Gulf. It's too restricted and dangerous plus they have the ability to stand off and allow their aircraft to do the dirty work. If air power was needed against Iran, it would stage from Saudi or Kuwaiti airbases. There would be no reason to risk a carrier or any other major navy assest anywhere near Iran.
Sinking an oil tanker might work but that would just close down the Gulf to oil traffic which would hurt Iran most of all.
If Israel tries this crazy stunt I think you would see a proxy war. I doubt Iran would want to go after the US, and I think the US would be reluctant to join in as well.
The reality is that Israel can't possibly do this on its own, so I think it is largely bluff hoping Iran can be coerced into stopping its nuke program.
In reviewing my earlier posting, my sarcasm may have escaped some readers. My sarcastic point was that 'separate but equal' is not a valid defense to acts of discrimination. A sign, policy, or word, even if not enforced, is still degrading and psychologically damaging to the individual and group the sign, policy or word is directed at. The whole point of the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education was that 'separate but equal' black and white schools are not equal because they are psychologically harmful to black children for a wide variety of reasons.
So, to review, the idea that the sex-segregated buses might not be found to be discriminatory because the separation is not enforced, just requested, is ludicrous. My example of a restaurant with a sign saying “No Nigras or Jews Allowed” was offered, in sarcasm, as a way of making my point.
Asking (but not requiring) a woman to move to the other side of the bus so ultra-Othodox men won't be offended by their revolting presence is degrading to the woman and unacceptable. A public bus company that takes a neutral position on this issue is abetting gender discrimination and should lose its license.
"are said by one advocate to violate civil rights laws. Yet the details of how they are enforced may be crucial in assessing the practice’s legality."
Yeah, I can see how it probably is legal if you don't really enforce it. I mean, if a restaurant has a sign up that says "No Nigras or Jews Allowed" but would feed them anyway if they chose come in, what's the harm? How could that be illegal and a civil rights violation? Why would some silly woman be offended if she was asked to sit on the other side of the bus if they wouldn't stop her if she refused? What's the harm? I mean its being done among Jews so it can't be that wrong.
Donald,
Good comments. I can see the inaccuracy of some of my distinctions, particularly as to orthodox Jews and specifically as to Jerry Haber. Still, we are talking about generalizations and trying to narrow the overly broad ones, like “Jew”, which smack of anti-Semitism, to less broad ones that more accurately distinguish. Unfortunately, any generalization will by its very nature contain inaccuracy. e.g. Comparing people from New York to people from Los Angeles. All I am trying to do is to get us to narrow or focus our generalizations to limit claims that our motives are anti-Semitic.
Well American,
While you are correct that the Greater Israel Lobby is comprised of Jews and Zionists, since not all Jews and Zionists are believers and supporters of Greater Israel, blaming the IP problem on either the Jews or the Zionists would be inaccurate and unfair and would also open the door to a charge of anti-semitism. So you need something more specific like right wing Likudnik fuck, or moronic Greater Israel asshole. While either of these might be a tad offensive, neither can be called anti-semitic because only a specific category of Jew/Zionists are criticised, not a blanket all Jews and/or all Zionists.
I have also heard another effective way of describing the IP political split in Israel which is to discriminate between the Israel of Tel Aviv - high tech, modern, hip, liberal, generally anti-settlement - and the Israel of Jerusalem - backward, conservative, orthodox religious, avidly pro-settlement. I have found this distinction is effective when discussing IP with Jews who are still drinking the Hasbara Kool-Aid. It reduces their reflexive defensiveness to criticism of Israel or Israelis when you show them your problem is with Likudnik, Jerusalem Israel. They seem to relate well to that distinction as many Jews worry about Jewish religious extremism in Israel.
The labels we use in the IP debate are critical. We need to refine our labels.
I think we need a better definition regarding who the perpetrators are in the overall IP mess, including the Iraq War mess. It's not the really the Jews; it's not the really the Israelis; and it's not the really the Zionists. It is really the Greater Israel crowd which includes Likud and its allies in Israel, and the Greater Israel lobby in the US and other countries like Great Britain. I think the term "Greater Israel lobby" was recently coined by Andrew Sullivan in one of his Salon postings last week. I don't have the link handy, but that term is contained in the title and can easily be found by scrolling down his blog articles located on the right side of the Salon opening page.
It's very easy for Hophni and others to pull out the antisemitism card when this issue is mentioned. It is also easy to help feed that narrative by using imprecise words for the culprits/perpetrators of the IP/Iraq War mess. None of the first three: Jew, Israeli, Zionist, are precise enough because there are far too many exceptions under each of those labels. So, I think using some varient of Sullivan's Greater Israel Lobby term is a far better and more accurate way of placing blame. More importantly, it makes it far harder for Hophni and the gang to use their all purpose antisemite card.
Anyway, food for thought.
Hmmm, of the four , I prefer the James version.
Interesting points MH976,
I think the gloves first came off with regard to the importance of throttling even so-called non-combatant civilian adults in our own (US) civil war. Grant (and Sherman) realized the vital importance of depriving the South's armies of supplies and support and also realized the importance of convincing the people of the South that further resistance was futile and the price paid for it unacceptable. This resulted is Sherman's very destructive but highly effective March through Georgia and the middle of the South.This doctrine was extended in WWII with the bombing of cities on the theory that the destruction of factories contained a key to winning the war and a way to undermine civilian moral. Neither proved totally true and the millions of civilians killed was a horrific and largely unnecessary consequence.
The collateral killing of civilians during war has always been seen as an unfortunate byproduct of conducting a war. One of the ironic benefits of drones and highly accurate modern guided munitions is that the numbers of civilians killed collaterally has greatly diminished.
As to whether the 2 American citizens targeted are truly enemy combatants, I think there is little doubt that these folks took a very active and highly important role in AQ's war against us. It is perfectly legal to target key enemy players including political and military leaders, or other key players (e.g. Goebbels as a propaganda genius) even though they don't necessarily carry guns or even activily participate in combat. These were not just opinionated Americans who happened to be living in Yemen.
Well Annie, I share your cynicism as well as Seafoid's earlier view re our fucked up motivations for much of what we do and have done (Iraq being the best example), but that doesn't change my view, legal and otherwise, about how we can respond to attacks against us. These are really separate issues.
Seafoid,
An interesting political point that was first raised by the great warrior and allied general Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Mikeo,
The problem is that your current definition of war has been overtaken by history and the rise of non-state actors like al Queda. As to invading and bombing Dublin, that wouldn't be justified unless the IRA was created, supplied, directed and led by the Irish government, which is wasn't.
Hostage,
The issue here is not whether American citizens committed treason, but whether they were fighting a war as combatants on the side of the enemy. If they were, their killing was no more illegal than the killing a non-US citizen enemy. You don't get to hold up your US passport while fighting on the battlefield and thereby get a free pass from return fire or a trip to an arraignment before a US magistrate.
Nor is there some legal requirement that an American citizen must first be tried and convicted in US court for treason before he can be killed on the battlefield as an enemy combatant. Once captured, a US citizen enemy POW is entitled to GC IV rights and if charged with a crime is probably entitled to full US standard constitutional and criminal justice system protections, something sadly missing in the Jose Padilla case.
I also don't accept your claim that these were "summary executions" which implies they were not battlefield or war-related. I think they were battlefield killings just as were the killings of the Gestapo general in Poland and the shootdown of the unarmed transport plane of Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. I am using WWII incidents as examples not as legal precedents. Assuming GCIV modern day standards, and assuming both the above individuals were US citizens of German and Japanese descent who chose to fight on the side of the enemy, would either of those assasinations been illegal? I don't think so.
My point is that since specifically targeted assasinations of enemy key figures and leaders during war are not illegal, extrajudicial acts, the fact that a key enemy figure or leader is also a US citizen does not an exception make.
Hey bio, good to see you back.
Thanks for the factoid about Scheuer's invention of rendition although a source might be nice.
I do think your description of Scheuer's various hates is a tad overdone. He clearly has little sympathy for Israel's actions or with those Arabs who qualify as terrorists, but to equate him with Father Coughlin and label as a Jew hater/antisemite is a cheap shot unless you have quotes and other evidence to back it up.
It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel or its US lobby's actions nor is it anti Muslim/Arab bigotry to criticise actions of some Muslims or some Arabs.
Philip,
The article you cite is filled with overwrought argument. e.g.
Juan Cole: "do you really think it would be a good idea to give a President Michele Bachmann or a President Rick Perry the authority to kill American citizens at will and with no due process?"
The proposition the Yemen killings stand for is that American citizens who choose to join and fight against the US in an ongoing war are justifiable targets of war, not common criminals. Nothing in those killings is remotely precedential for a blanket authority for any president to "kill American citizens at will and with no due process."
Legal standards in war are different than legal standards in peacetime. Equating the killing of an enemy combatant with the murder of a bank clerk is absurd. The first is legal homicide under the terms and laws of war. The second is murder under criminal justice standards. The legal restraints and constitutional protections afforded US citizens, even criminals, are far stronger than the standards that apply to our own combatants and decision makers during wartime, particularly in exigent circumstances.
Whizdom,
I think you are conflating the criminal justice ("judicial") model with the war fighting model. Your questions would be essential to the CJ model but only optional in WF model. In the WF model, exingency of the circumstance likely made diplomatic efforts futile. In any case, the Yemeni government statement late today indicates they played a role in locating/identifying these targets. It also would not surprise me if we later learn of some Pakistani government involvement in the location and targeting of OBL.
Neither of your two examples, Cuba and Iran are similar in that there is no war situation involving Cuba and the US, and even the Iran example there is no active war between the two countries. The US action would be unacceptable in a country not directly involved in hostilities like say France or Britain although even there an exigent circumstance could justify a quick hit if major loss of life was imminent and time was fleeting.
Virtually all of these kinds of decisions are vetted through a legal team so there is some minimal legal review of the proposed action which is normally based on prior legal analysis of appropriate terms of engagement in a variety of hypothetical scenarios. It is not shoot from the hip kind of stuff although there is room for abuse as we saw in the Bush administration (Yoo, etc.).
As to our becoming what we hate, that didn't happen after our earlier wars although the domestic civil rights intrusions justified by the so-called WoT are pretty scary to me.
Wars are extreme situations. The primary goal is to win because losing is an unacceptable option. All other lesser priorities get sorted out after you've won. Wars also generate bad decisions that get lots of people killed unnecessarily. e.g. Pelilieu battle of WWII, as well as bombing of cities, and A bomb attacks on 2 Japanese cities in same war. Sometimes the bad decisions were just due to bad judgments or negligence, sometimes they were criminal in nature.
Give me a break.
I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning is putting form over substance. We are, after all, fighting a war against a foe who has extended the fight across borders, even across continents. The argument in this thread seems to be that extrajudicial killing would be lawful if done within the "war zone", but that Pakistan and Yemen somehow don't qualify. While killing and maiming the enemy during a war is extrajudicial, it is also legal. So, the real question here is whether one combatant can take the war to another combatant wherever that other combatant has chosen to wage it.
Suggesting that the extrajudical killings of OBL and these others in Yemen is somehow illegal and a crime of war is mind-boggling to me. An American citizen who chooses to fight on the side of the enemy is an enemy combatant, pure and simple, and is no more entitled to the protections of our criminal justice system than was the Gestapo general who was assasinated in Poland during World War II.
Granted, the niceties of diplomacy seem lacking in that the killings in question took place in Pakistan and Yemen. But, the fact remains, both of those countries are war zones in which war is being fought every day. Since the folks we are fighting have already shown the capability and willingness to bring the war to our own countries (US, Britain, Spain, etc.) it is not surprising that our government feels compelled to stop them where it finds them, particularly in war-torn countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia where asking the local judicial/criminal justice system to intervene would be problematic at best and most likely unwelcome to the host countries.
Even in our own criminal justice system, the police have the legal authority, in certain unusual circumstances to search without a warrant, even to shoot and kill a suspect without judicial approval. Some of those exception likely were applicable to these killings.
During a war the niceties of judicial approval and other constitutional protections are severely limited and conduct that would otherwise be judged barbaric and unacceptable is legal. While there are exceptions that deal with treatment prisoners of war, protection of civilian non-combatants, and the means used to wage war, but even these protections are very limited. Mr. Schuer's analysis is largely correct.
While certainly there has been a lot of conduct by the US that has been illegal, such as the Abu Graib (sp?) mess, the excesses of the Jose Padilla case, the Iraq war in general, etc., the killings of OBL and others was necessitated by the nature of the war we are fighting and are an unfortunate but reasonable reaction to the methods and means used by our enemy.
Fighting a war is not some sort of clean, antiseptic game with clearcut rules and noble opponents. It is a nasty business at best in which the basic rule is to kill them before they kill you. While there are rules at the margins intended to limit the extremes of barbarity, the essence of war never changes. It is about killing the enemy. Get used to it. Get a grip.