-
-
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish … 23
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech 11
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding 3
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ … 20
- UN and Hunter College events feature plight of Bedouin refugees, … 3
- AIPAC promotes Netanyahu on two states (and ignores the statements … 2
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his … 15
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the … 22
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1361
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 355
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 106
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
-
- The Latest from Mondoweiss for 05/25/2013 - http://t.co/BewpNLCk98, 2 hours ago
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ http://t.co/gygE6OQrnP, 14 hours ago
- RT @MaxBlumenthal: Cpl Goldberg slams "veteran smear artist" https://t.co/Uc4sMIIv7E Yeah, about that... http://t.co/dTO4wxGpLF, 15 hours ago
- Voskamp on .@medeabenjamin: Obama’s chf of staff sitting behind me,seemd unfazed & wondered if he shd call off guards http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 18 hours ago
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 18 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (23)
- AIPAC promotes Netanyahu on two states (and ignores the statements from the rest of his government) (2)
- Ramzi Jaber: When AIPAC starts to promote the 2SS, you know there is something wrong with that approach!!! As...
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (22)
- Ramzi Jaber: Is there possibly a real but subtle change beneath all of this talk and travel from Kerry and...
- CBS stands by Bob Simon, blowing off CAMERA’s charges of anti-Semitism (17)
- Ramzi Jaber: The zionist’s approach has always been divide and conquer, then they deal with the consequence of...
- Exile and the Prophetic: Notes from a ‘marginal Jew’ (8)
- More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report (14)
- mcohen: More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report by Philip Weiss on May 23, 2013 13 even more creepy is the aftermath of...
- The etymology of anti-Semitism (15)
- seafoid: Most of the Temple era Jews stayed on and converted to Christianity and later Islam. Anti semitism is a...
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Mohammad of Vancouver
- Felson
- Jack Ross
- Ira Glunts
- Peter Drubetskoy
- David Bromwich
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
MRW- “Because you haven’t been here long enough or because you didn’t bother to read?”
You might have a point if your links made your point, but they don’t. A 2010 post on Hanakkah, a 2011 post on Dershowitz, a 2012 post on the cultural history of Sephardic Jews, and a 2013 post on Arab versus Jewish cuisine? The 2012 post which you emphasize merely tries to make the point that the Sephardic tradition is more humanistic than the Ashkenazi tradition, hence, if the Sephardic Jews had more influence this could result in a form of Levatine humanism. The essence of all of these posts is to promote the Sephardic cultural tradition, nothing more. Not surprising coming from “the director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage in Brooklyn, New York.”
None of these posts deal with the political reality involving Ashkenazi Israelis and Mizrahi Israelis. As far as I know, the Israeli Mizrahi Jews support the Jewish state of Israel, and participate in the occupation and subjugation of the Palestinians. Are there not Mizrahi in the IDF with their boot on the Palestinian neck? Do they not man check points and vote for right-wing governments? How does all of this relate to their so-called Levantine humanism? What does David Sasha have to say about all of this? In his last post he called Massad a racist for not adequately dealing with Sephardic cultural differences in analyzing the Ashkenazi roots of Zionism. This attack on Massad as a racist no doubt plays well to the Zionist galleries and helps promote his Sephardic cause.
I see no evidence of any real concern on his part for the Palestinians, or even with dealing with Israeli Mizrahi Jews in an honest manner.
DAVID SASHA- “It is therefore ironic that Massad, in seeking to counter Zionism, affirms its basic dogma that Jews are Europeans and not Middle Easterners.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Oh, so the fate of the Mizrahi is the fault of the Palestinians? It is up to Massad to tell your tale? Funny, I don’t recall you posting on Mondoweiss before, informing us of the vast differences between the Ashkenazi Israelis and the Mizrahi Israelis. So, the Mizrahi are staunch defenders of the rights of Palestinian Israelis? The Mizrahi support an Israeli state of all of it’s citizens? Feel free to tell us your tale of woe, but spare us the hypocrisy of criticizing a Palestinian who explores the Ashkenazi roots of Zionism. Perhaps when you make common cause with your Palestinian brothers and sisters I will be more inclined to take you seriously, not before.
PAMELA OLSON- “…perhaps even dismantling large structures of belief and ideology built on shaky foundations….”
True enough, however, this would apply to virtually all systems of power throughout world history. Witness the white man’s burden, responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention as misrepresentations of imperial aggression. Elite run societies need to misrepresent reality in order to manufacture consent from a citizenry eager to be deceived. Bullshit is the lubricant which allows empires and local hegemons to function.
MARC ELLIS- “With the recent Arab League land swap agreement, it seems that the Arab countries are all-in on Israel being integrated into the Middle East military security structure.”
You mean that it isn’t already? I was under the impression that Turkey, Israel and the Gulf monarchies are even now bound up in various NATO entanglements.
link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
MARC ELLIS- “The outer layers – empire, colonialism, capitalism, whiteness….The question remains: Are these outer layers only?”
All four of your “outer layers” are different aspects of power-seeking by the dominant elites. Elites have been seeking to accumulate power throughout recorded history and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Dealing with elite power-seeking is critically important if the species is to survive. If I read you correctly, your question becomes ‘to what extent is Jewishness inexorably linked with power-seeking?’ You seem to be describing a Jewish identity outside the Judaic religion, and questioning the source of group bonding and its malleability.
“…Jews are still having more or less the same Jewish identity discussion we had three thousand years ago.”
I seriously doubt that. I am guessing that the current discussion began with the enlightenment and questions of assimilation which were then strongly influenced by Zionism, Israel and the Holocaust. Throw in current Jewish imperial success. Many new and different strands to sort out. Yet, one must not get so absorbed on this particular question as to give inadequate attention to the overall political economy and the dramatic changes taking place.
DANAA- “People sometimes seem to think that just because there are obvious systemic problems, that the system itself will collapse any day.”
Additionally, these same people irrationally assume that systemic collapse will automatically result in a victory for their ideological perspective. There seems to me to be a profound lack of understanding of the functioning of the real political economy. Ideology has trumped rationality, as it usually does. In fact, things are changing rapidly and the current global financial system may collapse. Regrettably, what follows may be as bad or worse. The “masters of the universe” aren’t known for their benevolence.
MARC ELLIS- Good heavens! You seem to have become Mondoweiss’ most radical contributor, pushing the discussion in directions which need to be discussed, but which others are unable to pursue. Keep up the good work, Professor!
“…and Jewish Supremacy in U.S. Palestine Solidarity Organizing.”
Interesting phraseology. Is Jewish tribalism so strong that Jews are incapable of relating to non-Jews in anything other than a position of power? Is Jewish “tikkun olam” a useful camouflage to hide Jewish power-seeking? Is the Jewish collective capable of seeing beyond itself?
This poll is pure propaganda! Imperial B.S.! Oh, the US, Canada and Australia are soooo tolerant! Perhaps a review of how we treated, and continue to treat, the aboriginal population would suggest a different level of tolerance. The notion of these three countries being the embodiment of “post racial” enlightenment doesn’t rise to the level of a bad joke. Actions speak louder than words, and slick pollsters can make it all disappear, even as they reinforce the “clash of civilizations” theme.
DAVID SAMEL- Since you have this intense interest in Dershowitz’ falsifications, I thought you might be amused by a 6 minute video of Norman Finkelstein discussing this very topic. link to normanfinkelstein.com
PHILIP MUNGER- “Like Guatemala's other suppliers of arms, Israel (which had been supplying arms to Guatemala since 1974) continued its aid provisions. The cooperation didn't just involve material support, but also included providing intelligence and operational training, carried out both in Israel and in Guatemala. In 1982, Ríos Montt told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that "our soldiers were trained by Israelis." There was not much outcry in Israel at the time about its involvement in Guatemala, though the support for Ríos Montt was no secret.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
“In her letter, Senator Boxer perplexingly argued that removing standards would allow Congress to hold Israel to the highest possible standard….”
It is a sign of the times. Public opinion held in such low esteem that Boxer couldn’t be bothered concocting a believable lie, instead insulting our intelligence with a flimsy excuse almost designed to let us know that she doesn’t care what we think, but feels compelled to go through the motions.
In a slightly off topic but similar vein, Assata Shakur is a former Black Panther who fled to Cuba in 1979, was granted political asylum and has lived there uneventfully ever since. “Seemingly out of nowhere the FBI announced that fugitive Black activist Assata Shakur was now declared a “terrorist” on their Most Wanted list. In addition, a bounty for her capture was raised from $1 million to $2 million.”, Bill Fletcher writes. Why now? Perhaps as a counter to efforts to normalize US-Cuban relations? Can’t deal with countries which shelter “terrorists” can we? More to the point, perhaps we need to “get tough” with Cuba? And Venezuela, Syria, Iran and anyone else who isn’t “with us.” People like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning too! Seems to me that Uncle Sam is on a take-no-prisoners rampage.
link to zcommunications.org
“Washington's reputation as an "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in tatters….”
I am really sick to death of comments like this. It is so irritating for Cook to formally pretend that Uncle Sam has an “honest broker” reputation to jeopardize, a feeble attempt to ineffectually imply that Washington should act to uphold some bogus image. Who’s kidding who? Best to cut the crap and engage in straight talk. The empire can never be an honest broker and everyone who isn’t willfully stupid knows it, particularly when it concerns Israel. I for one am glad that Israel scuttled this so called initiative so that we won’t have to endure farcical “negotiations.”
HOPHMI- “Without question, any instinct to demilitarize Germany after the war was correct, and if you can’t admit that, there is seriously something wrong with you.”
I mostly agree, and am appalled by many of the comments distorting historical reality in a chauvinistic fashion. One can never be sure of what would have occurred under a scenario not pursued, however, a demilitarized Germany with no NATO or Warsaw Pact (formed in response to NATO) could have lead to a much more peaceful world. Surely, the US lead arms race has been an ongoing disaster.
“If the West succeeds if effecting the overthrow of the Syrian government, Syria and Lebanon will be targeted for membership in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialog….With the new administration in Cyprus confirming its intention to immediately join the Partnership for Peace, every nation in the Mediterranean Sea Basin will be a NATO member and partner.” (Rick Rozoff)
link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
It should be noted that Turkey is a member of NATO, the Gulf Cooperation Council members are linked to NATO, and Israel is trying to establish closer links, possibly join. The actions against Syria are well coordinated. Israel as a true rogue unlikely.
TREE- “Your first statement makes no sense, since “prior to 1967″, the only “borders” that existed were “pre-1967″.
I wasn’t going to comment again on this thread, but how could I not respond to this bit of intellectual larceny? The bulk of my comment is contained in one paragraph which begins as follows: “I don’t believe that US Zionist Jews initially advocated for a militarized Israel, but that changed after the 1967 war.” I am, of course, referring to the pre-war “borders”, that is, the “green line.” Within the context of the paragraph, anyone with at least reasonable intelligence and constructive intent would understand the essence of what I was trying to say. I don’t doubt your intelligence, it is your intent which concerns me.
I attempt to cover a lot of ground in just one paragraph, focusing on the impact of the 1967 war on American Jewish support for Zionism and for Israel. I think that the historical record is clear that following Israel’s victory in 1967, US support for Israel, and American Jewish support for Israel and Zionism increased by an order of magnitude. Israel, pursuing its own interests, but with US support, achieved a huge victory for both Israeli expansionist goals and US Middle East hegemony. I maintain that this new relationship significantly benefited American Jewish power-seeking, which, in turn, is a significant factor behind American Jewish fat-cat support for Israel and Zionism.
Why you and other Mondoweissers tend to belittle US Zionist influence on Israel is a bit of a mystery. The notion that the people who effectively lobby on Israel’s behalf and fund settlements, think tanks, birthright tours and campaign funding have little or no influence on Israeli policy is illogical. Everyone talks about the power of the Israel Lobby, which is based upon organization and money. A lukewarm Lobby ain’t going to be effective. Their opinions carry weight. Additionally, if American Jewish money is so effective buying US support for Israel, why would it not be equally effective influencing Israeli politicians? Why make a big to-do about Jewish Democratic campaign financing and ignore the 96.8% campaign financing Netanyahu got from foreign sources? link to mondoweiss.net It is virtually inconceivable that this type of support would be provided unless those providing it approved of Israel’s expansionist, militaristic policies and actions. How much US Zionist funding is the Israeli peace camp getting? He who pays the piper doesn’t have to call the tune. Successful pipers share their patron’s taste in music and automatically play mutually pleasing music.
TREE- “Israel was ALWAYS a Middle East Sparta….”
How about if I alter the phraseology to read: ‘US Zionist Jews have worked to support Israel as a Middle East Sparta because that helps them in their power seeking objectives.’
I don’t believe that US Zionist Jews initially advocated for a militarized Israel, but that changed after the 1967 war. Suddenly, Israel’s massive victory and the destruction of Nasser and Pan Arabism served to establish Zionist bona fides as imperial supporters, not Bolsheviki usurpers. A lot of closed doors opened up for Jewish upward mobility. Some time around then, a group of Jewish Trotskyists saw the light, became neocons and went to work for “Scoop” Jackson. They also developed a love for Israel not in evidence prior to 1967, also true for much of the Jewish intelligentsia. Prior to 1967, I think a negotiated peace based upon pre-1967 borders would have been acceptable to US Zionist Jews. Not now. I continue to believe that the center of Zionist power is the US, and that US Zionist Jews have an agenda for Israel which they believe benefits them.
ANNIE- “interesting you didn’t answer my question keith. so what about clark and US imperial objectives?”
My two comments answered your question quite adequately, however, permit me to rephrase to help you understand. Clark is complaining that the neocons have caused the US to adopt at least part of the Project for the New American Century agenda as official imperial strategy. He is laying the Iraq invasion at the neocon’s feet, which is partly true. Adopted, Annie, adopted. Yes, I am saying that these plans became imperial strategy. It is no mere coincidence that the seven countries in question have been targeted and were assaulted or are under assault. Obama has been as bad or worse than Bush in this regard. Yet, you cannot bring yourself to admit that this represents imperial strategy. How interesting. There is an empire, Annie, deal with it.
Returning to those nasty neocons, according to Stephen Pelletiere, “The neo-cons are part of the ideological apparatus of the military/industrial complex, a very important part, to be sure; in many respect they are the main propagandists.” (p237, “Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf,” Stephen Pelletiere, 2001/2004) In other words, the neocons, strong pro-Israeli bias notwithstanding, are an integral part of the imperial intelligentsia. Further, the hegemonic goals of the “Project for the New American Century” are not substantially different from those outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard,” although the emphasis and tactics differ. Essentially, the shared goal of the elites is empire, but with different flavors of imperialists.
Finally, what is this nonsense about a “coup?” Clark is obviously using a figure of speech, or are you maintaining that the neocons installed Obama in a coup? The original neocons have been out of government for a while, time to move on and acknowledge imperial policy and responsibility.
AMERICAN- “oh please…rent a brain and get off your one note Chomsky US Imperialist train.”
So you think that Noam and I lack the sophistication and depth of knowledge of a wikipedia scholar and internet know-it-all such as yourself? How much sophistication does it take to say the Lobby did it? Or to label folks as neocons and Israel Firsters and assert your labels as proof? Or to label someone as a Chomskyite instead of dealing with what is said? Funny, I avoid quoting Chomsky to avoid this sort of thing, however, you continue to attack your Chomsky straw man because labeling is all you know how to do.
As for Wesley Clarke and those “New York Jews,” I assume that this is his crude way of referring to the neocons. Now ask yourself, ‘how did these neocons get such power and influence?’ They forced themselves into the Bush administration? They intimidated Cheney into going along with their ideas, threatened Rumsfeld to go along too? Or is it possible that they were brought on board to do what they did? And why would this not be considered American foreign policy? And why would the delayed implementation of these plans not be considered the implementation of imperial plans? The neocons are no longer in government, yet the continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations is difficult to miss. Yet, you and Annie seem to have this reluctance to acknowledge that it is Obama who is implementing this hyper-aggressive imperial strategy, or even to acknowledge that it is imperial strategy. The neocons may have initially proposed this, but it is the empire which has adopted and implemented the plan, and continues to do so, subject to further developments and constraints.
As for Thomas Friedman, I don’t read him or the NYT, and don’t care what he says. It is a big mistake to place too much emphasis on the public statements of these propagandists and liars. You need to focus on the facts on the ground and imperial continuity, tempered by factoring in neoliberal globalization. Ignore the MSM BS and read radical critiques and analysis.
ANNIE- “so what about clark and US imperial objectives? plllleeease. or is that the new code name for “neoconservative Project for the New American Century”
Are you saying that the empire is not involved? That CENTCOM, Special Operations Forces, the CIA and NATO report to the neocons? What you see happening is official US policy regardless of who initiated it.
ANNIE- “i got it directly off libra’s link.
Yes, libra quoted me correctly discussing one aspect of Israel’s function for empire. Below that I changed topic by saying that “A militaristic Israel provides benefits for American Zionists as well.” This I followed with the Finkelstein quote. Not that tough to follow if you want to deal with what I actually said.
You continue to insinuate that just because the US government officials doing a lot of the planning and influencing were neocons, that this indicates that the policy was foreign to the US government. You want to label it “neocon” policy, then pretend that it isn’t imperial policy. Nonsense. Obama, Wall Street, NATO, CENTCOM, the MIC, the State Department, etc, are all involved. None of them report to the neocons. You, and other Mondoweissers have the unfortunate tendency to label people (Israel Firsters), then to treat your label as some sort of proof. Proof by labeling.
Yeah, there is somewhat of a power struggle going on here between what you call “realists” (different imperialists) and hyper-militarists. There is always some internal bickering concerning imperial policy. As for the benefits of seeming to “defend” poor little Israel against the forces of darkness versus spilling blood for oil, I would think that should be obvious.
Rather than trying to put words in my mouth, you could simply refer to what I actually said in libras link. Ready? “Yes, our foreign policy is heavily biased in favor of Israel, however, all of this occurs within the context of domestic concentrations of power. The empire is still the empire, and it is not being run out of Tel Aviv. Furthermore, the “American” empire has morphed into the transnational corporate empire, guided by the financial corporations. Israel has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization, other than going along, or with the Trans Pacific Partnership, although the “Lobby” may be involved as a de facto imperial lobby.”
ANNIE- “…only problem is keith cut off the beginning and end of the quote, slashing the context.”
What is this? Bait and switch? You substitute a different quote from a different discussion, then claim that it is out of context. Well, duh. The problem was you referencing a quote I made of Finkelstein to illustrate that US Zionist Jews have worked to shape Israel into a Middle East Sparta because that helps them in their power seeking objectives. For gosh sake, don’t quote me out of context and then criticize the quote for being out of context!
As for evidence of US intent in Lebanon and Syria, permit me to once again quote Wesley Clark on US imperial objectives in 2001, followed by two additional quotes which may put your mind to rest. Please note that two of the seven countries identified for regime change are Lebanon and Syria.
"…in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.... (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).
link to globalresearch.ca
“The U.S.-encouraged Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.…” (Gareth Porter, CounterPunch, 2/1/11)
"The aim of America and Israel is to spread chaos in Lebanon and to find excuses for foreign intervention." (Hezbollah's Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, Whitney, CounterPunch, 1/7-9/2011)
LES- “Be sure to read Dennis Bernstein’s piece on Pritzker the sub-prime queen.”
I agree wholeheartedly! Additionally, folks might be interested to know that in “Supermob,” by Gus Russo, focusing on mob lawyer Sidney Korshak, the Pritzker family enjoys considerable mention for apparent mob ties, and receiving mob investment money. Russo indicates that most of the Jewish Mafia is staunchly pro-Israel. I think many folks would be surprised at the extent to which organized crime is an integral part of the contemporary political economy.
CITIZEN- A quote and a link.
“You made fun of me when I suggested that President Barack Obama would nominate a confessed bank scammer, a loan-sharking mortgage predator, to his cabinet. But thar she blows!” (Greg Palast)
link to dissidentvoice.org
STEPHEN SHENFIELD- “My only proviso is that Kovel is talking not about Zionists in general but about “liberal Zionists.”
Yes, indeed. In his book “Overcoming Zionism,” Kovel recounts a letter he received from a right-wing Rabbi who wrote that “you are correct that this incompatibility causes a bad conscience in otherwise liberal Jews. However, I am not a Liberal Jew, and I have no guilt feelings in this regard.” (p178)
Leave it to a PhD psychologist to make a huge Freudian slip. Are the “dogs” a subconscious expression of soldiers “that have been well cared for, loved, and protected all their lives,” now are the most easily trained to become what he previously describes as “vicious attack dogs?”
“The war in Afghanistan, the longest in the nation's history as well as in that of the U.S., has supplied NATO with an almost 12-year opportunity to consolidate an international military network and to develop the operational and command integration of the armed forces of almost 60 nations.” (Rick Rozoff)
link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
The above quote comes from a must read article on NATO by Rick Rizoff over at Dandelion Salad. The extent of NATO involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere is not adequately discussed or accounted for. The transformation of NATO into a US controlled global strike force is shocking and has profound implications. This is global militarism on steroids. The Wall Street controlled US empire is establishing a high degree of control over much of the global military force, seeking ever more subordinate members into what can only be described as a global imperial military designed to achieve imperial objectives. This, along with other aspects of neoliberal global control, is unprecedented. We have entered uncharted territory, and the visible signs are ominous.
TREE- “May you should have read as well as looked at the picture.”
What? Read and think before I comment? Get serious!
If we put aside my tanks confusion and look at the rest of the comment, Phil is being more than a little disingenuous here by implying that he doesn’t “understand why this stuff gets published.” He doesn’t? He worked in the media and isn’t aware that most media filler stories are provided by public relations firms? That the economics of the “news” media require that they rely on freebies for the bulk of their material? Also, that among reporters, about 400 are CIA assets who plant stories (think Judith Miller)?
As for the Financial Times story itself, there is no real mystery why it was run. In my humble opinion, it was a superb piece of propaganda advancing imperial goals. They humanized an Orthodox Jew, showing that despite his unusual hair style and dress, that he danced to rock music ‘just like us,’ not at all like pious Muslims. It advances the “Clash of Civilizations” meme beautifully, while eliciting sympathy for Israeli Jews who, we can all see, like to dance and smile. What a guy! And it most certainly does not glorify the Lebanese war. Quite to the contrary, it subtly imbeds the war reference in the middle of the article to downplay and normalize the event. This isn’t bad reporting, this is skillful propaganda, the type we should expect from the Financial Times.
That is the story here, how the media is an integral part of manufacturing consent. Further, how in our political economy it could hardly be otherwise. Acting like this is some sort of deviation from the norm, rather than the norm, is a diversion from reality which must be confronted and dealt with.
And as for Mondo fantasies about the liberating potential of the internet, I provide a link to a review of Robert Mc Chesney’s new book, “Digital Disconnect.”
link to counterpunch.org
For a live interview of McChesney, here is the link to Democracy Now.
link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
PHIL- “Imagine if religious Christians were dancing on tanks firing on Baghdad?”
What tanks? I saw a van, but no tanks.
“I don't understand why this stuff gets published.”
You don’t understand why the media publishes elite propaganda? Good lord, man, it is what the media does to earn a profit. And the biggest lie of all is that there is such a thing as “objective” journalism.
MRW- “You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story.”
This from the guy who thinks that global warming is a hoax, that Jim Hansen is incompetent and a NASA joke, that extra atmospheric CO2 is no big deal and may spur crop growth, and that Alberta tar sands are a safe, clean and cheap source of fuel with negligible environmental problems. And when it comes to the physics of building collapse, your source of scientific expertise is….a theologian? And, of course, numerous 911 truth websites that will tell you what you want to hear.
Read David Ray Griffin? No need, I saw his movie. I was looking forward to it. I was aware of the statements made by members of the Bush administration regarding the benefits of a new Pearl Harbor, and of the long history of covert “black ops,” and of Operation Northwoods, etc. I was of the opinion that the administration either knew or should have known about the attack beforehand, at least in general terms, and was guilty of at least criminal negligence. I wanted to see them held to account. The movie started out okay, but went downhill fast. Three buildings loaded with tons of high explosives? A missile not a plane into the Pentagon? It was obvious to me that DRG was pulling a Lyndon LaRouche by tainting straightforward failure (or worse) by associating it with bizarre scenarios. And it worked! Bush was never held to account as the 911 cult lemmings went chasing after nano-thermite. That was the beginning of the end for what was left of the left.
For those interested in the actual physics of the building collapses, go to Counterpunch website and search Manuel Garcia, Jr. for a scientifically valid discussion of this issue.
A couple of comments. First, I think this shows the extent to which American Jewish Zionists and Zionist organizations function as attack dogs against critics of US foreign policy, particularly Middle East foreign policy. This is what Chomsky and Herman describe as “flack” in the manufacture of consent. And if Israel’s influence on US Middle East policy is mentioned (and how could it not?), the criticism is falsely labeled as “anti-Semitism,” an effective tactic for condemning the author while avoiding discussing his specific critique. And notice the libelous falsehoods made without conscience or fear of retribution.
As for Falk’s specific comments, my main criticism would be that he is much too apologetic in regards to Obama, our much more effective war monger-in-chief. As for David Ray Griffin, in my opinion, he is to 911 Truth as Lyndon LaRouche is to American political economy in general. I might add that the LaRouchies are a core component of the 911 Truth movement.
NORMANF- “Israel’s Law Of Return is neither discriminatory nor unique….”
As I’m sure you are aware, Israel’s Law of Return is a code for “non-Jews need not apply.” It is an intellectually dishonest attempt to camouflage Israeli racism behind neutral sounding wording. A little too obvious to openly advertise “Jews only” benefits. Better to say that the laws do not discriminate against Arabs, rather, they merely conform to the Law of Return.
“You cannot make the Jew equal by saying here is the starting line and you can go from there.”
Jeez, are you saying that American Jews are a deprived minority, being held down by anti-Semitism? Gag me with a spoon! Any attempt to equalize Jewish wealth and power with that of non-Jews would be instantly labeled anti-Semitism and fought tooth and nail by the Jewish elite. You might care to check out the Forbes Israel thread. This is yet another attempt to claim victim-hood for an extremely privileged and powerful group.
“Building a European state outside of Europe meant the destruction, expulsion, or assimilation of indigenous people, what the historian Patrick Wolfe has called the “logic of elimination.”
We need to keep reminding ourselves of the extent to which Israel is a European creation, dependent upon US/European imperialism to maintain its essentially antagonistic relationship with the indigenous inhabitants and cultures. This is indirectly acknowledged by its falling under EUROCOM jurisdiction, rather than CENTCOM, which is responsible for the rest of the Middle East.
“Much of the energy that in the past would have found its home in student antiwar movements has migrated to the cause of Palestine. That is not without its problems: after all, children are gunned down by helicopter gunships in Afghanistan as surely as they are gunned down by snipers in the Gaza Strip.”
I fear that the ultimate consequence of the pro-Palestine movement may turn out to be as a distraction from the extremely important events taking place elsewhere. We are in the final stages of the awesomely destructive global neoliberal project which is concentrating wealth, power and social control in the hands of the financial elite, along with the other corporate fat-cats. The degree and manner of control is extensive and unique, difficult to even conceive of 50 years ago. We are facing imminent environmental, financial and social collapse, perhaps leading to terminal war. While the Palestinians are truly worthy victims, it is best not to ignore the big picture and the extreme threats to species survival.
DIANE MASON- I think it is worth adding, for those who don't follow your link, that the author of your quote is the late Israel Shahak.
DICKERSON3870- “In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World’s opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime….”
Permit me to add some additional detail concerning how both narcotics and organized crime are integral features of our political economy. During the 2008 financial crisis, drug money was the primary source of bank liquidity: “Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.”
link to guardian.co.uk
When Jews boast about Jewish wealth and power among themselves it is called Jewish pride. When Gentiles discuss Jewish wealth and power in public it is called anti-Semitism. Go figure.
GAMAL- “the idea that the civil rights of Black people have been achieved, with “Jewish” help, they must be so grateful….”
Not only that, but her statement that “…decades of unity between African-American and Jewish communities fighting racism and anti-Semitism….” is a blatant misrepresentation of reality. While some individual Jews have made great sacrifices, organized American Jewry ceased supporting affirmative action for Blacks decades ago. Nowadays, the big Jewish “civil rights” groups are fighting against “reverse discrimination” which gives “less qualified” minorities “unfair advantage” when competing against their white (Ashkenazi?) Brethren.
I originally made a much longer comment which didn’t survive moderation. We will see if this condensed version goes through.
PHIL- “We have power, including in the media (cf Stamberg, Lansing and Friedkin), our community organizations support the occupation, and neoconservatives were major players in a disastrous blunder, Iraq.”
I seriously doubt that this ongoing phenomenon has much to do with either the neocons or occupation. Rather, I think it is primarily an ongoing attempt to downplay Jewish power, period. Most Gentiles don’t know who is Jewish or not. Suddenly confronted with the disproportionate presence of Jews in the media and Jewish wealth would cause problems for the myth of meritocracy. Unless you truly believe that Jews are significantly superior to Gentiles, then that would raise questions about kinship and tribal solidarity. The notion of Jewish anti-Gentile discrimination might not go down well.
SEAFOID- “Egypt is ruled by a satrap, on the outer edges of one of the cores of Global capitalism. Bas. It does what it is told.”
Yes, and it is difficult to see what would change that. It is not just a question of this ruler versus that ruler, rather, the problem is that Egypt is thoroughly enmeshed within the global system with little opportunity for maneuver. Look at Cyprus, Greece, and the rest of the EU, the corporate promoted neoliberal policies are the same regardless of who is in government. It is happening in the US too, as Obama makes Reagan look like a socialist. At the time, I noted that Egypt lacked the wherewithal to break free of the global system, and the “revolution” would have little significant effect. Actually, it wasn’t a revolution at all, more like a bread riot. A true revolution would have made provisions for feeding and sustaining the citizenry, not be dependent upon IMF loans to import food.
“Since there is little in common religiously between Judaism in Israel and Judaism in the US, Jewishness in itself is not enough to sustain the umbilical cord between the two countries. To compensate for this schism (and for various other reasons) American Jews invented Birthright to ensure that the glue that holds Jewish communities together in the US is their engagement with, on and about Israel.” (Elisha Baskin)
Zionism has replaced Judaism as the unifier of World Jewry. In the US in particular, support for Israel is a means to an end, and that end is tribal kinship which begets organized power-seeking.
MARC- While I agree that “Jew in a Box” is in questionable taste, to say the least, I appreciate you linking to the Justin Timberlake video which I found hysterical. Any outrageous parody of rap music can’t be all bad. Besides, the Timberlake box was opaque and you didn’t have to listen to the contents pontificate.
PHIL- “Can a Jewish state be democratic?”
A liberal discussion of formal niceties will never get to the heart of the matter concerning power and control in a globalized world where the 1% is calling the shots and stomping on the 99%. Of course, too radical a critique will also lead nowhere. Suggest you consider simply discussing what role Israel performs for American Jews and for American Jewish Zionist fat-cats. Has Zionism replaced Classical Judaism as the unifier of world Jewry? Does Jewish chauvinism facilitate Jewish kinship and power-seeking? What would be the reaction of American Jewish Zionists if Israel actually abandoned militarism for peace, etc.
Critically important is to what extent do American Jewish Zionists influence Israeli policy? “One of the best lines in film maker Yoav Shamir’s “Defamation”, was Finkelstein saying: “It’s the best thing that will ever happen to Israel if they get rid of these American Jews who are warmongers from Martha’s Vinyard; and the warmongers from the Hamptons; and the warmongers from Beverly Hills; and the warmongers from Miami. It’s been a disaster for Israel. It’s the best thing if it can ever get rid of this [warmongering] American Jewry. It’s a curse.” (Hostage)
link to mondoweiss.net
Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism. Zionists aggressively seek it out, and when unable to locate sufficient quantities, foment it through actions like this lawsuit. Zionism is to Jewish tribalism what Classical Judaism once was.
“Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews.” (Israel Shahak, 1994)
I provide a one paragraph quote from a superb article on Thatcher by Michael Hudson over at Counterpunch. Link provided for recommended reading.
“The UK became the IMF’s best neoliberal poster child, establishing a comparative advantage in offshore finance in what ultimately would flower as Gordon Brown’s notorious Light Touch that brought about the banking collapses of 2008. In this sense her role was to serve as Britain’s version of Boris Yeltsin, sponsoring the carve-up of centuries of public investment.” (Michael Hudson)
link to counterpunch.org
“Why couldn't Mr. Kassen answer a simple question? Because his job is to defend the indefensible.”
Why, of course his job is to defend the indefensible. Yet, I was surprised by his ineptitude. For the record, both the US and Israel oppose a nuclear weapons-free Middle East for strategic reasons (Including all WMD muddies the waters), the US rhetorically finessing its opposition. Furthermore, I believe that the US still has nuclear missiles on ready alert capable of launch in minutes and potentially subject to error and miscalculation resulting in planetary annihilation. For those who lust for power, the survival of the species is but an afterthought.
CITIZEN- We have discussed this before. Japan was a defeated country trying to initiate surrender negotiations. The US demanded unconditional surrender as a way to forestall this until they used the A-bomb. They knew “unconditional surrender” would be interpreted as meaning the emperor had to go, even though, after the surrender, we let him stay, even downplaying his role in the war. According to General Dwight Eisenhower: “I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” (“Saving Private Power”, Michael Zezima)
VALENCY- “…even its own Dr. Mengele in Shirou Ishii.”
Perhaps Mondo readers would be interested to know that the US provided immunity from war crimes prosecution for this Japanese Dr. Mengele in exchange for the files on his experiments. Most folks are unaware of the extent to which Japanese and, in particular, Nazi war criminals were recruited by the US following WWII. A quote below.
“The US wants to prevent Ishii's knowledge of biological weapons from falling into the hands of the Soviet Union. It also wants to use that knowledge to augment its own germ warfare program.
Seizing the opportunity, Ishii offers to reveal all the details of his experiments at Unit 731 in exchange for immunity from prosecution at war crimes trials. The US accepts the deal and Ishii is allowed to go free. According to reports, he is even allowed to travel to the US on a lecture tour.
Immunity from prosecution is extended to all members of Ishii's team. Some are also offered material inducements, including money, food and gifts, to encourage them to talk. Many Unit 731 veterans go on to high-profile and influential careers in Japan, taking leading roles in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies and institutions like the National Cancer Centre, the National Institute for Health and the Japanese Medical Association. One becomes Governor of Tokyo; another president of the Japan Medical Association; a third becomes head of Green Cross, Japan's largest blood products company; another head of the Japan Olympic Committee.
The immunity deal is kept secret from the public for decades. No public investigation is made into Unit 731 and the experiments conducted there. The story of Unit 731 and Japan's biological weapons program is obscured from history. The truth does not begin to emerge until the 1980s.”
link to moreorless.au.com
CITIZEN- “Mmmm, when will that be….”
If I were to speculate (when have I ever resisted?), I would guess that huge changes will be attempted during Obama’s final term as the capitalist nobility attempts to create a form of global neo-feudalism (we are moving in that direction now). All of these changes are more-or-less linked, and must be evaluated in toto.
“And he calls American support for Israel that country's number one asset.”
Indeed it is. Israel is dependant on the US in a number of areas. I believe this dependency suits American Jewish Zionists just fine as it puts them in a position of power brokers between Israel and the US. An Israel independent of US patronage would lessen their power, hence, something that they would work against.
Also, focusing on American Jews, in order win over the liberal Jews, Israel would have to do things adamantly opposed by American Jewish Zionists. These are the guys who have the clout and support a Jewish state, not a state of all of its citizens. This is the group of “power Jews” that are critically important to Israel to maintain predictable US support, hence, the group Israel needs to respond to.
In any event, we are in the process of a rapid restructuring of the global political economy as neoliberalism is imposed globally, with corporate/financial control locked in. In just a few years, the entire landscape will have likely changed dramatically. I seriously doubt that Israel or its Zionist supporters will make significant changes until things settle in.
HOPHMI- “Polls have been taken of Palestinian-Israelis on the question of whether they’d want to live in a Palestinian state. Most do not.”
That is because they are not stupid. They know that any Palestinian “state” that Israel permits would be little more than a glorified Warsaw ghetto, to which they would be “transferred” if not resolute in their intention to stay where they are.
“82% said they would rather be a citizen of Israel than of any other country.”
Another way of saying that they don’t want to be ethnically cleansed.
HOPHMI- “For the Americans, It’s about avoiding an arms race in a strategically important region.”
If the US wanted to avoid an arms race in the Middle East, it could stop promoting the sale of its weapons world wide. But the US loves weapon sales, and is the number one supplier of weapons to an already over-armed world. As for potential Iranian nukes, the easy solution would be to implement proposals for a nuclear free Middle East, which Iran agrees to, but which the US and Israel adamantly oppose. Nuclear weapons give the US and Israel a strategic advantage via non-nuclear powers, something both prize above the survival of the human species.
LIBRA- “A purely US-centric empire would seek to align the Middle East economically with the US and provide new markets for its products. That would be so more effective long-term and much less costly.”
Several quick points. First, you are of the opinion that your idea of how empire should see things and operate is how empire sees things, therefore, any deviation from your perspective needs to be explained. Your opinion on what is more effective and less costly is actually only your opinion on what is more effective and less costly. Even the phrase “less costly” is problematic. From the perspective of the Military Industrial Complex, less costly equates to less profitable.
As for aligning the Middle East economically with the US, who says it isn’t? The US doesn’t want the Middle East industrialized, it wants to exploit these Third World countries. Secure access to and buy their oil at a price compatible with US interests, heavily influenced by the US and Saudi Arabia, have the oil priced in dollars, and have those dollars “invested” in the global financial system rather than be used for national development. Seems to me that this is exactly what is happening.
The last thing the US wants to see is the independent development of any potential challenge to US Middle East hegemony. That is one of the reasons that in the first Gulf War, the US totally destroyed the Iraq infrastructure. Empire has assigned different functions to the various areas of the planet compatible with imperial designs, First World versus Third World, raw materials and markets versus cheap labor, etc. The Middle East is not the Far East, and China is not Iraq or Iran. I would expect imperial policy to take these differences into account. And while I try to understand the geostrategic implications of events, I abhor the empire and militarism. Furthermore, global imperial policy is leading to a potential disaster sufficiently severe as to put human survival in question.
MRW- “We could have bought all the oil in Iraq many times over without going to war.”
Ah, a free market fundamentalist! Forget about securing access, influencing prices and obtaining strategic leverage, just rely on the magic of the market! How typical of empires! The US has about 1000 military installations worldwide, and for what? Why are we in Afghanistan if not for pipelines? Why are we in the Caspian Sea area? Won’t the Russians bring that oil and gas to market for us to buy?
Of course, not everyone can rely upon the market, or even US guarantees about supplying oil, hence, Israel made us invade Iraq to secure the oil for them. To build a pipeline. How is that pipeline coming along? As for Israel strong-arming us to invade Iraq, what does Stephen Walt say?
“Professor Mearsheimer and I made it clear in our article and especially in our book that the idea of invading Iraq originated in the United States with the neoconservatives, and not with the Israeli government….. We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.” link to mondoweiss.net
The part of the quote I left out is where Walt conflates the neocons with Israel, thereby maintaining that it was all Israel’s fault even though the neocons talked them into it. Now the neocons were very concerned about oil. They wanted to flood the market with Iraqi oil and break OPEC. A harebrained scheme if there ever was one. The oil companies strenuously opposed this and had the neocons booted out of the Bush administration and they took over administering Iraq’s oil. Due to Iraqi resistance, things didn’t go smoothly, however, now “The big multinational petroleum giants now run the nation’s fields. Between 2009 and 2010, the Maliki government granted contracts for developing existing fields and exploring new ones to 18 companies, including ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, the Italian Eni, Russia's Gazprom and Lukoil, Malaysia's Petronas and a partnership between BP and the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation. When they started, the U.S. military provided the initial security umbrella protecting all of their field operations.”
link to zcommunications.org
Yes, we have had these conversations in the past. Everything I have ever said ignored. You provided me four links to past Mondoweiss comments. I provide you with just one in which I pile on the quotes regarding the strategic importance of safeguarding access to oil in our fossil fuel dependent world.
link to mondoweiss.net
Final comment. Mondoweiss remains unique in having commenters who deny the strategic importance of oil. I am unaware of any strategic analyst who does so. No, you and Bob don’t count as strategic analysts.
SIBERIAK- “Yes, but not every foreign policy issue is of central importance to “the Empire”. On more marginal issues lobbying and domestic politics can play a much bigger role.”
I agree completely. My comment about imperial foreign policy being set by empire was a response to a long history of Mondoweiss comments claiming that US foreign policy is set by Israel. Seriously. The actual setting of policy is always influenced by input from the various concentrations of relevant power, including lobbies, foreign governments, corporations, etc. Much of the misrepresentation of the “Israel lobby’s” power is a result of both making an overly broad, unstated assessment of what constitutes the lobby, combined with the claim that this lobby is run out of Israel. Much of what some consider the Israel lobby, I consider domestic concentrations of power. Finally, I maintain that the center of Zionist power is the US, not Israel.
AMERICAN- “None of us are talking about or laying US imperialism at the feet of Israel and the Lobby.”
On this thread, on April 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm, CitizenC said: “Zionism has been the chief driver of US militarism since the end of the Cold War.”
This is hardly a unique opinion on Mondoweiss. For three years I have read about how Israel controls US foreign policy. Sometimes only controls US Middle East foreign policy. Not influences, mind you, but controls. You are not aware of this? You have not seen this aplenty? So cut the BS. My comment was intended for those who hold that view, one prevalent among the many fixated upon “the lobby” to the exclusion of other factors.
“We have asked you one hundred times to show us one example, one practical, one real service, act,etc., Israel provides to benefit US Imperialism to support your claim that Israel is only supported because of US Imperialism—-and none of you have–you can’t–there aren’t any.”
Straw man alert! I don’t know who you are referring to because I have never said that support for Israel is ONLY because of geostrategic considerations. Neither has Chomsky or Finkelstein or even Max Ajl. The problem is you and your cohorts implying that support for Israel is overwhelmingly because of the Lobby, and that US actions in the Middle East are best interpreted by reference to the Lobby and Israel. To support this rather bizarre claim, you belittle all other alternative explanations, even going so far as to pooh-pooh the strategic significance of oil. One benefit? The MIC profits immensely from our support for Israel.
DANAA- “…it is Israel that has a keen interest in maintaining the robustness of the American empire , and to that end, it is using the Jewish Lobby….”
That statement isn’t a whole different from “Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.” The big difference is that you seem to be locating the center of Zionist power in Israel, whereas, I maintain that the center of Zionist power is the US.
“Looked at it this way, Israeli interests (as represented – partly – by the Lobby’s) and American imperial interests are hardly the independent entities – they have a symbiotic relationship where one thrives upon the other.”
You just took the words right out of Chomsky’s mouth! That is more or less his and Finkelstein’s position.
“Sure, the lobby does have influence on israeli politics – and has traditionally situated itself to the right of most governments there, but such influence as it has over the actual israeli reality is far less than what Finkelstein seems to imply or believe.”
The influence of “the lobby” depends critically on how one defines the lobby. If we take the expansive view usually used when arguing an all powerful lobby, then the influence of rich Jewish Zionists funding settlements, birthright tours, Israeli think tanks, the funding of right-wing candidates, in many cases the bulk of campaign contributions, the negative influence on Israeli policies is very significant. Was Rabin an American Zionist hero for taking baby steps for peace? No, he was vilified. In “A Clean Break,” the neocons recommended that Israel adopt neoliberalism, which it did. This rightward drift paralleled the global drift to the right pushed by the 1%. No, Israel is not a vassal state, thanks in large part to the Lobby and American Jewish Zionist influence.
“You can no more peel off the Lobby from the empire than you can tear the empire off from the Lobby.”
In one of my comments to Sumud, I say ‘The Zionists and Israel are thoroughly enmeshed within the empire, partaking fully in the imperial project, supportive of neoliberal globalization and US militarism.” Doesn’t seem to me to be much substantive difference. Hey, are you a Chomskyite?
Finally, I think there is a danger in treating “the lobby,” however defined, as an externally imposed agent of Israel. Something which can be excised from the body politic. The Lobby is part of the body politic, and American Zionist Jews benefit from the organized power-seeking of Jewish Zionist organizations, a key ingredient in explaining ongoing support for Zionism among organized Jews. In my view, the reality is a sort of perverse triangle in which American elites (including Jews), American Jewish Zionists (organized American Jewry), and Israeli Jewish elites cooperate and compete, each trying to exploit the others to obtain power-seeking advantage. In other words, the American Jewish power-elite exert considerable influence on the Jewish state, and support Israel to the extent that they perceive that it benefits them.
SUMUD- “How do you explain Obama’s inability to get Netanyahu to heel on a permanent settlement freeze? Netanyahu’s 27 standing ovations in congress is a result of his …magnetic personality? I don’t buy it.”
The settlements aren’t very important to the US, rhetoric notwithstanding. The 27 standing ovations were indirectly bought and paid for by Zionist funders. Let us not overemphasize the importance or independence of congress. The US is a capitalist country, run for the benefit of the corporate elites. When have the corporate elites ever sucked up to Netanyahu? Has Israel said no to neoliberal globalization? The fat-cats don’t care about the Palestinians one way or another, and are primarily concerned with restructuring the global political economy.
SUMUD- “Moving away from generalisations such as “the empire’s foreign policy” to specific US foreign policy with regard to Israel and Palestine – what are the FP goals of empire on this subject, who decides what they are, and this is based on what?”
Since the power elite lie about their true intentions, most public statements by government officials, etc, can be safely ignored. We must use common sense and the patterns of behavior to infer actual objectives and policy. It appears to me that the goals in regards to Israel and Palestine is to support Israel and to pretend to be concerned about the Palestinians.
Foreign policy is developed by the executive branch of the government in response to the perceived needs of the dominant elites, and is influenced by those with significant political/economic power, including Zionists. While the Middle East hydrocarbon reserves are critically important to empire, the fate of the Palestinians isn’t. Additionally, the elites currently appear to have a strong pro-Israel, anti-Arab bias.
Finally, this is much more than a consequence of some external foreign lobby. The Zionists and Israel are thoroughly enmeshed within the empire, partaking fully in the imperial project, supportive of neoliberal globalization and US militarism. Remember, Zionism is in no small measure a competitor to Marxism among Jews, blood and soil nationalism no threat to capitalism, and Zionism has contributed to American Jewish support for militarism.
“Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” (Irving Kristol, 1973)
link to mondoweiss.net
DANAA- “IMO, the real reason khalidi, or Chomsky, or max Ajl, or Keith our very own commenter, are sometimes disposed to shortchanging the Lobby’s true impact – has something to do with an all too human reluctance to look at second and third order effects.”
First of all, lumping me with Khalidi and Chomsky is a complement, but Max Ajl? I am also pleased that you consider me and my failings human, however, I can assure you that I am aware of the impact of pro-Israel appointments. You, however, seem not to have considered why it is necessary to have such a strong Lobby. Simply stated, it is because Israel is so utterly dependent upon the US and, by extension, the Israel Lobby. First, a Kissinger quote, then additional comment.
“Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)
The empire gets a lot of benefit out of Israel being blamed for Middle East aggressions which benefit empire. Not Palestine, of course, but Lebanon and Syria for sure. Egypt, too. No need to worry about a united Arab nation challenging US hegemony with Israel in the middle stirring up trouble.
A militaristic Israel provides benefits for American Zionists as well. A quote from Norman Finkelstein, a former Mondo hero now excommunicated.
“For Israel’s new American Jewish ‘supporter,’ however, such talk bordered on heresy: an independent Israel at peace with its neighbors was worthless; an Israel aligned with currents in the Arab world seeking independence from the United States was a disaster. Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.” (Norman Finkelstein)
You may still disagree with me, but you can rest assured that I am fully aware of the impact of pro-Israel appointments. Yes, our foreign policy is heavily biased in favor of Israel, however, all of this occurs within the context of domestic concentrations of power. The empire is still the empire, and it is not being run out of Tel Aviv. Furthermore, the “American” empire has morphed into the transnational corporate empire, guided by the financial corporations. Israel has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization, other than going along, or with the Trans Pacific Partnership, although the “Lobby” may be involved as a de facto imperial lobby.
I almost skipped this post. Of course Khalidi is more or less correct. The empire’s foreign policy is set by the empire. Period. Full stop. This policy is based upon access to raw materials and markets and justifications for military Keynesianism. Period. Full stop. The notion of the imperial elites allowing the empire to be diverted by Israel is nonsense. The “Lobby” probably has more influence over Israel than empire. The $3 billion in military aid to Israel is chicken feed compared to the overall military budget, and benefit’s the MIC in any event.
What would change my mind? Israel invading and occupying Saudi Arabia, thereby securing independence from the US and significant control over oil supply and prices. Something you will never see. I have read a lot of strategic analysts. They all talk about effective control of the ME hydrocarbon reserves, a strategically important imperative. None mention the “Lobby” except in passing. None. Are they all stupid? A bunch of Chomskyites?
The empire doesn’t care about Palestine or Palestinians, and is pleased to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, along with taxpayer funded weapons given to Israel. The emphasis right now is on completing neoliberal globalization, the Trans Pacific Partnership (including the Asia pivot), remaking the Middle East to eliminate potential rivals to empire, the re-conquest of Africa, and the privatization of everything. In other words, a total blitzkrieg of the 1% against the 99%.
Of course, there are certain psychological benefit to believing that all of this is caused by the “Lobby,” and that if only that could be eliminated, everything would be hunky dory. Dream on. The people referred to as State Department “realists” are, in effect, anti-Zionist imperialists. And Obama is not your friend. Wall Street is in charge, not the Lobby. Be prepared for a very rough ride these next few years.
NEVADA NED- “I agree with Khalidi and Chomsky.”
Me too, Ned, me too.
“Mr Erdoğan must have been under considerable pressure from President Obama to legitimize such a brazen lie.”
“So an elaborate maneuver had to be enacted. The apology was agreed upon with the Turks long ago. President Obama’s visit to Israel was to be the occasion, giving the president the aura of a successful mediator. But the deal was to be announced only during the very last minutes of the visit.” (Uri Avnery)
link to counterpunch.org
PHIL- Further on in the article Hedges says: “The liberal class, in fact, is used to marginalize and discredit those, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, who have the honesty, integrity and courage to denounce Israeli war crimes.”
What? You are a liberal and Mondoweiss is liberal. When has Mondoweiss or any significant number of commenters ever criticized Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein? Go figure.
MARC B - “this smells like western agitprop, just like the farcical ‘pussy riot’.
That’s my initial take too. It’s not like they are going to promote RAWA, is it?
So what is the bottom line? Not allowing an IDF fundraiser at your hotel is anti-Semitic?
“…real Jews still have time to mobilize, make our objections felt and stop this obscenity flat in its tracks.”
Yes, real Jews can turn their backs on “Diaspora Boy,” and follow the example of “Israel Man!”
link to evcomics.com
YRN- Your point is well taken. Israel, the US, the UK, and Canada are all crypto fascist nations with many things in common.
ANNIE- “i didn’t call this a neocon intervention, you did.”
Say what? This follows a block quote where you quote yourself saying: “i emphasized that the sectarian conflict was an intended consequence of neocon intervention, which it is.”
Are you arguing with yourself? Perhaps you need to take a break and clear your mind.
ANNIE- “you’re wrong. i emphasized that the sectarian conflict was an intended consequence of neocon intervention, which it is”
Since the last of the neocons was forced out of the Bush administration in 2005, I’m hard put to see how you can call this a “neocon” intervention. Who’s in charge now? This is more proof by labeling. You use the term “neocon” twice in your post. The first when you label some bloggers “neocon bloggers.” The second was the last sentence when you labeled US/NATO/etc intervention as neocon intervention. You have provided neither evidence nor argument to show that this imperial intervention should be described as a neocon intervention, yet get all huffy when Dan challenges you on this point.
As for your final link to the Henry Precht opinion piece, let me begin by pointing out that we are responding to what you wrote, not to some link. You only provided the quote in rebuttal to Dan. Furthermore, his statement that “This is not the kind of entanglement Obama’s Washington could have wished for; it is the sort of thinking that the neocons have worked for,” is yet more projection and labeling. Yet another attempt to shift the blame for administration policies onto someone else, the neocons being a useful target. Yeah, they once were in government, made a lot of plans, still have influence, however, Obama doesn’t work for them, does he? No one is forcing him to do all of this if he doesn’t want to. And since he is doing it, apparently he wants to. It’s his policy now, neocon influence notwithstanding.
“yes taxi, had i had anyway of doing that i would have. i just got pissed.”
Yes, you have an extremely thin skin. You were challenged on one point, however, additional commenters got involved and the discussion got diverted, albeit unintentionally. Things happen. Apparently, I can’t respond to Ellen without you taking it personal. Am I complaining that all of our comments got deleted? Nope. Things happen. But you are still pissed.
DAN CROWTHER- “I’m out.”
Bite your tongue! Are you going to leave me here alone? Calm down. The first thing you need to realize is that none of our comments make any difference anyway. Our comments were deleted? So what. It doesn’t happen often. Shouldn’t take any of this too seriously in any event. Were here to have a little fun, nothing more. Sometimes it works out, other times not so much. At least Annie isn’t calling for a humanitarian intervention in Syria. She was, however, unfair to you, misrepresenting your brief reference to past imperial interventions. Things did get a little out of hand when others joined the fray. These things happen and in the long run its not a big deal. I am far more concerned with the consequences of neoliberal globalization than with anything said on Mondoweiss.
ANNIE- “…it had nothing to do with syria or iraq it was a complete highjack. it ignored all the points in the article and didn’t address them at all.”
A couple of comments are in order. First, as I previously indicated, I thought that the article was good overall (I know you were addressing Dan). You emphasized that the sectarian conflict was an intended consequence of this semi-covert intervention. Bravo! Unfortunately, your final comment about this being a “neocon intervention” was both inaccurate and what precipitated the “diversion.” What once was a neocon game plan involving 7 countries now appears to be official policy being implemented opportunistically by the Obama administration. Calling it a neocon intervention implies that Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, et al are the culprits, Obama a helpless victim, the image of the shinning city on the hill frayed but intact. In other words, implying that these imperial interventions are Israel’s fault, the Zionists tainting our humanitarian empire. So Dan was properly commenting on that one aspect of your article, not thread-jacking.
Both Dan’s and my initial comments were relatively brief, only becoming longer in response to Ellen’s lengthy regurgitation of imperial propaganda regarding the US/NATO assault on Yugoslavia. Dealing with liberal imperial apologists is a lot like dealing with liberal Zionist apologists. Here we go again, I thought. Had I realized that I had previously responded to Ellen in the past, I would have shortened my final response. No matter. Unlike Dan, I’m not particularly concerned that our comments were expunged. I have no desire to revisit Yugoslavia other than to point out that when a Democratic President makes war he can always count on loyal liberal support and ideological solidarity. And Obama can always count on some folks making excuses for him and his administration, finding good intent where none exists.
HOSTAGE- More on BRICS from Patrick Bond at Counterpunch:
“The reach of the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) leaders was palpable this week, not just here in Durban where they gathered on Tuesday and Wednesday to plan investments and infrastructure, but everywhere on the continent where extraction does extreme damage.”
“The awful news from Bangui should have been a wake-up call to BRICS heads of state, to clear their heads and contemplate the extractive-industry crises they are amplifying, hand-in-glove with Western corporations and the 15 African leaders who met just after BRICS concluded at Durban’s wealthiest gated-community resort, Zimbali.”
“It all reeks of the crony capitalism that characterized the gatherings between BRICS state bureaucrats and corporate interests, who crowded into the same Durban convention centre hallways this week. Pretoria’s foreign ministry explicitly excluded anyone from civil society from attending, and SA’s most accomplished environmentalist, Bobby Peek, was even prohibited from entering for a debate on national radio on Tuesday.”
That leaves BRICS rulers and their corporations to quietly plan the further looting of Africa, joined by the pliable guests led by Museveni. However, subsidized state funding is needed to facilitate deals because commercial banks know there are intolerable risks – like those the SANDF troops just suffered.”
A genuinely counterhegemonic financial strategy would have been for BRICS to instead support the late Hugo Chavez’s Bank of the South. The idea was spurned, as BRICS elites apparently want an institution without any residue of more progressive development ideals.”
Revealing its new orientation, the pro-privatisation DBSA has, in recent weeks, been firing most of its social and environmental staff and shutting down its development journal and library. Its record of infrastructure investment – including commercialized water and toll-roads – does not bode well for people or the planet. Expect the BRICS Bank’s subsidized rail, road and port credits to lubricate more multinational corporate extraction.”
link to counterpunch.org
HOSTAGE- “On the contrary, the government of South Africa and its public institutions…. have been very, very outspoken….”
Better they speak out than not speak out, however, more substantive action will not be undertaken unless it benefits their elites, a highly unlikely event. And, while they may get some political benefit out of criticizing Israel, four of the five BRICS have serious domestic issues which they should attend to, hardly champions of human rights in their own domains. Furthermore, while they may jockey for increased influence, they all are part of the global system which they essentially support. They may serve a somewhat different 1%, but champions of the downtrodden they are not.
JUSTPASSINGBY- “BRIC taking any stance/action? Not going to happen unfortunately.”
I agree. Nations are not moral agents, alliances of nations even less so. BRICS exists to pursue the geopolitical objectives of the BRICS elites. As such, any anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian action would have to be undertaken with an unstated geopolitical objective. Furthermore, none of the BRICS nations is particularly praiseworthy in any event, Brazil perhaps less odious than the rest. If they provide some sort of counterweight to the empire, fine, but don’t get your hopes up.
MARC B- “So how can it be, Mr. Katz and other Jews on campus are asking, that Princeton’s Jewish enrollment has fallen by nearly half since the early 1980′s — to about 10 percent, or about 450 undergraduates, from a high of 18 percent? Why do other Ivy League campuses — Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Penn — manage to keep Jewish populations of at least a quarter and in some cases more than a third?”
Interesting, isn‘t it? Speaking to us, Dimadok asks, “How many Jews are too much for you?” Speaking to sympathetic fellow Jews, Stanley Katz asks what level of Jewish overrepresentation in the Ivy Leagues is minimally acceptable? 5X? 10X? Is there a maximum amount which would make them feel uncomfortable, perhaps drawing attention and eliciting envy from the lesser endowed? Would there be complaints about being confined to an Ivy League ghetto?
DON- “Well, no offense to anyone, but I don’t find this brilliant at all.”
I agree, and then some. The entire article is a joke, roughly akin to watching clouds and claiming to see identifiable images. Pure projection and self-deception raised to an art form. I can’t help wondering if the real purpose was to make Weiss seem like a realist in comparison. The only substantive thing which occurred was to formalize the rapprochement between Israel and Turkey thereby permitting a united front in the assault on Syria and possible action against Iran. That and reassure Israel and Zionist Jews everywhere that Israel can do whatever it wants and Uncle Sam will provide full support whatever it does. These are dangerous times for the 99%, unwise to delude yourself about Obama who works for the 1% and is good at what he does.
PHIL- So you place great stock in what Obama says, ignoring what he does, and you find great meaning in meaningless bromides and ambiguities? So this proven liar and imperial militarist, Wall Street’s lawyer in the White House, continues to have great appeal for you, gives you hope? Have you established your liberal bona fides or what? Jeez, I hope you get some job offers out of this.
A couple of quotes from a February 28 article by Ramzy Baroud
“An Israeli-Turkish rapprochement is unmistakably underway, but unlike the heyday of their political alignment of the 1990’s, the revamped relationship is likely to be more guarded and will pose a greater challenge to Turkey rather than to Israel.”
“According to the Radikal report (published in Feb 20 and cited by Israeli Haaretz two days later), Israel is willing to meet two of Turkey’s conditions for the resumption of full ties: an apology, and compensation to the families of the victims. “Turkey has also demanded Israel lift the siege,” on Gaza, Haaretz reported, citing Radikal, “but is prepared to drop that demand.”
“This is only the tip of the iceberg. If these reports are even partially credible, Turkish-Israeli relations are being carefully, but decidedly repaired. This stands in contrast with declared Turkish foreign policy and the many passionate statements by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other leading Turkish politicians.”
link to counterpunch.org
BANEN AL-SHEEMARY- “The outright denial of the claim that oil played a decisive role in the invasion is still somehow considered a legitimate stance.”
On Mondoweiss it remains gospel. Talk of geostrategy verboten among ‘the Lobby made us do it’ crowd.
“Iraq has become fragmented and pieced. I think of how long it will take to assemble the pieces back together, and to try to bring together those shards of glass that once made a beautiful piece of work.”
That was the intent of the first invasion, after all. The second invasion was primarily about the oil, however, the first was about destroying Iraq so that it could not become a future threat to US Middle East hegemony and Israeli regional dominance. That is why Saddam was left in power and the uprising crushed, so that there would be an excuse for sanctions which would complete the total destruction of the country.
“Suicide and car bombings, fighting between armed militias, kidnappings, and snipers result in a feeling of despair and no sense of security.”
This is the application of the “Salvadoran option” by the US occupation forces, death squads and torture designed to promote sectarian conflict to keep Iraq weak and divided.
link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
“Both the Iraqi and American governments promised many things for the people, like building a sewage system. They could not even fulfill this basic necessity. Inadequate water resources have caused massive death and disease in several cities. The two-hour electricity limit halts any work that needs to be done for the day. Birth defects will continue for decades because of the depleted uranium weaponry used by American soldiers.”
During Gulf War I, the US intentionally targeted infrastructure including water purification knowing that it would cause disease. This is part and parcel of totally destroying Iraq to eliminate it as a potential rival for regional influence. The US doesn’t want to rebuild Iraq, why would it? Empires are only interested in power accumulation, not doing good works that don’t benefit them, much less interfere with grand designs. They are run by sociopaths who don’t care about the suffering of others. As for the depleted uranium, I duplicated one of Blaine Coleman’s links.
link to democracynow.org
RITZL- “We could have just paid Saddam Hussein $1B to leave. But instead we spent $2T to waste a country, millions of lives, and tens of millions of futures.”
Yes, that is what it means to be a warfare state. Fattening the MIC coffers by killing more or less defenseless Third World people. No longer simply the suppliers of raw materials, cheap labor and markets, the Third World has an additional role: targets for our military as we pursue the logic of military Keynesianism. And with the additional benefit of the total destruction of a potential future impediment to US Middle East hegemony and Israeli dominance. Did I mention the oil?
PIOTR- “Securing oil supplies” is bullshit, China has her supplies as secure as USA simply by having cash to buy it.”
How much “cash” did Gaddafi have in Western banks at the start of the NATO intervention? How much was he able to spend? How much “cash” was in the Iranian accounts after the fall of the Shah? How much has been available to Iran to spend? Partner, you have as much money as the Wall Street controlled financial system says you have, not a penny more. Accounts can be frozen, assets seized. China is dependent upon US markets, the global financial system, and US secured oil to survive. Continuing to assert that oil is just another commodity is ludicrous in our hydrocarbon era.
“A less self-indulgent look at the reality of the post-World War II era suggests a different story. Whether in Latin America, southern Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, the central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been consistent: to make sure that an independent course of development did not succeed anywhere, out of a fear that it might spread to the rest of the developing world and threaten U.S. economic domination. In the Middle East, the specific task has been to make sure that the flow of oil and oil profits continues in a fashion conducive to U.S. interests.” (Robert Jensen)
link to dissidentvoice.org
“China is in fact correct to be worried about its oil supply. Some say the invasion of Iraq was meant to enhance U.S control over the Middle East’s black gold in light of a rapidly expanding Chinese appetite. Elsewhere, reports the Washington Post, “The United States is building a network of military bases and diplomatic missions whose main goal is to protect American access to oil fields in volatile places such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and tiny Sao Tome and, as important, to deny that access to China.” (Dissident voice, 4/24/10)
link to dissidentvoice.org
“And the pipeline, coupled with green energy projects in China, South Korea, and Japan, might begin to wean East Asia from its dependency on Middle Eastern oil and thus on the U.S. military to secure access and protect shipping routes.” (John Feffer)
link to counterpunch.org
Henry A. Kissinger, Rockefeller's well-compensated, multi-purpose minion and long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) said: "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people."[2] Michael Collon, Belgian author said: "If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere."[3]
link to rense.com
PHIL- “What is the point of this trip? I have no idea….”
“Whatever the stated cause, this trip is about the lobby, about obeisance to a powerful political faction in the U.S. ….”
Your first comment is honest, however, when all else fails, come back to “the Lobby made him do it!” Rubbish! You are intellectually imprisoned by your liberal bias. Obama is exactly what he appears to be, the CEO of empire. He could care less about the Palestinians, or the ongoing carnage in Iraq, or the Blacks in Detroit. His concern in Israel is how to destroy all opposition to US Middle East imperial hegemony and Israeli dominance. To work out an agreement on how best to destroy Syria and subdue Iran, and in so doing, effectively contain both Russia and China. It is all part of the big picture which you tend to ignore in favor of wishful thinking and Lobby scapegoating.
BILLM- “As the Arab Spring continues to undermine the established order in the Middle East….”
What have you been smoking? American hegemony in the Middle East remains intact, Tunisia and Egypt contained, the ‘threat’ converted to an opportunity as a pretext for the destruction of Libya, AFRICOM running amok, and Syria under attack with Russia and China more or less powerless to significantly influence events. The neocon gameplan appears to still be in effect with Iran in constant peril. And it ain’t Israel calling the shots. The geostrategic implications of all of this far too serious to indulge Netanyahu. Now, if Israel really was setting US Middle East policy, why doesn’t Israel control any significant oil fields? Why is Israel still utterly dependent upon Uncle Sam to achieve its objectives?
“Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)
ANNIE, EGBERT- Either your sense of humor is an enigma wrapped in a riddle or you are somehow unaware that the Onion is parody. Or is the status of the Onion so well known that it is ‘uncool’ to even mention it?
JON S- “Am Yisrael Hai” is sinister only if you regard the survival of the Jewish people as sinister.”
By “Jewish people,” are you referring to living, breathing people who happen to be Jews, or are you referring, as I suspect, to that organizational entity known as the tribe? And if you are referring to the tribe, why does survival of this particular organizational entity take precedence over individual human rights?
KALITHEA- There are some folks here who seem unaware that Iran has been in the imperial cross hairs ever since the Shah was overthrown. It throws a monkey wrench into their "the Lobby made us do it" narrative.
The top picture says it all: there is no daylight between these two hombres. And don’t they look friendly with their jackets off, looks like they could use some privacy! A couple of jackets off? Hmmm. Finally, have you ever seen so many blue ties in your life?
PHIL- “Intermarriage and empowerment-- the modern Jewish American story.”
My, what an interesting comment.
DONALD- “…I think Josh Blumberg has every right to speak out against his school honoring someone he thinks is an anti-semite.”
While I am somewhat sympathetic to anyone’s right to “speak out,” I think we need to recognize that Josh Blumberg was a member of "Write On For Israel,” The Jewish Week newspaper's advocacy program for high school students. Is this Zionism’s version of the Hitler Youth? He is not writing as an individual expressing his free speech, rather, he is part of an organized intimidation network of Zionist shock troops that scream “anti-Semitism” to stifle criticism of Israel or discussions of Jewish power. And the school administrators were sufficiently intimidated to postpone the award. This isn’t some brave lefty protesting an un-indicted war criminal like Elliot Abrams, rather, it is a youthful Zionist cadre smearing John Mearsheimer. No courage or integrity involved, Josh knew he had the full backing of the Zionist power configuration in his de facto defense of tribal power and privilege. Let me go farther. Unsupported accusations of “anti-Semitism” are, in my view, indications of anti-Gentile chauvinism, a rather common malady among Jewish Zionists. The type of crap indulged in only by those who feel powerful, secure, and entitled. The arrogant new WASPs.
GOLDMARX- “Excuse me, but Jaime Dimon? He’s of Greek ancestry – not Jewish at all.
There does seem to be a diversity of opinion on this, however, I should point out that it is possible to be both Greek and Jewish. In any event, he does not appear to be religious at all. In the future, I will substitute Sheldon Adelson or similar. My whole point being that American Jews are both secure and powerful. Where did I get the idea that Dimon was Jewish? Mondoweiss.
“And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec'y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon's Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)?”
link to mondoweiss.net
MAYHEM- “You prefer to just vent your lazy, entrenched views that display scant appreciation of what how the Nazis went about their extermination.”
You totally ignore most of human history to focus on but one event to buttress your ‘victim-hood’ defense of Jewish power and privilege. The mass-murder of Jews was a historical aberration. Throughout much of history, Blacks and aboriginal peoples have been the primary victims of mass-murder and slavery, with Ashkenazi Jews frequently partaking of the spoils of conquest. Surely, American Jews wield unprecedented wealth and power, AIPAC hardly a weak and humble organization, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon fearful for their future. Yet, you continue to focus on the Holocaust, ignoring not only a long history of warfare and mass-murder, but more deplorably, all of the mass-murder which has occurred SINCE the Holocaust. Or has it escaped your attention all of the death and destruction which the empire has visited upon the world, from Latin America to Korea to Viet Nam to Indonesia to Iraq? Never Again? Is that for Jews only, or do other people count for anything with you? Six million Jews? Is there a modern parallel? Do you know what is happening in the Congo right now as a consequence of Western intervention?
“The U.S. tells the world it can’t figure out how six million people died in the Democratic Republic of Congo – while Washington writes the checks and arms the perpetrators to the teeth. Like Mafia Dons pretending to be honest businessmen, successive U.S. administrations subsidize and direct the worst genocide since World War Two. The United States has financed and given overall direction to the worst genocide since World War Two, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Washington has drenched Congo’s eastern provinces in the blood of over six million people. The governments of Rwanda and Uganda, the direct perpetrators of this holocaust, are in every sense of the word agents of U.S. foreign policy, who operate with impunity under the imperial umbrella.” (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report)
link to zcommunications.org
If you are an American, you bear some responsibility for this, as do I, however, your victim-hood mentality allows you to pretend otherwise. Likewise, the nuclear weapons which Israel possesses and would likely use if advantageous would result in the deaths of tens of millions of people, mostly Arabs, and I suspect, not particularly high on your list of concerns. At this point in time, Zionism has devolved into narcissistic self-centeredness, the inability to see beyond the tribe. I leave you with a final quote.
“What distinguishes Jewish tribalism is the inability to see any historical event absent a Jewish filter. Hence, as the brilliant Israel Shahak pointed out, when the serfs rose up against their rulers in more feudal times and turned their anger, understandably, on the landlord's Jewish middle men, it was described as an "anti-Semitic pogrom." When there were no Jews involved, they were described as what they actually were, peasant uprisings.” (Jeffrey Blankfort)
link to mondoweiss.net
MAYHEM- “Keith and Ellen have attempted to diminish the Holocaust as a ‘Jewish’ event.”
Nothing I have said diminishes the Holocaust, which was but one aspect of World War II, and which you Zionists focus on and exploit shamelessly. In so doing, it is you who diminishes the suffering of non-Jews during World War II, in which over 60 million people perished, approximately 10% of which were Jews. What were the over 54 million Gentiles, chopped liver? And the Holocaust is properly considered yet another example of mass-murder, which has been rather common throughout history. Just ask the native Americans and Black Africans. The extreme focusing on the Holocaust as “unique” tends to imply that mass-murder is a rare occurrence, not an ongoing phenomenon. “...up to a certain point, the Nazi war crimes consisted largely of inflicting on white Europeans levels of brutality that had previously been reserved only for Asians, Africans, and the native populations of North, Central, and South America.” (Bertram Gross)
“This phenomenon of diminishing the Holocaust is punishable by imprisonment in a number of countries under racial and religious vilification laws.”
These shameful laws are a consequence of Jewish/Zionist power, and the ability to exploit the Holocaust for power-seeking.
“From a purely instrumental standpoint, the Shoah proved the greatest asset ever acquired by Zionism, one sedulously cultivated over the years.” (p66, “Overcoming Zionism,” Joel Kovel, 2007)
“In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of Jews killed by non-Jews. The extent of the persecution and discrimination against non-Jews by the ‘Jewish state’ with the support of the organized diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the suffering inflicted on Jews by the states hostile to them. Although the struggle against antisemitism (and of all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism , which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.” (Israel Shahak, 1994)
HOPHMI- “And no, I’m not minimizing the fact that other groups were targeted as well, but there is no question as to who the main target was of the Nazis was.”
Over 20 million people of the former USSR were killed during World War II versus approximately 6 million Jews, yet you insist that Jews were the primary victims? According to Joel Kovel, “…the Nazis filled the first concentration camps with leftists, the crushing of whom was the first order of business for the Third Reich. At this time, Jews, though experiencing revilement of all sorts, were not singled out as particular victims.…the ‘Final Solution’ did not take shape until the invasion of Russia, or to be more exact, until the invasion began to run into trouble on the road to Moscow thanks to the unanticipated resistance put forth by the Soviets. It was then, with yet more millions of Jews in the newly invaded lands (chiefly Ukraine), and with the first presentiment that the mad scheme of world conquest was not going to happen as planned, that the pressure-cooker of Nazism began to germinate the scheme of mass extermination, and followed it through with all the nihilism, race-hatred, industrialization, sadism and cold malevolence that was the Nazi trademark.” (p75, 76, Overcoming Zionism, Joel Kovel, 2007)
You continue to misinterpret history due to your Judeo-centric myopia. Eternal Jewish victim-hood remains an unshakeable part of your ideological narrative, regardless of the facts of the matter. To you, World War II reduces to one big anti-Semitic pogrom. Being the victim means not having to deal with the consequences of Jewish power and privilege. Very convenient.
JAMES CANNING- “Keith – - You think black South Africans would have benefited from extended vicious civil war in the country?”
James, you think that having blacks wielding the white man’s whip represents a big improvement? My point was that a South African solution in Israel/Palestine is far from idyllic, hardly a model to strive for. What is actually happening in South Africa is established fact. Your “extended vicious civil war” is conjecture. In today’s globalized political economy, the options of both the South African blacks and the Palestinians are severely limited. I think it is fair to say, however, that in South Africa, the ANC co-opted any sort of effective resistance to neoliberalism, just as Obama has done in the US.
For some curious reason, South Africa continues to be held up as some sort of model for a successful outcome for the Israel/Palestine conflict. Putting aside that Zionist ideology precludes this, the South African model is hardly encouraging. In order to get some political power and nominal democracy, Mandela struck a political bargain which left control of the economy in the hands of the white South African elites and the transnational corporations. The net effect was that black politicians replaced white politicians as administrators implementing neoliberalism on behalf of international capital. In effect, little changed as blacks continued to be exploited and impoverished. The presence of black administrators acting to stifle dissent and effective resistance. According to Danny Schecter, “South Africa is an angry and frustrated nation and on the brink.”
“That "deeper trouble" evoked the compromise negotiated settlement that won political power for the ANC through elections in the early 90's, but kept economic power in the hands of a mostly white elite dominated by big business, the "mining energy complex." Economist Sampie Terrablanche tells that story of an imposed neoliberalism lobbied for by multinationals, international financial institutions and foreign governments like the U.S. and U.K. in his book, "Lost in Transformation."
link to zcommunications.org
ANNIE- “…sometimes i get the feeling we’re just laboratories for strange theories.”
GOLDMARX- “I worry less about the position of American Jewry nowadays and more about the 99% in general. Social justice for them will avert any major persecution for minorities here.”
Something we agree upon. Unfortunately, as we approach the culmination of neoliberal globalization, the conditions of life for the 99% are likely to deteriorate significantly and rapidly. Massive civil unrest is anticipated and planned for, that is what the militarization of domestic society is all about. Forget about ethnicity, it is the poorer elements of the 99% which will bear the brunt, many of our cities already occupied zones, Detroit a harbinger of things to come.
link to blackagendareport.com
GOLDMARX- “Have I ever engaged in personal attacks against you, Keith?”
Every time you imply that Gentiles are intrinsically irrational Jew haters and murders you engage in an affront to all Gentiles. Jewish anti-Gentile chauvinism is the mirror image of anti-Semitism, yet, while you continue to bemoan perceived anti-Semitism, you casually engage in anti-Gentile chauvinism as if it was some sort of birthright entitlement accruing to the “son of Holocaust survivors.” Do you truly believe that you are in greater danger from a racist backlash than Arabs, Blacks, or Latino immigrants? If so, why? And why should your claim to victimhood be greater than these ethnic groups I have mentioned, all of which you lump together under the label of Goyim? Norman Finkelstein is also the son of Holocaust survivors, but it hasn’t stunted his sense of perspective, nor his concern for universal justice.
GOLDMARX- “Given the economic crises that have been racking the US since the late 200o’s, I would say that Weimar analogies are quite reasonable.”
This comment says volumes about your Judeo-centric myopia. The respective demographics are not even remotely comparable, there are plenty of minorities here to pick on other than Jews, who, I might add, have never experienced the type of racism heaped upon American Blacks. Is the Southern security fence designed to keep out the Jews? Is the uptick in anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism anti-Semitic? Is the prison system disproportionately filled with Jews? Is the media controlled by anti-Semites?
I could go on, but why bother? I doubt that you are truly fearful of a new Holocaust, obsessing about anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, the psychological glue binding the tribe together. Kinda fun to be an self-righteous anti-Gentile chauvinist and get away with it, your own little exploitation of the Holocaust.
“The Shoah did not determine the inner drive and logic of Zionism, but it had the highly important result of allowing this to be shown outwardly in a benign light that drew in vast degrees of support for what had hitherto been considered a marginal and dubious idea. Both the Jewish community and world opinion were greatly affected….The Shoah, in other words, allowed the perception of a highly evolved Zionist aggression, which dated before the war, to become eclipsed, turned around, and seen as defensive and therefore necessary.” (p69, “Overcoming Zionism,” Joel Kovel, 2007)
GOLDMARX- “The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.”
Why would anti-Semitism “flare up in the near future?” Is it because Gentiles are intrinsically irrational Jew haters? Is it true that “The world hates the Jews. The world always has and will continue to do so.” (David Mamet) ? Why is that? What is wrong with the Goyim anyway? Not quite human, huh? If only the Jews could count on receiving the love and affection reserved for Arabs, Blacks, Native Americans, etc, then, perhaps you could worry less about anti-Semitism, cowering in fear in Park Avenue ghettos. Or, you could drop the eternal victim-hood charade and get a life, perhaps even mingle with your fellow humans who aren’t Jewish. Or do you find being a loyal member of the tribe particularly rewarding?
Interesting article to make its way onto Mondoweiss. An interesting attribute of capitalism is the systemic ability to co-opt the opposition. Radical beginnings slowly change under the influence of money- more members, more donations, bigger budget, etc- so that the means become the end. Currently, American feminism seems preoccupied with abortion rights and eliminating the glass ceiling, the goals reflecting the priorities of the white, educated, upwardly mobile (and frequently Jewish) leadership. Any concern for Third World women seems tainted by de facto imperial orientalism which seems to favor humanitarian interventions, the white man’s burden becoming the white woman’s as well, as ‘feminist’ women celebrate the right to partake in combat and pilot drones.
Radical feminist women surely must understand that hyper-masculine misogyny is a byproduct of our militaristic warfare society. You can’t maintain a militarized empire without normalizing aggression and promoting violence. Those traits which we associate with women- nurturing, compassion, community, etc- need to be downplayed, competition and fear of the ‘other’ emphasized. It is why we close schools and open prisons. A real American feminist is also an anti-imperialist, and is opposed to neoliberal globalization. She isn’t concerned with the glass ceiling and the acquisition of personal power within the current system of corporate/financial rule. True feminism will work for a fundamental change in our current global political economy.
KATHLEEN- “And let us not ever forget Fleisher’s role in outing CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame who had put her own life on the line for this country.”
Right you are, Kathleen. I mean, who has done more to advance truth, justice, respect for human rights, and American ‘fair play’ than those courageous straight-shooters at the CIA? What would we do without them safeguarding us from narco-terrorists? Gets a bit tricky at times, a fine line to walk, mistakes have been made, but on balance….?
SEAFOID- I question the conclusions of the article you linked to. Below is a quote from the article:
“But the tense relations between Turkey and Israel, which have steadily worsened ever since Israeli marines killed nine Turkish activists as they attempted to stop aid ships breaking the blockade on Gaza in May 2010.….”
I have read several analysis which indicate that there are still strong ties between Israel and Turkey, and that things are not getting worse. Erdogan’s public statements are designed to placate the Turkish street, nothing more. He is a power seeker and liar like most politicians. Below are four paragraphs and a link to an article on this by Ramzy Baroud over at CounterPunch, well worth reading.
“Israeli media referenced a report by Turkish newspaper Radikal with much interest, regarding secret talks between Turkey and Israel that could yield an Israeli apology for its army’s raid against the Turkish aid flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, which was on its way to Gaza in May 2010. The assault resulted in the death of 9 Turkish activists, including a US citizen.”
“According to the Radikal report (published in Feb 20 and cited by Israeli Haaretz two days later), Israel is willing to meet two of Turkey’s conditions for the resumption of full ties: an apology, and compensation to the families of the victims. “Turkey has also demanded Israel lift the siege,” on Gaza, Haaretz reported, citing Radikal, “but is prepared to drop that demand.”
“This is only the tip of the iceberg. If these reports are even partially credible, Turkish-Israeli relations are being carefully, but decidedly repaired. This stands in contrast with declared Turkish foreign policy and the many passionate statements by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other leading Turkish politicians.”
“The Syrian war has placed Turkey back within a Western camp, although not with the same decisiveness of the past, when Turkey’s generals discounted all other alliances in favor of NATO’s. This is representing an opening for Israel, which with the support of US President Barack Obama’s new administration is likely to translate to some measures of normalization. The degree of that normalization will depend largely on which direction the Syrian civil war is heading and the degree of receptiveness on Turkish streets in seeing Israel once more paraded as Turkey’s strategic partner.”
link to counterpunch.org
This gets back to a point I tried to make some time ago. Calling these people simply “settlers” is inaccurate and giving up too much ground. This is similar to the situation which exists in all of the US supported death squad democracies in Latin America. Defenseless people being attacked by paramilitaries receiving army support. While not yet as severe, these people are better thought of as paramilitary-settlers, extensions of the Israeli military.
“Feiglin was being honored by the Americans who had backed him every step of the way….”
Israel is the way it is in no small measure because that is the way American Jewish Zionists want it to be.
“For Israel’s new American Jewish ‘supporter,’ however, such talk bordered on heresy: an independent Israel at peace with its neighbors was worthless; an Israel aligned with currents in the Arab world seeking independence from the United States was a disaster. Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.” (Norman Finkelstein)
DAN CROWTHER- Careful for what you wish for. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry!
DICKERSON- I would exercise caution in taking Uri Avnery too literally in regards to the Lobby (an amorphous entity whose definition varies considerably depending on the bias of the author). Like all Israelis, Avnery is subjected to Israeli media propaganda which tends to overemphasize the power of “the Lobby” in order to reassure their readers/viewers that the empire won’t abandon them. Israelis have no first hand knowledge of either the Lobby or imperial designs, hence, tend to believe what they are told. First, a quote from Henry Kissinger, after which I’ll pick up the discussion.
“Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)
The center of Zionist power is the US, not Israel. American Jewish Zionists control Israel more than Israel controls the US power structure. And by power structure, I am not referring to Congress. This is a business run warfare state, and military aid to Israel suits them just fine. And, yeah, there are a lot of American Zionist Jews with economic power, however, if Israel ever causes a significant reduction in corporate profitability or tries to usurp Uncle Sam’s Middle East control of oil, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan. The day that Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon kiss Netanyahu’s you-know-what is the day I believe that Israel and the Lobby are calling the shots.
Finally, I can’t emphasize enough that all of these opinions that the US would be better served by peace than by war totally miss the reality that the US is a warfare state, warfare drives the US economy! Uncle Sam hates peace and loves war, which is why we are always at war with some poor defenseless Third World country.
PHIL- “…Unz established that there were two Southern Baptists in the audience, and said they ought to be better represented in the Ivy's. He believes Jews are empowered and secure enough in a diverse liberal society to have this conversation. So do I.”
I applaud your efforts to discuss the issue of Jewish kinship and Jewish power, the distribution of power a key to understanding political economy. However, it does seem as if you are overly focused on the demographics of the elites, the number of Baptists at Yale, the acceptance of Black elites among white elites, as if a certain symbolic diversity among elites signifies a ‘post racial’ or post ethnic society. I think you need to broaden your vision to include the rest of us non-elites. Any honest look at American society will reveal ongoing patterns of discrimination and abuse. Some increased diversity among the elites does not offset the disproportionate lack of educational opportunities, low incomes and prison incarceration of these same minorities. Current policies of de-funding education and shredding the safety net are going to further disempower the majority of Americans. The reality is that power currently is wildly over-concentrated among the wealthy and the corporations, Jewish elites prominent. Hardly what I would describe as “a diverse liberal society.”
As for Hollywood, the conspicuous lack of diversity among the Hollywood decision makers means that filmmaking inevitably suffers from a certain ethnic bias. Additionally, it should also be obvious that these fat-cats have economic and imperial biases as well. Add in the needs of empire to manufacture consent and the entire operation becomes one of misinformation and disinformation. Hollywood’s current emphasis is on normalizing extreme violence as befits a permanent warfare state.
Several comments are in order. First, yes, this is a great article! Second, although I have looked and can’t find the source, I remember reading that at the time of the Iranian revolution, the government of Israel considered intervening on behalf of the Shah, but decided against it. One of the more radical of the officials felt that several thousand well disciplined troops could secure victory. Third, I continue to maintain that Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment media are at least as significant as the MSM in propagandizing the American people. They are the keepers of the mythology which forms the reality against which the ‘news’ is perceived and evaluated. Finally, even a cursory look at the violence and militarism coming out of Hollywood speaks volumes about where the dominant elites are taking us. Extreme violence and torture are being normalized, the inevitable byproduct of a warfare state.
BOB- “Just a friendly tip.”
Thanks for the friendly advice! You can rest assured that I will give it all the attention it deserves! Actually, my comment was meant to be more whimsical than substantive.
“Israel has reportedly granted a U.S. energy firm with heavyweight political connections to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights.”
Since we all know that the Middle East is never about oil, only the Lobby, it would appear that they are exploring the Golan Heights looking for non-fungible members of the Lobby. Perhaps Dick Cheney has misplaced Elliott Abrams?
Thanks, tree. She appears rather attractive. Pity she is such a jerk.
“…reminding us that there are heart-rending casualties on both sides of the divide, even if the forms of wounding are not equally visible.”
No doubt if one combed the pre-civil war archives one could locate accounts of the inner torment of a particular white slave holder at having to whip his slaves, thereby demonstrating that slavery was a huge injustice to white folks as well as Blacks, which the whites humbly bore, nobly soldiering on in the face of universal adversity and suffering. For the Abrams clan, Jewish victim-hood is a given, specific circumstances illuminating the context, but never contradicting the essence.
But no, I don’t think that this is liberal Zionism talking. A liberal Zionist would acknowledge at least some of the injustice, but maintain that it is not inherent in Zionism, and could be more or less eliminated while maintaining a Jewish state. Yet notice how the author, Rebecca Abrams (are you sure this is Rachel Abrams pen name?) totally ignores the plight of the Palestinians while concentrating on the soldier’s experience: “How to carry on living while brutality is invading the most intimate spaces of one’s being….” Observe how she inverts the reality so that rather than brutal soldiers involved in a brutal occupation, you have the soldiers “invaded” by brutality! One can only imagine how a similar ‘gas and cry’ tale of heartbreak by an Auschwitz guard would be reviewed at the Financial Times.
MARC B- “keith, see his commentary on friedman and goldberg, for example, two dullards by any objective standard.”
Hmmm, this is becoming interesting. Your comment opens a door that I am going to walk through and see where it leads to. Since you didn’t provide a link, I cannot make specific reference to what Phil said, however, I can comment in general terms. Let us set Goldberg aside as I am not familiar with him at all. Friedman is a propagandist, but hardly a ‘dullard’ by any objective measure. Graduating summa cum laude from Brandeis, with a masters from Oxford, three Pulitzer prizes and several books is hardly the mark of a dullard. He is a highly skilled and effective molder of imperial mythology, a significant player in the manufacture of consent. The crap he spews forth isn’t the result of stupidity, and you underrate him if you think it is. His Pulitzers recognition of his ability to articulate elite propaganda convincingly.
Marc, there are several factors at play here which you seem to be conflating and labeling Jewish tribalism. Yes, Phil, Friedman and Goldberg are all Jewish. In fact, much of the New York media is Jewish, hence, when Phil critiques a colleague, that person will frequently be Jewish. A fellow journalist or a fellow Jew? Friedman is usually described as a liberal, as is Weiss. A fellow liberal or a fellow Jew? Of course, Phil and Friedman disagree on Israel, however, do they agree on most other issues? Finally, what is probably most significant is the role of the mainstream media as an instrument of imperial propaganda. Would the MSM be significantly different if Jews were replaced by WASPs? I doubt it. Those advertising dollars are going to flow to those media which say what the elites want said. There are other factors as well as documented in Chomsky and Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent.”
Then you need to consider the counterintuitive reality that I have less constraints on voicing an opinion on Mondoweiss than Phil does. Yup, I can say some pretty radical things on Mondoweiss with little to fear except ridicule. Phil, however, may one day have to answer to a prospective employer about his statements. Also, the funding of Mondoweiss itself. These are not insignificant factors. I sometimes wonder if Phil’s articles are narratives designed to elicit discussion, for others to say what would be impolitic for him to say. Just a thought. The reality is that Phil is a liberal, not a radical. The bottom line for me is that commenters should be more concerned with articulating their point of view rather than with focusing on Phil. On the other hand, for all I know he may find the criticism useful.
MARC B- “…mr. brightside manages to mine superior qualities from even the dullest members of his clan.”
I am unaware of Phil singing the praises of Jewish dullards. Perhaps an example or two would clear this up for me.
“he will always be a jewish-american, not an american jew, the order being of his own choosing.”
I find this a rather harsh appraisal.
“so how is it that weiss can be exclusive while simultaneously being inclusive?”
The same way we all deal with our own racist tendencies. As a white male, I have benefited from the privileges accruing to my skin color and middle class background. I also tend to associate with people like me: middle class, educated, white people. Yet, I like to think that I am aware of the disadvantages suffered by minorities and support efforts to provide essential affirmative action. The current shredding of the safety net and privatization of the commons will affect minorities more than me, yet I am adamantly opposed, more for their sake than for my own. What is happening really stinks. This is particularly true of the de-funding of education, a real kick in the teeth for the 99%. So while I’m not color blind, I am also aware that I have a lot more in common with Cynthia McKinney and Arundhati Roy than with Bill Gates or Chuck Hagel.
When I first began commenting on Mondoweiss, I was practically accused of anti-Semitism by some other commenters for trying to discuss Jewish solidarity and Jewish power. Yet, Phil has led the way in making this important discussion respectable. The never ending struggle for power may well be the critical determinant in the course of events. Mondoweiss may be unique in the extent to which the website empowers the commenters and utilizes discussion as a means to explore issues, rather than simply deliver articles for consumption. Also, I think Phil may be somewhat unique in his willingness to tolerate personal criticism. He is wise to do so. And yeah, if he deserves criticism then he should be criticized, however, let us not hold him to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. We whites need to be mindful about how minorities might judge our behavior, along with the systemic racism we seem to willingly tolerate.
DAN CROWTHER- “You’ve never called yourself a liberal zionist, but yet you use “we” in your latest Chuck Schumer article when discussing the treatment of jews in the soviet union.”
I think that Phil could more accurately be called a tribal anti-Zionist. I am using the word “tribal” loosely to describe a generalized kinship and affinity with a specific group of people. One aspect of Jewishness which we haven’t discussed is this ability to feel familial affection towards specific others outside the boundaries of organizational affiliation, something which secular Gentiles seem to lack. As our business run society works to keep the population disorganized and atomized, Jewish “kinship” provides psychological benefits which many of us Gentiles would find appealing and which, I suspect, Phil is loath to abandon. Can’t say I blame him. I don’t know how much significance to attach to this. Phil seems to be aware of the privileges associated with Jewish kinship. As long as he tries to be inclusive, that is all we should ask.
JOEMOWREY- “I also heartily agree with Dan about the whole “anonymous” thing. As someone who uses my name whenever I comment anywhere, (and it is my real name) I find it absurd (if not sad) that so many commenters at this and other feisty sites use “handles” instead of their actual names.”
Screw you, Joe. Of what significance is my last name to you? What difference would it make? In this age of surveillance, what would be gained by me targeting myself? Are you unaware of the harassment that Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, and Norman Finkelstein endured because they were well known? Are you unaware of the actions of the Zionist cadres? Why risk it? Mondoweiss knows who I am. You can go ‘F’ yourself, oh self-righteous one.
DAN CROWTHER- “In other words, Barry’s done a remarkable job of “getting the band back together” even as he pivots to Asia.”
I agree completely, and that is why Glen Ford calls him the more effective evil. The US, Israel, Britain and France are all warfare states, their economies geared to militarism even as they privatize the commons. The Middle East and Africa the objects of the new cooperative imperialism. And let us not forget tar sands oil and fracking. And while I don’t want to be too judgmental, it does seem as if a lot of important and relevant topics are not being discussed even as relatively minor stories receive emphasis.
“The game, as it were, is almost up – the bad guys are on the five yard line.”
I share your sense of urgency. Things are grim and getting grimmer. And I don’t see necessary change occurring, certainly not within the time frame to stave off disaster.
Good grief! What an incomprehensible mish mash of dubious conflations. Curse of Jefferson versus spirit of Timbuktu? This from a professor at Duke University? Yet, this is an important topic, therefore, I provide a link to an article by John Pilger that may shed some light on Mali, AFRICOM, and the imperial invasion of Africa.
link to zcommunications.org
EGBERT- “And for Obama’s next act of appeasement – the release of Pollard.”
Better Pollard than the Keystone XL.
link to zcommunications.org
I can’t help but wonder to what degree the Republican opposition to Hagel is payback for his support for Obama and criticism of McCain in 2008. Surely, it has nothing to do with his past voting record in regards to either Israel or empire, or his likely continuation of well established US policies.
“…the United States was perceived as the main culprit behind British initiated and supported policies.”
The United States is the main culprit behind these British supported US policies. The notion that empire’s policies are fashioned in London (and/or Tel Aviv) is wishful thinking. The US didn’t get to be an empire by turning its foreign policy over to the British.
PHIL- For what it is worth, I’m a little surprised by the negative reaction to your “my people” reference. I’m not sure how your critics would have you rephrase your comments. Refer to “the Jews” instead of “my people?” I think that you are making it quite clear that as someone who self-identifies as a Jew, you strongly disapprove of the actions of the “Jewish state.” Actions which are not in keeping with your understanding of liberal Jewish support for civil rights, and which you have a right and obligation to oppose. And while your view of “traditional” Jewish values may not be fully accurate, nonetheless, you take Israel’s actions as a self-proclaimed Jewish state personal, opposing Zionism’s ugly reality the primary purpose of Mondoweiss. Under the circumstances, I thought your phraseology was fine.
MRW- “I would say financial capitalism is destroying more people and societies than anything else.”
Absolutely correct! I almost missed your exchange with Sean because I couldn’t have dreamed a discussion of the financial system would find its way to the donkey thread. I am pleased to see that you seem to be aware of the workings of our dysfunctional financial system. Few seem to be aware of the extent to which the US and the world is effectively controlled by the financiers at the macro level. Money is power, economic power in fluid form, the primary instrument of social control! In our highly monetized society, not understanding the fundamentals of the financial system is a dereliction of duty. Meaningful change is not possible without control of the financial system. Further, a true understanding of current reality requires an understanding of the consequences of a system based upon debt money. A bank credit system (debt money) requires continued economic growth to provide the money for interest payments on old capital. A steady state, sustainable economy is not possible with our current financial system.
Rather than get into an extended discussion with Sean on this, I am simply going to provide a few quotes from “The Global Economic Crisis,” Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors, which seem to shed some light on the questions raised.
“The architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.” (p266)
“We are looking at an old boys’ network of officials, advisers and CEOs at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank and the Washington think tanks, who are in permanent liaison with leading financiers on Wall Street.” (p33)
“When viewed in historical context, the wars in Palestine, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the same Cold War “military roadmap”, responding to the same strategic and economic interests.” (p185)
“War and globalization go hand in hand. Wall Street, the oil companies and the defense contractors have concurrent and overlapping interests.” (p46)
“Economic policy quite deliberately serves the interests of the financial elites, who in turn control the political process. Meaningful policies cannot be achieved without radically reforming the workings of the international banking system.” (p57)
“The conduct of the Pentagon’s ‘long war’ is intimately related to the restructuring of the global economy.” (pXV)
WALID- “The US didn’t just support it, it called it up and had it carried out by its depraved goon.”
I’m glad you brought this up. So many Mondo commenters have deluded themselves that the US would restrain Israeli militarism if not for “the lobby,” rather than seeing the general congruence of US/Israel’s actions.
MOOSER- “I see no reason why an American girl couldn’t decide to join the military service for all the same well-informed, aware of the consequences, politically astute, not connected with her domestic circumstances, and economic reasons as any young man would!”
I agree completely with your inferred meaning (oh, subtle one!), however, I wasn’t referring to women joining the military. In response to Dan’s comment, I was lamenting the sad fact that much of the leadership of the feminist organizations have quite obviously succumbed to the seductive allure of power rather than continuing a principled attempt to pursue equality for all women, including their sisters in Afghanistan and other Third World countries, which, in turn, would exert pressure for the demilitarization of America, and an end to neoliberalism. While the feminist “leadership” has behaved somewhat predictably, hopefully the majority of women will continue to be more peaceful and community oriented, our slim hope for the future. I truly believe that any progressive social change will be strongly woman powered and woman empowering. Feminism shouldn’t be a fight to permit women the opportunity to “kick ass,” rather, it should be a rejection of the predominantly male obsession with power. The struggle for power has defined most of human history and has been the cause of ongoing mass-murder. Unless successfully dealt with, it will be the cause of mass species extinction, including humans.
MARC B- “it’s the ‘war on terror’ that’s beyond debate.”
Yes, indeed. The clash of civilizations, the long war. The entertainment media engaged in massive propaganda in support of empire and our warfare state. Neoliberal structural adjustment a necessary sacrifice, not to be resisted, questioned, or thought about too much. There is the Super Bowl and the next humanitarian intervention.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." (Herman Goering)
DAN CROWTHER- “You start out trying to “liberate” (at least that’s what you say) a group of people, a few at the top get hitched to the existing power structure, and then that group ends up defending and enabling said power structure.”
All too true. In the long run, money (power) overwhelms most opposition. Capitalism is the most effective form of social control yet devised, co-option a recurring phenomenon. And when the women are seduced by the dark side of the force, what hope will there be? I foresee dark times ahead.
MIKE KONRAD- "I am a realist."
A realist? Like Chuck Hagel? Hmmm, food for thought.
SEAN MCBRIDE- “Why should non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons be a higher priority for Americans than existent North Korean nuclear weapons?”
The primary reason is that the nuclear issue is mostly a pretext for aggressive actions to bring about a regime change in Iran as part of the imperial restructuring of the Middle East. Wesley Clark mentioned the seven states being targeted: Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Iran. This appears to be an ongoing project, Obama following neocon formulated strategy, now the bi-partisan consensus. The secondary reason is that a nuclear armed Iran would be too dangerous to attack, hence, a potential threat to US Middle East hegemony.
ELLEN, TREE, SEAN, LIBRA, ET AL- Thanks for the entertainment. It is unusual to see such a display of synchronized pilpul.
Such verbose umbrage caused by Yonah Fredman suggesting that Joel Kovel describing Zionism as a “Satanic ideology” would be better rephrased as “dastardly.” This after Kovel repeatedly linked Judaism and Zionism, describing Judaism as Zionism’s “Doppelganger.” But “dastardly” wasn’t dastardly enough for the Mondo faithful who insist that only “Satanic” will do. One can only imagine the Mondo reaction had an Israeli Rabbi published an op-ed in Haaretz claiming that anti-Zionism was a Satanic ideology.
I am not going to critique the entire article by Kovel for a variety of reasons, time constraints being one. My wife and I flew into Maui this Tuesday and I have other things to distract me than the endless ritual incantations of tribal anti-Zionists. While I am anti-Zionist, there appears to be little else in common. My primary reason for commenting at all is the hope of engaging in meaningful discussions, at least occasionally. At this stage of the game, it appears that this will occur rarely. Yet, I continue to be fascinated by Mondoweiss group dynamics, this latest exchange doing nothing to alter previous conclusions on this topic. I might add that I don’t take any of this too seriously. Well, time to close, get a micro-brew, sit on the lanai and raise a toast to Noam Chomsky. Cheers!
TREE- “Keith, Kovel did not call anyone Satanic, he called Zionism (and NOT Judaism) a “Satanic ideology”.
And how would the followers of this “Satanic ideology” be described? A “Satanic ideology” either comes directly from Satan, or is the metaphysical ideology of devil worshippers. This is the type of condemnation usually associated with pre-enlightenment Theologians, not the rational argument one would expect of Joel Kovel. In the past, I have recommended “Overcoming Zionism” by Kovel, and do so again. Funny, I don’t recall Kovel making reference in the book to any “Satanic ideology.” It would appear that Kovel has at least somewhat abandoned rational argument in favor of questionable phraseology. It is one of the reasons that I am so disappointed in this particular post. The phrase “Satanic ideology” caught my attention prior to reading the comments, although I probably wouldn’t have commented on it, or on the rest of the article, had it not been for the ritualistic condemnations of Yonah Fredman, rather than on an honest evaluation of the comment in question. Or, do you honestly believe that Zionism is the work of Satan?
YONAH FREDMAN- “Christians should avoid using the word Satanic in regards to Jews….”
You don’t go far enough. Anyone who has any common sense should never label anyone as Satanic. To do so indicates a Manichean mindset which sees everything as good guys versus bad guys, and judges incidents based upon the label rather than judging individuals based upon their actions. Also, the Manichean mindset tends to view reality as a cosmic struggle between good and evil, and is the mindset cultivated by warfare states to demonize enemies of convenience. I, too, was disappointed that Kovel used the term, hardly an enlightened description, particularly in view of historical usage, and was surprised to see it defended. Perhaps the other commenters are seeing you as a “bad guy” Zionist, hence, wrong by definition.
CITIZEN- “What the fu#* other Zionism is there?
Zionism, like any ideology, can undergo modifications. The advent of Israel’s “new historians” indicated a society which was becoming less militant, more ready to acknowledge its past. Soft Zionism, if you will. This dismayed the more militant Zionists such as General Raphael Eitan who felt that “…peace is an illusion; sooner or later there will be a real shooting war again; the young generation is fed up with war and is dreaming of a normal life, but it’s mistaken, our priority has to be to reeducate young people in the spirit of 1948 and regenerate their virile, combative spirit.” Ariel Sharon agreed.
When Ariel Sharon came to power, the right pursued a return to the “spirit of 1948,” which entailed a “reeducation of Israeli society, which has acquired a taste for peace, security, prosperity, and the beginnings of normality during the last two decades.” To this end, Sharon gave the ministry of education to “Limor Livnat, one of the leaders of Likud’s right wing.”
“In the space of a few months Livnat carried out a thorough housecleaning in the school system. Under the motto, ‘More Zionism, more Bible,’ she reorganized the curriculum and scrubbed all ‘defeatist’ odors out of the manuels for history and civics instruction. In particular she banned the history textbooks that the Rabin government had introduced a decade earlier, in which the ‘new historians’ influenced was detectable, and eliminated the courses on peace and democracy.” (“Towards an Open Tomb: the Crisis of Israeli Society,” Michel Warschawski, p59)
In other words, Bennett is advocating for an extreme, militant, uncompromising version of Zionism.
PABELMONT- “The USA (its governing class, that is) believes in war. It lives by the sword.”
Right you are! What many folks seem blissfully unaware of is that following WWII the US became a warfare state, relying on military Keynesianism and the Pentagon system of economic planning and control to stimulate and direct the economy, without which the US economy would likely have sunk back into depression. After all, it was WWII which got us out of the depression. This is why for the last 65 years the US has engaged in non-stop war against the entire Third World.
TOVIOS- “Also many informed analysts see that the current war in Mali (and its spill-over into Algeria) is blow back from that Libyan adventure.”
Yes, and the blowback is not unexpected, rather, it provides an additional pretext for the expansion of AFRICOM involvement in African resource wars.
link to blackagendareport.com
WOODY TANAKA- “What about the film did you find offensive? It’s not as if the revolutionary government was the local Rotary. Not exactly progressive minded fellows.”
I didn’t see the film, only the previews which were enough to make me think that Argo was an attempt to psychologically prepare the American public for further hostilities against Iran, which, in fact, may yet occur. The film’s brief introductory explanations aside, the film appears to be part of the Hollywood tradition of depicting Americans (and whites in general) as the “good guys,” and the “other” (and non-whites in general) as the bad guys.
How many Argo viewers are even remotely aware of the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA to be replaced by the tyrant Shah of Iran? How many Argo viewers are aware of US/Israel involvement in the creation of the Savak, the Shah’s notoriously brutal secret police? In other words, how many are aware of the extent to which the Iranian revolution was blowback from US actions, and that the CIA “heroes” had a lot of blood on their hands, those rescued not fully “innocent,” and the depiction of crazed Muslims a little too convenient? Additionally, how many are aware of the fact that the US fully supported a nuclear Iran under the Shah. Hey, but that is typical Hollywood, perhaps more significant as a source of propaganda than the mainstream news media.
PHIL- Yes indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the Hagel nomination is to highlight Zionist anti-Gentile chauvinism. These casual and baseless charges are nothing but a form of ethnic bullying, hardly a manifestation of eternal victim-hood, rather, a demonstration of unaccountable power.
MOOSER- No, it was definitely twelve tribes, the twelfth consisting of one forlorn ungulate who wandered onto the Kitsap peninsula and is honored to this day by Seattleites flying the twelfth man flag. Such an honor!
At the beginning of the video, the announcer said that Jews from around the world went on these birthright tours. I wish there had been a breakdown of where they all came from. Based upon the apparent lack of diversity, it would appear that at least 11 of the twelve tribes eventually wandered into Brooklyn. When is Steinhardt, et al, going to increase their efforts to encourage Ethiopian Jews to make Aliyah? Would love to see these Kosher Honkies boogying with their African birthright cousins. Wouldn’t that shake up the folks at home.