Trending Topics:
philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

93 Responses

  1. bpm
    bpm
    July 25, 2013, 11:40 am

    To discuss the Zionists of the 30s and 40s without mentioning the research of Lenni Brenner, much less the views of Hannah Arendt, is a curious absence. Nonetheless, for these Zionists to portray FDR as an anti-Semite while ignoring their own roots of sometimes collaboration with the Nazis to allow immigration to Palestine is a most vile form of hypocrisy.

  2. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    July 25, 2013, 12:08 pm

    I am not up to date on the research of what actually could have been done by the allies and specifically by command of FDR during the war. I know what my prejudices were thirty years ago and I know that I have calmed down. (When my Italian barber spoke glowingly of Pius, I did not object, even in my heart. I haven’t done the research on what he could and couldn’t do.)(Is it racist to go to an Italian barber? Not in Brooklyn.)

    Here’s a thought experiment question: Should the Allies or whomever have notified the Hungarian Jews what awaited them at the end of the train ride. They suspected, but what if they had known. These aren’t real questions, in terms of what can be historically divined. These are theoreticals. But I propose it only to show the emotional landmines involved.

    Historians have a responsibility to study devoid of emotion. Policy makers have a responsibility to make the wisest decisions possible. (What role emotion should play is still being determined. Obama, with his professorial style, has had to avoid emotion, as the first black president it may have been useful for the George Zimmerman case, but maybe not as useful in the Syrian intervention case.)

    I would vote with Meir Dagan against Israel attacking Iran and if Dagan changes his mind, I will look for someone else with soldierly credits to back up my desire to avoid a war with Iran. It is feasible that the study of the past is being used to justify current policy choices.

    I just think that the genocide is such an intense emotional topic that it is absurd to think one’s personal attempts to compartmentalize the experience can be proposed for the next man’s emotions.

    • American
      American
      July 25, 2013, 11:39 pm

      “Historians have a responsibility to study devoid of emotion. Policy makers have a responsibility to make the wisest decisions possible.”…..yonah

      I agree with you there. Most of the books I have read about WWI were by non Jewish historians. The one or two I have read by Jewish authors concentrate only on the Jews and what affected the Jews, whereas other historians present the whole panorama of the war.

    • annie
      annie
      July 26, 2013, 12:41 am

      Should the Allies or whomever have notified the Hungarian Jews what awaited them at the end of the train ride. They suspected, but what if they had known. These aren’t real questions, in terms of what can be historically divined……Historians have a responsibility to study devoid of emotion.

      what’s with the or whomever and what do you mean by “These aren’t real questions, in terms of what can be historically divined”? there was a huge trial in israel, reputed to be as big as the OJ trial.

      should “Kastner, …many other Jewish leaders ….the Jewish Council in Hungary” have notified the Hungarian Jews what awaited them at the end of the train ride? ”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Kastner

      Failure to warn Jews

      By the beginning of May 1944, Kastner and many other Jewish leaders had received the Vrba-Wetzler report and other evidence that Hungary’s Jews would be sent to their deaths. The report was released to the leaders of Jewish organizations in the hope that Hungarian Jews would be warned that they were being deported to a death camp and were not being resettled, as they had been led to believe. However, the report was not made public by the Jewish Council in Hungary or by Kastner.[24]

      It was Kastner’s Jewish Agency rival Krausz who eventually sent the report to Switzerland for publication.[25] The resulting international outcry persuaded the Hungarian government to stop the deportations. But by then 437,000 Hungarian Jews had been deported to Auschwitz, where the overwhelming majority were murdered on arrival.

      and it begs the question, if they themselves remarkably chose not to notify the hungarian jews, then what were they pressuring allied governments to do?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        July 26, 2013, 3:32 am

        Incisive post, Annie. Thanks.

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      July 28, 2013, 6:01 pm

      Is it racist to go to an Italian barber? Not in Brooklyn.
      Uh? Why would that be racist?

  3. Walid
    Walid
    July 25, 2013, 12:46 pm

    Putting aside the usual holocaust propaganda in this piece, was there anything mythic about FDR’s participation or non-participation in the July 1938 Evian Conference to save Jews that he had called but not supported? The US, Canada, the UK and the rest of the world refused Hitler’s offer to take in Jews to save them from being killed. Only the Dominican Republic offered to take in some Jews provided they were doctors and in good health; all the rest turned their backs on the Jews.

    We’re mixing apples and oranges here with this piece about today’s Zionist propaganda and whether or not FDR was anti-Jewish.

    • tree
      tree
      July 25, 2013, 5:07 pm

      The US, Canada, the UK and the rest of the world refused Hitler’s offer to take in Jews to save them from being killed.

      First off, of the 600,000 Jews in Nazi Germany in 1933, over 400,000 of them were able to immigrate to other countries by 1940, mainly to the US and Western European countries. The US had enacted immigration restrictions in the 1920s but these were NEVER specific to Jews, but were specific to immigrants from certain countries, including Asian and Southern European countries as well as Eastern European ones. German immigration was limited but not as much as Eastern European and Southern European immigration and immigration from Asian countries was totally banned at that time.

      However, in 1938 and 1939, nearly 65,000 Jewish refugees were allowed into the US. This was a considerable increase over earlier years, and in 1938 Jewish immigration was nearly 30% of the immigration of all peoples to the US, and in 1939 it was over 50% of total US immigration. The vast majority of these Jewish refugees were German by citizenship. Since over 2/3rd of the Jews in Germany were rescued by the start of WWII, and over 132.000 of them came to the US I find it hard to buy the “US abandoned the Jews” mantra to be believable. And of course the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, led by Anti-Zionist Lessing Rosenwald, was instrumental in helping Jewish refugees everywhere during this time.

  4. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    July 25, 2013, 1:00 pm

    “FDR’s Jewish Problem: How did a president beloved by Jews come to be regarded as an anti-Semite who refused to save them from the Nazis?”

    Who cares? Seriously, who gives a shit? Everybody’s an antisemite and only 6 million people died in WWII according to clowns like Crowne, neither view really engenders a lot of good will in others, same with attacking FDR, not a good look.

  5. Chu
    Chu
    July 25, 2013, 1:34 pm

    These groups excel at pointing the finger at everyone else, with their whisper campaigns, yet never accept responsibility for their actions.
    All the rightwing orthodox sites blame everyone in the world for the Holocaust and jewish suffering. The Jewish Press publication was good at blaming everyone. I think it’s what establishes the solidarity of Zionism – blame the world, until the world accepts our point of view.

    In 50 years Barack Obama will be the subject of their ire – I can see it now ‘he didn’t do enough to support the colonisation of Judea and Samaria’.

  6. Christopher Federici
    Christopher Federici
    July 25, 2013, 1:43 pm

    This revision extends to other historical figures as well, chiefly Pope Pius XII, who has in recent years been slammed by Revisonist Zionists claiming his collaboration with the Third Rheich.

    In truth, however, Pope Pius XII was one of the most revered world leaders among the Jewish population during the period of WWII. His funeral, in 1958, was attended by future Israeli PM Golda Meir, Moshe Sharett and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, among many other prominent Jewish figures. There is a forest in Israel, in the Negeb near Jerusalem, that was planted in his honor, one tree for every Jewish life saved.

    Israeli scholar Pinchas Lapide has written, “The Catholic Church relief and rescue program under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi’s hands. That was more than all other Churches, religious institutions and international rescue organizations put together.”

    Gold Meir commented at Pope Pius’ funeral: “When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict.”

    Pope Pius was venerated by the New York Times, TIME Magazine, The Jewish Chronicle (London), The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, and the World Jewish Congress both during the war, and at the time of his death. The Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war out of adoration for the efforts of Pope Pius XII. His record and reputation was immaculate during the war among Jewish leaders, European leaders and the western press.

    It was not until 1963, with Rolf Hichhuth’s “The Deputy,” that the revisionist narrative of Pope Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope” began to emerge (literally, John Cornwell’s 1999 book entitled “Hitler’s Pope” smears him as an anti-semite).

    What an affront to the millions of Jews who lost their lives under the Nazi regime, that one of their most revered saviors, who did more than anyone else to oppose Nazism and provide protection for its intended victims has now been smeared as a Nazi collaborator. These revisionists have no soul, nor respect for the events that they continuously and shamelessly try to exploit.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm

    http://faithleap.org/Pius_XII_8of11.htm

    • Binyamin in Orangeburg
      Binyamin in Orangeburg
      July 25, 2013, 3:48 pm

      Not so fast, Mr. Federici. Read “The Holy Reich”, the best recent scholarship on the issue. The Catholic hierarchy in Germany was an important enabler of the Nazi takeover and consolidation of power. The last independent party in the parliament was the Catholic Center Party. On Pius’ instructions, they dissolved and acceded to the Nazi takeover of all power by supporting the Enabling Act. Six months after Hitler came to power, Pius signed the Reichconcordat with him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

      Yes, there were individual Catholics who courageously fought the Nazis, e.g. Staufenburg. And yes, there were instances of rescue by church officials. But the policy of Pius was to acquiesce as long as Church property and privilege were respected. Rather than sign an concordat, shouldn’t Pius have excommunicated Hitler, who, after all, was raised in the Catholic faith and never renounced it. Indeed, why hasn’t he been excommunicated posthumously?

      • annie
        annie
        July 26, 2013, 1:27 am

        The Catholic hierarchy in Germany was an important enabler of the Nazi takeover

        but your own link reads as tho The Catholic hierarchy in Germany was not too keen on hitler:

        The Catholic bishops in Germany had generally shown opposition to Hitler from the beginning of his rise to power. When the Nazi Party polled six million votes during the 14 September 1930 election campaign, the Catholic hierarchy called on its people to examine their consciences. During the next two years, though there had been softening by some, the bishops continued to pronounce against unacceptable policies of the Nazi Party.[15] When Hitler was called by Hindenberg to assume power on 30 January 1933, the bishops maintained support for the Catholic Centre Party who in turn refused to assent to a proposal that would allow Hitler to assume full power. On 12 March 1933, the German Cardinal Faulhaber was received by Pope Pius XI in Rome. On his return he reported:

        After my recent experience in Rome in the highest circles, which I cannot reveal here, I must say that I found, despite everything, a greater tolerance with regard to the new government… Let us meditate on the words of the Holy Father, who in a consistory, without mentioning his name, indicated before the whole world in Adolf Hitler the statesmen who first, after the Pope himself, has raised his voice against Bolshevism.[16]

        and your link said There were some thoughts that the Church was keen on coming to terms with Hitler as he represented a strong resistance against Communism

        that was 10 years before the holocaust and during the time of the holodomor; millions died in that genocide. could his decision have been more influenced by what he perceived as a legitimate concern for stopping communism more than a support for another looming catastrophe?

        what if the pope had legitimate concerns about germany falling under communism? i really do not know, i am just asking. but 10 years before the holocaust doesn’t it make more sense the pope was influenced by other factors, and the fact hitler, at that time, had already been appointed and it was already months after the enabling act had been ratified?

        and what does “the best recent scholarship on the issue” even mean? how does it stack up against the scholarship of the last century?

      • Binyamin in Orangeburg
        Binyamin in Orangeburg
        July 26, 2013, 10:30 am

        “if the pope had legitimate concerns about germany falling under communism”?

        Just about the best thing that could have happened to Germany in the 1930s would have been for it to “fall” to communism.

        Reason? World War 2 and the Shoah would not have happened.

        No doubt, the Catholic church viewed the socialist revolutionary movements of workers and peasants as a mortal threat, and allied itself with Europes’ most reactionary forces, first Mussolini, and then Hitler. You think that was “legitimate”? I beg to differ.

        The vast majority of Europe’s 3 million Jews who survived the Shoah did so because of the what the Russians did to defeat Hitler. Whatever else the Bolsheviks did wrong (and Stalin did a lot that was wrong), no reasonable person can deny that the Russian sacrifice of 20 million fatalities (16% of the total population) in the war against Hitler was one of history’s most noble moments. Stalin could have cut a deal with Hitler, the way the French did. If he had done that, would we have won the war? I doubt it.

        Rather than “legitimate concern”, the Catholic hierarchy had a very illegitimate concern in tacitly and actively backing the Nazis: protecting its own power.

        The Pope decided to cut a deal rather than fight. No amount of perfume can change that fact. (Read “Hitler’s Pope”, by John Cornwell.)

      • tree
        tree
        July 26, 2013, 1:33 pm

        Just about the best thing that could have happened to Germany in the 1930s would have been for it to “fall” to communism.

        Read “Bloodlands”, Binyamin. People were being killed in the millions under Soviet communism. And millions were being sent to gulags. History would have been different, but there’s no guarantee it would have been any less bloody, or that a world war would not have happened.

        Stalin could have cut a deal with Hitler, the way the French did.

        Stalin cut a deal with Hitler in 1939, dividing up Poland between them, and allowing Hitler to attack France and Western Europe with no fear from the Soviets, and Stalin to conquer territory in Eastern and Northern Europe, and isolate Japan. Hitler broke the deal later, unsurprisingly, considering his hatred of communists and of Slavic and Russian peoples.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

      • Chu
        Chu
        July 26, 2013, 2:23 pm

        ‘Just about the best thing that could have happened to Germany in the 1930s would have been for it to “fall” to communism.’

        Is that so? If you believe that, you need to read a lot more and one day you’ll realize that was a half-baked statement. Did you think the Bolsheviks were handing out roses to the Germans? Look up Stalin’s Great Purge during 1936-1939.

      • Binyamin in Orangeburg
        Binyamin in Orangeburg
        July 26, 2013, 6:20 pm

        Messers Chu and Tree:

        To hear you guys tell it, Stalin was as bad as Hitler. If you had been in charge in 1940, there would have been no alliance with Stalin. FDR’s courage (and Churchill’s as well) allowed them to focus on the main enemy: the Nazis. They left Bolshevism to be dealt with by the Soviet people, which is what has happened. The alliance with Stalin was decisive in winning the war.

        And that’s what the Zionoids forget. We sent an army of 2 million men (my dad among them) to crush the Nazi power. A quarter million of those brave souls remain buried in the soil of Europe. That’s “abandonment”?

        Peres slandered the Eight Air Force when he accused them of ignoring the Jews of Auchwitz to bomb targets a few miles away. FDR did not ignore the Holocaust. He understood, as the Zionists do not, that the only way to stop the atrocities was to crush the Nazis. Bombing the rail lines into Auchwitz might have given us a morally satisfying moment, but the Air Force commanders knew full well the Nazis had expert track repair crews that would have had those lines up and running within hours and the lives of the air crewmen killed on such a mission would have been wasted.

        FDR also knew full well that even if every concentration camp was destroyed, the Nazis would continue killing Jews. They had killed 2 million with machine guns before the first gas chamber was built.

        No. The Allies adopted the right policy, the moral policy: the Nazis will unconditionally surrender, no matter the sacrifice.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        July 27, 2013, 10:32 am

        It is interesting that you see 20 millions murdered by Stalinist regime and millions more subjugated by Soviet could have been understood as a better outcome if more of the same would have been multiplied 2 or 3 times from the German Bundestag of socialism of Non Nazi character

      • jon s
        jon s
        July 27, 2013, 11:40 am

        The attitude of FDR’s administration towards the plight of the Jews is best described as “too little, too late”. The State Department was the agency most identified with procrastination and even sabotage of rescue efforts, but FDR himself, as president, bears ultimate responsibility. See :”While Six Million Died (a chronicle of American apathy) by Arthur D. Morse, 1967.
        As to Pope Pius XII, he “earned” the title of “Hitler’s Pope”. From his pre-papal career, signing the concordat with Nazi Germany, through his silence during the Holocaust. Prof. Saul Friedlander provides scathing indictment of Pius XII in the second volume of Nazi Germany and the Jews, titled “The Years of Extermination” (2007), especially p.559-577.
        Christopher Federici states:
        “There is a forest in Israel, in the Negeb (sic!) near Jerusalem,(?!) that was planted in his honor, one tree for every Jewish life saved.” I’ve never heard of any such forest in honor of Pius XII.

      • jon s
        jon s
        July 28, 2013, 1:19 pm

        Is there any reason my comment hasn’t been posted?

      • annie
        annie
        July 28, 2013, 4:09 pm
      • jon s
        jon s
        July 28, 2013, 4:30 pm

        OK, Annie, thanks. I was wondering because a comment I wrote later has been posted. The comment I asked about was particularly important to me because I had gone to the trouble of actually looking something up…

      • annie
        annie
        July 28, 2013, 4:40 pm

        I was wondering because a comment I wrote later has been posted.

        that is because new comments coming in (on mod pages) enter at the top of the page and easily accessible whereas older comments can get caught up in pockets on back pages. unless someone is on the thread page (like the one you are seeing now, not the backpages where comments roll in) they get cleared in batches based on timestamp/others around them coming in, not in front page thread order. i’ve explained this like 10 times, at least.

        if you have any other comments today about the comment policy place in them in the comment policy thread because, unlike dkos, we do not host extended discussion of comment policy OT in other threads.

        also, for future reference read this: http://mondoweiss.net/policy/comment-page-1#comment-570714

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        July 28, 2013, 5:42 pm

        I have heard somewhere that the Vad Yashem comment on Pius has become more complex than before, but I’m pretty sure C.Federici is making too strong a case in every respect.
        Meanwhile, on Anglican attitudes. The leaders of the Established Church of an Allied country were clearly in a different position from the leaders of an international Church, claiming independent statehood and determined on neutrality. There’s a book about the Church of England and the Holocaust by Tom Lawson, 2006. The two Archbishops, Temple and Garbett, campaigned for rescue of the Jews and Temple’s speech in the House of Lords of March 1943, speaking of Jewish casualties at the rate of ‘10,000 a day’ offers perhaps the first mention in an official forum of the kind of numbers that Hilberg was later to make canonical. (The best speech of his life, according to one account.) The British Government responded that it would have to make an agreement with the Americans, and both governments then, says Lawson, procrastinated: which is perhaps evidence that FDR’s reputation should not have a totally rosy scent. But another thing that emerges again and again is reluctance to believe the stories of Jewish calamity. Temple had evidently only recently been persuaded by Jewish religious leaders that casualties on the ‘holocaust’ scale were occurring, and he must have been one of the most willing to listen. FDR, WSC and Pius didn’t, I’m sure, really believe in 1943 that things had come to such an appalling pass. The first two surely thought that they just had to get on with winning the war and pick up the pieces afterwards.

      • tree
        tree
        July 28, 2013, 7:41 pm

        Hi Binyamin,

        I’m not a guy, nor a monsieur for that matter. I’m female. I can’t speak for Chu’s gender. I don’t know it.

        If I understand your comment correctly you seem to have an overly simplified understanding of WWII, as if Britain and the US and the Soviet Union formed a pact and then decided to declare war on Nazi Germany, and in a grand sacrifice “save the Jews” (as if that were the only group dying in droves at the time).

        My point was that Stalin had already killed somewhere between 3 and 6 million people, between the Holodomor and the Great Purge, during ‘peacetime”, before the start of WWII. This was way more than the numbers killed by Hitler prior to the War, although Hitler would outpace Stalin in wartime. There’s no reason to suspect that the takeover of Germany would have turned Stalin into a sudden pacifist and lover of mankind.

        England declared war on Nazi Germany when it invaded Poland in September, 1939. The Soviet Union, having reached an agreement with Germany (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) to divide Poland and Eastern Europe between them, declared itself “neutral” at the time, but engaged in economic trade with Germany and went about conquering other Eastern and Northern European countries itself. Stalin and Hitler were in negotiations in 1940 over the Soviet Union also joining the Axis pact, but could not agree over territorial spoils so Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union instead in June of 1941. That is when and why Stalin fought the Germans. It was a matter of survival, not some great altruistic sacrifice on his part. Yes, its entirely possible that Hitler may have won WWII without opposition from the Soviet Union, and it most certainly would have won it with the Soviet Union as a partner in empire, but that does not make Stalin some great guy for defending his country under attack. A very large percentage of the casualties of WWII (and prior) occurred in the area between the Soviet Union and Germany. That is why Timothy Snyder called that area “The Bloodlands”.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 29, 2013, 7:29 pm

        And let’s remember Stalin refused to believe British warnings Germany was planning an invasion of the USSR.

  7. hophmi
    hophmi
    July 25, 2013, 2:27 pm

    I don’t think the campaign has very much to do with Israel. There’s been a long scholarly debate over FDR’s actions during the war. Medoff and others who push the views that Roosevelt didn’t care much about saving Holocaust victims are usually more interested in getting Jews to abandon the Democratic Party than they are about anything Israel-related. Though Jews were already voting overwhelmingly for Democrats in 1928, Roosevelt was the first Democrat to receive over 80 percent of the Jewish vote, and his administration is widely perceived to be the beginning of the identification of Jews with the Democratic Party.

    “it has become received wisdom among many American Jews that Roosevelt deliberately and coldly abandoned Europe’s Jews in their hour of need”

    Which Jews? It’s certainly not the view of most American Jews. Are there any numbers to support this claim? I don’t know of any.

    The scholarly debate about the response of American Jewry to the Holocaust is long, complex, and difficult, and has been going on for at least two generations. I don’t think Laurence Zuckerman’s piece is a huge or important contribution to it.

    • Donald
      Donald
      July 25, 2013, 3:40 pm

      ” Medoff and others who push the views that Roosevelt didn’t care much about saving Holocaust victims are usually more interested in getting Jews to abandon the Democratic Party than they are about anything Israel-related. ”

      I’d never heard of Medoff before, but judging from the wikipedia article on him he seems very much interested in Israel.

      Wikipedia entry on Medoff

      I used to read “Commentary” and the impression I got there was of a magazine that was very much interested in Israel and also very much interested in moving Jews over to the Republican Party. Isn’t the usual conservative Jewish criticism of Obama that he isn’t sufficiently sympathetic to Israel?

      “The scholarly debate about the response of American Jewry to the Holocaust is long, complex, and difficult, and has been going on for at least two generations. I don’t think Laurence Zuckerman’s piece is a huge or important contribution to it.”

      I wouldn’t know, but it wouldn’t have to be a huge contribution in order to discredit the views of rightwing activists with ulterior motives.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 25, 2013, 3:46 pm

        Medoff is very interested in Israel. But he’s not the only one to take the view that Roosevelt had a negative attitude toward Jews during the war, and the two aren’t necessarily linked.

        “Isn’t the usual conservative Jewish criticism of Obama that he isn’t sufficiently sympathetic to Israel? ”

        Yes. But that’s certainly not the only criticism, and if the point were to argue that no one can be trusted, the proponents of the view would presumably favor aliyah for everyone.

  8. Sin Nombre
    Sin Nombre
    July 25, 2013, 2:38 pm

    Right. So out of one side of the mouth when talking for a general audience these same sorts of folks say we should go to war against Iran because it’s in America’s interest. But then, when talking intramurally, the argument suddenly becomes that jews have to band together to get America to go to war with Iran for jewish interests.

    One just has to marvel at the thickness of such people: How are the goyim supposed to feel about calls to so expend their blood and treasure? Especially if those calls succeed and we do go to war as an Act II of all this and that war goes South for us?

    Obviously they don’t care about the actual merits of the case, elsewise they wouldn’t be making the intramural calls they are today of ethno-racial solidarity. So is it some sort of love of inciting anti-semitism? Or just simply confidence in the idea that after the fact any such observations about their intramural calls can be beaten down and thrown down the memory hole by denial and hysterical screams of same simply amounting to yet another historical anti-semitic blood-libel about jewish willingness to sacrifice others’ interests for their own?

    Whatever it is it’s fascinating living through Act I of this play seeing the brazenness of it. It’s like watching someone looking at you straight in the eye today mouthing words at you that, if you repeat, you know they will be vehemently denying and viciously denouncing you for tomorrow.

    No wonder the goyim are thought to be so stupid as to fall for same.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      July 25, 2013, 3:12 pm

      “So out of one side of the mouth when talking for a general audience these same sorts of folks say we should go to war against Iran because it’s in America’s interest. ”

      These same folks? Only Jews support a tough line on Iran? Who’s mixing politics and history now?

      “How are the goyim supposed to feel about calls to so expend their blood and treasure?”

      Another instance of antisemitism here. There are many who support a tough line on Iran who are not Jews. You assert that Jews are calling for “goyim” – your word – to expend blood and treasure. Clear antisemitism.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 26, 2013, 1:02 pm

        Put through.

      • Chu
        Chu
        July 26, 2013, 2:13 pm

        Goy is a Yiddish pejorative. If it is true what Sin Nombre asserts, is it still antisemitism? The question becomes, can the truth be antisemitism?
        (I don’t expect a straight answer from you)

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 26, 2013, 3:12 pm

        “Goy is a Yiddish pejorative.”

        And I’m not sure why people throw it around here. Most Jews I know don’t speak that way. For the record, the translation of the word is “nation” and it’s Hebrew, not Yiddish. As in “Lo yisa goy el goy kherev” (“Nation shall not life up sword against nation.”)

        “If it is true what Sin Nombre asserts, is it still antisemitism?”

        That you have to ask this shows your personal moral corruption.

        So, Chu, is it your opinion that American Jews are banding together to force non-Jews to fight a war on their behalf? And you don’t understand why saying stuff like this is antisemitic?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 26, 2013, 3:25 pm

        Why is it antisemitic?

        What does it have to do with Jewishness other than simply identifying a demographic with the potential for a completely different national identity?

        Zionist Jews are in fact promoting war. They want America to go to war with Iran.

        There is nothing antisemitic about it.

        Antisemitism apparently has no definition. It’s just that warm fuzzy feeling a Zionist gets when they get to side-step explaining their own war-mongering.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        July 26, 2013, 7:39 pm

        Chu,

        One can quickly determine that contemporary Jewish and Israeli publications often use the terms “goy” and “goyim” — often in a negative or pejorative way — simply by Googling those publications for the terms:

        # Google searches on [goy OR goyim]
        1. site:chabad.org
        2. site:haaretz.com
        3. site:israelnationalnews.com
        4. site:jewishpress.com
        5. site:jpost.com
        6. site:jta.org
        7. site:religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/
        8. site:timesofisrael.com
        9. site:theyeshivaworld.com
        10. site:ynetnews.com

        Really — it’s a no-brainer. Anyone can check out the search results for himself or herself.

        When some pro-Israel activists deny that this is happening, they are insulting our intelligence and embarrassing themselves. There’s this thing called Google….

        One can use those search operators above to discover what Jewish and Israeli publications are thinking and saying about any topic.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        July 26, 2013, 7:50 pm

        For a more complete list of Jewish and Israeli magazines and newspapers see:

        1. http://www.world-newspapers.com/jewish-magazines.html

        2. http://www.world-newspapers.com/israel.html

      • Sin Nombre
        Sin Nombre
        July 28, 2013, 12:10 am

        hophmi wrote:

        “is it your opinion that American Jews are banding together to force non-Jews to fight a war on their behalf? And you don’t understand why saying stuff like this is antisemitic?”

        I don’t understand why saying stuff like this is anti-semetic, unless, as Chu notes, anti-semetism can include truthful statements.

        The Nation article after all documents that there are calls from American jews to other American jews to band together to support Israel. And it’s undeniable that Israel has been plumping for the U.S. to go to war to attack Iran.

        And yet … according to you it’s beyond the pale to observe this.

        Who do you think you are fooling? And do you really want to rob the idea of anti-semitism of all meaning?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        July 28, 2013, 9:18 pm

        Sin Nombre to hophmi,

        Who do you think you are fooling? And do you really want to rob the idea of anti-semitism of all meaning?

        At some point one begins to realize that:

        1. Zionism is an irrational ethnic nationalist cult (often a messianic ethno-religious nationalist cult, based on biblical mumbo jumbo).

        2. many Zionists — arguably most Zionists — are unable to engage in rational and fair-minded dialogue.

        3. they are self-obsessed and selfish, and couldn’t care less about the needs and concerns of anyone outside the cult.

        4. they are incredibly needy and demanding of assistance and assurance from the cult outsiders that they regularly abuse.

        5. the best way to deal with them is to try to disengage from them as thoroughly as possible.

        Interactions with them go around in endless neurotic loops that go nowhere — the entire domain is a madhouse. One can’t reach the minds of ethnic cultists with reason, logic, facts, realism, etc.

  9. Denis
    Denis
    July 25, 2013, 2:44 pm

    Powerful stuff.

    […]

    One final revisionist-related thought is Rosenberg’s assertion that: “about 132,000, or nearly a quarter of all German Jews, found refuge in the United States”

    By that assessment there were 528,000 German Jews total pre-WWII.

    But Wiki, citing Lucy Dawidowicz, says that prior to WWII there were 240,000 Jews in Germany and Austria and 90% were killed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll

    So by Wiki’s numbers, if ALL the surviving German/Austrian Jews went to US, they could have numbered no more than 24,000. Somebody has to be waaaay off somewhere. It’s, like, Shoah numbers never seem to add up, and the closer you look the less they do.

    Uh, boy . . .now Uncle Abe will accuse me of “Holocaust-denial.”

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      July 25, 2013, 3:17 pm

      Davidowicz’s numbers are on the eve of the war, 1939. By 1939, there were around 214,000 Jews left in German. In 1933, there were over 500,000. Between 1933, 1939, most German Jews left.

      The number add up pretty well. Your history is a little off.

    • piotr
      piotr
      July 25, 2013, 5:03 pm

      The concept “German Jew” is not that precise. Boundaries were changing and people were moving from place to place. For example, Jan Kiepura was born close to the border of German, Russian and Austian empires and had a Jewish mother. He became a famous tenor, with singing and movie carrier both in Poland and Germany, and in 1937 he emigrated to USA. I was checking his bio recently because of a certain mayoral candidate in NYC that we have discussed: perhaps the most famous songs associated with Kiepura has German title “Ich liebe Alle Frauen” (Ob blond, ob braun, Ich liebe Alle Frauen, mein Hartz ist gross). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Vvq6_q-ug
      Interestingly enough, his Hungarian born wife Marta Eggerth was also a famous singer and also had a Jewish mother, ” She made more than 40 films in five languages – Hungarian, English, German, French, and Italian”.

    • tree
      tree
      July 25, 2013, 5:27 pm

      By that assessment there were 528,000 German Jews total pre-WWII.

      But Wiki, citing Lucy Dawidowicz, says that prior to WWII there were 240,000 Jews in Germany and Austria and 90% were killed.

      As per all population figures, many are simply estimates or approximations. Speaking in gross approximations here, there were about 600,000 German Jews, and a little over 100,000 Austrian Jews in those two countries in the early/mid 1930’s. In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria so Austrian Jews became German Jews. Approximately 400,000 of the strictly German Jews were able to leave for other parts before or at the very start of WWII, and of the combined populations of German and Austrian Jews, the number increases to approximately 500,000. That left about 200,000+ German and Austrian Jews and during the War only 10% of them lived.

      I think your confusion stems from thinking that no Jews left Germany-Austria prior to WWII, when in fact around 70% of them did.

    • American
      American
      July 25, 2013, 6:15 pm

      Denis

      Do not go by wiki.
      There were 520,00 + or – Jews in Germany prior to WWII and 250,00 + or -some left in Germany at the start of the war according to Nation Master and all creditable sources….iow, about half were able to get out before Hitler commenced his round ups and camps.
      Check the archs , the stats have been posted here many times.

  10. Bob Feldman
    Bob Feldman
    July 25, 2013, 3:19 pm

    Many opponents of Israeli militarism and AIPAC’s lobbying for the Democratic Obama administration to give the green light to an IDF attack on Iran have also, historically, been critical of FDR’s WWII priorities. As Howard Zinn, for example, noted in “A People’s History of the United States:” “The plight of Jews in German-occupied Europe, which many people thought was at the heart of the war against the Axis, was not a chief concern of Roosevelt. Henry Feingold’s research (“The Politics of Rescue”) shows that, while the Jews were being put in camps and the process of annihilation was beginning that would end in the horrifying extermination of 6 million Jews and millions of non-Jews, Roosevelt failed to take steps that might have saved thousands of lives. He did not see it as a high priority; he left it to the State Department, and in the State Department anti-Semitism and a cold bureaucracy became obstacles to action.”

    And as Lenni Brenner observed in “Zionism In The Age of the Dictators;” “…No Zionist organization ever did more than call for the smallest amendments to the immigration laws. Only the left, notably the Trotskyists and the Stalinists, ever demanded that the gates be thrown wide open to the Jews…The vast majority of Zionists, and most other Jews as well, supported Roosevelt’s domestic reforms and feared that raising the refugee and immigration questions would work against the Democratic Party…Roosevelt had ambivalent attitudes toward Jews. He had one in his Cabinet and had appointed another to the Supreme Court, and he had several among his confidential advisers. But he never made the slightest move in the 1930s to amend the anti-Semitic immigration laws. Although Jews were prominent in the northern and western Democratic machines, there were several outspoken anti-Semites among the Dixiecratic contingent in Congress and Roosevelt would never think of separating from them. He never expressed any public anti-Semitic sentiments, but there is no doubt that he held them. Years later, the United States government published the notes of the Casablanca Conference, held in January 1943:

    During the Conference, Roosevelt spoke with the French resident general at Rabat, Morocco, about postwar independence and Jewish immigrants in North Africa. Roosevelt proposed that:

    “[t]he number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc.) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population…. [T]his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over 50 percent of the lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, college professors, etc., in Germany were Jews.”[15][16]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference

    Given the fact that The Nation magazine’s editor/owner and her father have been longtime members of the board of the Roosevelt family’s Roosevelt Institute, perhaps this particular Nation magazine also represents, in part, an attempt by the Roosevelt family’s Democratic Party-oriented Roosevelt Institute to polish up the historical image of FDR (who also ordered the jailing of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII) in the 21st century?

  11. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    July 25, 2013, 3:33 pm

    WWII was not about Jews. Hitler did not embark on it as a means of attacking Jews, and none of the Allies gave their lives in it to save Jews. 60,000,000 died, and attempts to hijack the bloodbath are an insult their memory. If France and Germany et al can put it behind them, why can’t Jews?

  12. Binyamin in Orangeburg
    Binyamin in Orangeburg
    July 25, 2013, 3:57 pm

    Having just re-read “The Abandonment of the Jews” by David Wyman, which is the foundational work of the revisionists, it is clear to me that the allegation of abandonment is a repulsive slander. The U.S. did not abandon the Jews, because we did not abandon Europe. And we could have. Hitler never attacked our homeland, like the Japanese did. One of the policy options that have strong support was to let the Europeans stew in their own juices. Let Hitler declare war on us all he wants; as log as he does not attack us, he can declare the moon is made of green cheese.

    Especially sickening was President Peres declaring at a recent Holocaust Day memorial service that the U.S. and the allies were complicit in the Holocaust because we did not bomb Auchwitz. Even Israel’s leading holocaust historian says thats a bunch of malarkey:

    But could [the U.S. and Britain] have stopped the mass murder? There were no US armed forces present in Europe; the first American troops landed in Sicily, where there were no Jews, in July 1943. Even after D-day, Allied troops could not have done anything to save anyone under German rule. No Anglo-American bombers reached German-occupied Poland until well after the occupation of the Foggia airfields in Italy in late 1943. From Britain, only Lancaster bombers were capable of reaching Poland. There were no fighter planes available with an equivalent range until the arrival of the P-51 Mustang in late 1943—by which time all the extermination camps, except for Auschwitz-Birkenau, were no longer in operation. Without fighter escorts the big lumbering bombers would have been sitting ducks. In short, until the spring of 1944, the US, even had it decided to help, could not have done very much.

    The fact of the matter is simply, and cruelly, that the Holocaust happened in Europe, and not on American soil, and these controversies [between Jewish American] were basically akin to shadow boxing, totally removed from the reality of the Shoah. Jews were powerless, and so was the US, to stop the murder.

    http://israelcfr.com/documents/6-1/6-1-6-Bauer.pdf

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      July 26, 2013, 1:32 pm

      Hitler’s decision to declare war on the US may have been a major strategic blunder on his part.

    • Chu
      Chu
      July 26, 2013, 2:07 pm

      This style of revisionism seeks to foment hatred against non-Jews,
      and it’s been happening for centuries -A necessary component if
      Zionists are going to stick together. The ‘us verses the world’ schtick.

      How could the US go in and rescue Jews within Germany? The US
      wasn’t a tactical force that could enter into the camps and rescue Jews.
      See the S.S. St. Louis. Zionists love to talk about that ship and how no nation
      would help them, except the dictator Trujillo of the Dominican Republic.

      Does Wyman discuss the Evian Conference in this book?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 26, 2013, 3:17 pm

        “This style of revisionism seeks to foment hatred against non-Jews,
        and it’s been happening for centuries”

        Again, I invite the moderators to actually do their job.

        I cannot understand how promoting one view of history, controversial but certainly not that far out there, that the allied powers did not do enough to save Jews during the war and that the President of the United States could have done more, is the same thing as fomenting hatred against non-Jews. Is any historical view that some leader did not do enough for Jews during the Holocaust now declared to be “fomenting hatred of non-Jews?” And how the hell has this been “going on for centuries?”

    • JennieS
      JennieS
      July 28, 2013, 1:31 am

      “The U.S. did not abandon the Jews, because we did not abandon Europe. And we could have. Hitler never attacked our homeland, like the Japanese did. One of the policy options that have strong support was to let the Europeans stew in their own juices. Let Hitler declare war on us all he wants; as log as he does not attack us, he can declare the moon is made of green cheese.”

      I cannot agree with your statement. Hitler declared war on the US on 11th December 1941 in support of his ally Japan. The US was neutral until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on 7th December, so in a sense the US had abandoned Europe between then and the 3rd September 1939 declaration of war by the UK, France, Australia and New Zealand, who were joined on 10th September by Canada. The end of the Battle of Crete in May 1941 saw all of Europe, apart from the UK, either allied with or occupied by Germany. German support for Italy in North Africa threatened the British hold on the Suez Canal and it is doubtful that Britain could have withstood the planned 1941 invasion by Germany if Hitler had not allowed his hatred of Communists, Slavs and Stalin to lead to breaking the mutual non-aggression pact. 20 million+ dead Soviet citizens later the Germans finally lost that battle, having already lost the initative in the Middle East.
      If Hitler hadn’t blown it the Axis powers would most likely have won and the US mainland my well have suffered attack by Germany, Japan or both.

  13. miriam6
    miriam6
    July 25, 2013, 4:02 pm

    Denis,

    or should your username be DENSE?

    Dear oh dear!

    In your revisionist excitement you quite ‘forgot’ the Jews of Eastern Europe.

    In 1933 the largest Jewish populations were concentrated in eastern Europe, including Poland, the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Romania.

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687
    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.phpModuleId=10005687

    Poland : 3,000,000 ; 90% of all Jews there

    Germany:210,000 ;90% of all Jews there

    Czech:155,000;86% of all Jews there

    Holland :105,000;75% of all Jews there

    Hungary :900,000;70% of all Jews there

    Ukraine:900,000;60% of all Jews there

    Roumania:300,000; 50% of all Jews there

    Russia:107,000;11% of all Jews there

    Is that enough dead Jews for you?

    3 million dead in Poland alone!

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/holocaust.htmz

    The United States was another destination for German Jews seeking to leave the country, though the number allowed to immigrate was restricted due to the Immigration Act of 1924.
    Between 1933 and 1939, more than 300,000 Germans, some 90% of them Jews, applied for immigration visas to the United States.
    By 1940, only 90,000 German Jews had been granted visas and allowed to settle in the United States.
    Some 100,000 German Jews also moved to Western European countries, especially France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
    However, these countries would later be occupied by Germany, and many of them would still fall victim to the Holocaust.
    Another 48,000 immigrated to the United Kingdom and other European countries.

    [34]Overall, of the 522,000 Jews living in Germany in January 1933, only 214,000 were left by the eve of World War II.[3]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany

    As for the Dawidowicz citation about the Jewish population BEFORE WW2, that depends…

    Before 1933? 1939? 1940?

    All of them dates BEFORE WW2…

    According to your OWN quoted source (Wikipedia), there were 522,000 Jews in Germany as of January 1933.

    ON THE EVE of WW2- only 214,000.

    YOUR figures and reading of your own source doesn’t add up…

    Perhaps Daniel Rich might like to comment..

  14. lysias
    lysias
    July 25, 2013, 4:37 pm

    Speaking of Mearsheimer, he was in a debate on Syria on last night’s PBS News Hour. I guess he’s no longer being denied a platform.

    • Rusty Pipes
      Rusty Pipes
      July 26, 2013, 4:36 pm

      Looks as though the News Hour is the rare national broadcast program that has had him on as a guest, mostly about other Middle Eastern hotspots. The News Hour also broadcast a brief debate between Mearsheimer and Foxman, related to their books, in the fall of 2007 (1, 2, 3).

  15. American
    American
    July 25, 2013, 5:12 pm

    ‘Who is being manipulated? Zuckerman’s focus is on the manipulation of American Jewish views, and he’s right, but I think it goes further than that. Why are liberal Jews being manipulated and dealt out? Because in the end, this is an ideological battle over how Jews are to act with the goyim. The goyim would just as well see us dead, so what are we to do about it? We must pressure them in every way, and the bleeding heart liberals in our community must get out of the way and let the neoconservatives handle the life and safety of the Jews in Israel. “‘

    Zionism is not about protecting the Jews in Israel or anywhere else—not about how Jews are to act towards the goys—not about anti semitism—not even about Israel except as their symbolic throne and base of operations..
    Zionism, regardless of it’s original concepts, is now the dream of “owing” or dominating the goys and the non Jewish world …or at minimum being a ‘World Power’.
    You can scream…..Protocols! and conspiracy! … whatever— but thats the bottom line.
    It is a International Ethnic Mafia—–look beyond the superfical smokescreen of the protecting the Jews coat of arms at how they actually ‘operate’. It’s all about amassing money and control and power…it’s not about ‘safety”. The Zionist state could be completely ‘Safe’ tomorrow if they chose to, they dont chose to be safe, because their plans are bigger than Israel.
    The sooner the Jews and everyone catchs on to how they’re being had by this criminal cult and quits mincing around and being afraid to call it what it is the better.

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      July 25, 2013, 11:25 pm

      Paranoid[email protected]:

      Is Israel the organ-grinder?

      By Frank Furedi

      This very long book single-mindedly pursues a simple argument: that American foreign policy in the Middle East is dictated by one powerful interest group, the so-called Israel lobby.

      The weakness of their arguments is especially clear in their attempt to depict the Israel lobby as the main driver of America’s misguided invasion of Iraq.
      We are told that if it were not for the efforts of Israel’s agents, ‘America would not be in Iraq today’.
      However, in an attempt to substantiate this claim, Walt and Mearsheimer shift their focus from the Israel lobby itself to a cabal of influential neoconservatives. The neoconservatives were motivated by a ‘desire to make Israel more secure’, they argue.
      They concede that ‘Israel did not initiate the campaign for war against Iraq’, but argue that it was neoconservatives in the US who were ‘principally responsible for pushing it forward’.
      They do not explain their conceptual linkage of the Israel lobby with this cabal of neoconservatives, other than to draw attention to the fact that a significant number of Jews are associated with both groups.
      Citing a New York Times journalist, they claim that a small group of 25 neocons were responsible for the war in Iraq – a conspiracy of influential insiders if ever there was one!

      This book suffers from a bad case of historical amnesia.
      Not so long ago, America and its allies in the West were anxious about the rising tide of Third Worldism, and about the possibility of the Soviet Union turning anti-imperialist sentiment to its advantage in the Cold War.
      Not surprisingly, therefore, Washington was on the lookout for reliable strategic partners who could enforce Western interests in various parts of the so-called Third World.
      It was this concern, rather than the machinations of a domestic lobby, that explains the unusually close relations that the US forged with Israel in the 1960s. And this was not a marriage of convenience between two equals: the US was, and remains, the dominant partner in the relationship.
      And once it feels that Israel has become a geo-political liability, it will have little hesitation in ditching its ally, whatever the arguments of the Israel lobbyists.

      It is a pity that Walt and Mearsheimer are so distracted by their obsession with the Israel lobby – because one of their premises, which is that the invasion of Iraq was not in America’s geopolitical interest, is essentially correct. However, instead of searching for culprits who led America astray, it would be better to explore the wider issue of why Washington promotes policies around the world – in North Korea, Russia, Iran and elsewhere – that often prove short-sighted and which undermine America’s strategic position.
      Surely the Israel lobby is not responsible for bringing about the distracting and unnecessary clash between America and North Korea, which occurred in the middle of the inconclusive engagement in Iraq?
      A closer inspection of the evidence would suggest that, in recent decades, many Western nations have lost the capacity first to evaluate their geo-political interests, and second to act on them.
      Certainly since the end of the Cold War international relations and diplomacy have acquired an unusually arbitrary character.
      It is Western nations’ seeming inability to act in accordance with their national interests – and not just in Iraq – which really needs to be addressed.
      As this book amply demonstrates, the search for a hidden agenda is no substitute for a rigorous analysis of what is really going on.

      http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/4001#.UfHhnOJwbIU

      Barkun’s view of conspiracy theory in American culture as a belief in powerful, malevolent forces used to explain a confusing world

      The political scientist Michael Barkun, discussing the usage of this term in contemporary American culture, holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.

      According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold:

      First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot.
      They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.
      Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness.
      They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.
      Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others.
      For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions.

      Barkun has categorized, in ascending order of breadth, the types of conspiracy theories as follows:

      Systemic conspiracy theories.
      The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world.
      While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple:

      a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions.

      This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

      Chomsky’s distinction of conspiracy theory as the opposite of institutional analysis

      Linguist and public scholar Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals

      Socio-political origins

      Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the “exhaust fumes of democracy”, the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.

      Roger Cohen, in an op-Ed for the New York Times propounded that, “captive minds… resort to conspiracy theory because it is the ultimate refuge of the powerless. If you cannot change your own life, it must be that some greater force controls the world.”

      Clinical psychology

      For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove, or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or a combination of well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.

      Projection

      Some historians have argued that there is an element of psychological projection in conspiracism.

      This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators.

      Richard Hofstadter, in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, stated that :

      it is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.
      The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship… the Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. .
      The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.
      Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.

      Recent empirical research has lent support to the theory that psychological projection plays a role in conspiracy belief

      And from Projection..

      Maybe this bit also applies to YOU , paranoid American..

      A 2011 study found that highly Machiavellian people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, since they themselves would be more willing to engage in a conspiracy when placed in the same situation as the alleged conspirators.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 26, 2013, 2:19 pm

        miriam6 Uh huh … So explain the US veto vote in the UNSC which completely contradicts the US obligations as a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States.

        The US veto is not a theory. Nor is the 1934 US ratification of the Montevideo Convention

        ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory

        ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

        Remember the US did not to vote against any of the hundreds of Chapt VI resolutions reminding Israel of its legal and binding obligations emphasized and recalled in those resolutions.

        Go ahead

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 26, 2013, 6:44 pm

        The original neocons were quite open about their wish to use American power to benefit Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 26, 2013, 9:07 pm

        @Miriam6, your sources are cherry-picked, out of date, or overlook the fact that the WZO, WJC, JNF, et al are an open secret. Those political organs have interlocking boards of governors and have conspired together for more than a century to colonize Palestine, fund and organize militias and terror organizations, and carry-out illegal population transfers.

        Chomsky and Hitchens never denied that the Israel Lobby exists or that it is very powerful. In fact:
        *Chomsky included it as one of the top factors that determine US foreign policy. — http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm
        * Hitchens wrote “Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority.” and
        * Not So Hidden Influences: Is it so offensive to note the effectiveness of the Jewish lobby? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/10/not_so_hidden_influences.html

        For that matter Barkan wasn’t writing about the Israel Lobby or Political Zionism. In fact, he alleges in his essays that evangelicals and religious fundamentalists believe that the return of Jews to Israel is essential to the fulfillment of end-time prophecy and notes some anti-Semitic movements even developed out of an odd side-current of Protestant religious and political movements that were manifestations of British imperial aspirations. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/christian-identity/the-christian-identity-movement

        We don’t need to read Barkan essays to know for certain that there are scores of legally registered Christian and Jewish lobbying groups like CUFI established, organized, and financially endowed to take aggressive political action based upon their Zionist beliefs. They are focused exclusively on supporting the State of Israel and Jewish settlement in all of historical Palestine by any means possible. In many cases they openly fund the methods employed by groups of illegal Israeli settlers to accomplish that goal as part of schemes that can only be described as joint criminal enterprises. Dozens of organizations affiliated with Rabbi Meir David Kahane Memorial Fund (Kahane Chai and Kach) American Friends of the United Yeshiva (Kahane Chai and Kach) American Friends of Yeshivat Rav Meir (Kahane Chai and Kach) Friends of the Jewish Idea Yeshiva (Kahane Chai and Kach) have been designated as fronts for foreign terror organizations by the Treasury and Justice Departments http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Pages/protecting-fto.aspx

        It’s fairly obvious that a number of those lobbying groups and AIPAC have been spoiling for a war with Iran for about 20 years now using the same bogus narrative about the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

        FYI, in an earlier thread I was parodying and poking fun at Hertzl’s racist remarks about us so-called Diaspora Jews in his tome “Der Judenstaat” – and subtly pointing out that his experiment in eugenics in Palestine has not resulted in any intellectual improvements.

        He actually cited analogies of Darwinian theories and taught that diaspora Jewry inherently produced an abundance of mediocre intellects, disruptive revolutionaries, or greedy bankers and said that we were the cause of our own problems:

        Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards—that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. — The Jewish State link to gutenberg.org

        If you thought my sarcastic comment was “pure racism”, then you should consider the target, which was, and still is, the deadly serious manifesto of Political Zionism.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        July 27, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Iraq war did not start in 2003.Ir started in 1990 when Israel made it clear that it would attack Iraq if west did not do.
        Rest are foot notes and exposition.
        Attacking Iran today is not the world priority but Israeli .Its media and freelancer,tribal members, Hollywood artist,NY Times reviewer ,academia,and think tank spew out venom after venom against those who question any attack on Iran,its supporters get into attack dog positions everytime anyone thinks of approaching Iran and it even wants Iran to be attacked to start any “Oslo” again. 15 years down the line, a weakened Iran either from the incessant sanctions or a replay of 1991 but this time on Iran Isarel would be able to claim that Iran is not their priority and would go on claiming that it did not influence or instigate any attack on Iran if like Iraq a replay of 2003 ever becomes a possibility ( That will be 2nd Iran war ).Technically they may be right if we limit our vision of causality from A to B but the for those seeking the truth , they should look into the nodes along the link, along the thread and will find those nodes are managed by Israel. One of these nodes is Wolfowitz who in 1979 made it clear that destruction of Iraq was his mission.He guided that dream to its fruition in 1991 when he gllefully made it clear that no world power can stop US toppling any regime in ME. He is one of many like Perle, Kagan,Luti,Scooter,Wurmser,Liberman, Ilene-Roth, Lantos, Weisel, and so many other.
        The nodes like Ginni, Brezneski,Clark or Carter have no place in this thread .The lobby makes it sure that Ron Paul is not heard and is neither Mark Gravel or Kuchcicnik. They also make sure that Helen Thomas, Desmond Tutu, R.Sanchez, are not heard to influence the knowledge of Americans .

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        July 27, 2013, 1:55 pm

        Israeli Lobby and American Foreign Policy is not the book to fully grasp the depth of Israeli influences on shaping American Iraq or ME policy.

        The best book is The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 27, 2013, 2:12 pm

        Great post. And there is nothing “racist” or “anti-Semitic” about opposing the dangerous near-total control of US foreign policy in the Middle East, sought by the Israel lobby.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 27, 2013, 6:38 pm

        @Train – – Wolfowitz and other neocon warmongers DID NOT want to “destroy” Iraq. They saw their chance to hijack an entire country, and to convert it into a strong and stable ally of Israel (and the US). Delusional thinking, of course.

        Dick Cheney convinced himself Iraq could soon be producing more oil than Saudi arabia.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 27, 2013, 6:40 pm

        @Train – – The “national interest” of Israel, as viewed by idiot neocons, may well not actually be the true “national interest” of Israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 27, 2013, 8:15 pm

        @ traintosiberia
        Yep. A very insightful book. I don’t know why, but Phil Weiss has ignored it all along. Here’s a video clip about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKUS3GGJEk

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        July 28, 2013, 7:24 pm

        [email protected] said:

        Chomsky and Hitchens never denied that the Israel Lobby exists or that it is very powerful. In fact: *Chomsky included it as one of the top factors that determine US foreign policy. — link to chomsky.info

        So what?

        The point is neither Hitchens nor Chomsky are making the same extravagant claims that Walt and Mearsheimer are making about an all – powerful – lobby bossing poor little helpless America around , subordinating American interests entirely to those of the Lobby.

        Chomsky has said many times now he believes America’s policies are dictated primarily by American itself , to suit America’s interests , and , if Israeli interests do not co-incide , America pushes Israel and the Lobby to one side.

        You also failed to address the question posed by Furedi in his review of Mearsheimer/ Walt book , which tackle for example , the reasons why Americans like M.W find it so convenient to blame the Lobby’s supposedly over-riding influence on America’s foreign policy disasters.

        True , in the Chomsky article your comment linked to , Chomsky thrills briefly to the Israel/Lobby bashing stance of the M.W. book , – but then bashing Israel is all the too fashionable thrill these days amongst so – called leftist progressives.

        But then he ( Chomsky ) actually produces an article questioning and undermining much of M.W ‘s book :

        Chomsky: We still have to ask how convincing their thesis is.

        Not very, in my opinion.

        M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don’t think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation.

        Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
        The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates.
        To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences.

        Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentangle. And there is plenty of conformity.

        Let’s look at (1), and ask the obvious question: for whom has policy been a failure for the past 60 years? The energy corporations? Hardly.

        They have made “profits beyond the dreams of avarice”, and still do, and the ME is their leading cash cow.

        Has it been a failure for US grand strategy based on control of what the State Department described 60 years ago as the “stupendous source of strategic power” of ME oil and the immense wealth from this unparalleled “material prize”? Hardly.

        The US has substantially maintained control — and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby.
        And as noted, the energy corporations prospered.
        That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis.
        ……

        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        July 28, 2013, 7:49 pm

        miriam6,

        According to Colin Powell, who was secretary of state during the first term of the Bush 43 administration, the Iraq War — the worst foreign policy disaster in American history — was pushed forward primarily by “the JINSA crowd” — the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and its powerful network of militantly pro-Israel neoconservatives.

        Powell, as a government insider who was present at the highest levels of power when these decisions were being made, knows much more about these matters than you do.

        You are an apologist for the Israel lobby because you have strong emotional feelings about Israel. You give the impression that you spend much of your time propagandizing for Israel and Jewish nationalism.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        July 28, 2013, 8:50 pm

        miriam6,

        The same neoconservatives (many or most them Jewish pro-Israel militants) who were ringleaders of the Iraq War have been ringleaders of the campaign to goad the United States into attacking Iran.

        They are easy to name. They have all left long and incriminating documentary trails behind themselves which record their carefully coordinated, systematic and relentless incitement to war.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 28, 2013, 8:57 pm

        The point is neither Hitchens nor Chomsky are making the same extravagant claims that Walt and Mearsheimer are making about an all – powerful – lobby bossing poor little helpless America around , subordinating American interests entirely to those of the Lobby.

        Walt and Mearsheimer’s claims are anything but extravagant. Apart from the boasting of AIPAC itself, even Thomas Friedman was forced to concede that the lobby has Washington completely wrapped around it’s finger.

        You also failed to address the question posed by Furedi in his review of Mearsheimer/ Walt book , which tackle for example , the reasons why Americans like M.W find it so convenient to blame the Lobby’s supposedly over-riding influence on America’s foreign policy disasters.

        Probabyl becasue Furedi’s arguments are pathetic and don’t warrant a mention. Furedi’s arguments are a master class in cherry picking and selective reasoning. He’s perfectly happy to cite radical jihadists when it suits his arguments, but in the case of W&M, he claims they are naive in taking radical jihadists at their word.

        but then bashing Israel is all the too fashionable thrill these days amongst so – called leftist progressives./blockquote>

        And this pathetic argument is all all the too fashionable among Israeli firsters and rabid right wing Zionists like Cariline Glick, who find it so more more convenient to dismiss criticism of Israel as Israeli bashing rather than bothering to refute the criticism itself.

        But then he ( Chomsky ) actually produces an article questioning and undermining much of M.W ‘s book :

        Not at all. Chomsky has himself stated that W&M’s case in compelling. In fact, your quote goes on to admit that the role of the lobby and US failed ME policy is very difficult to disentangle and that there is plenty of conformity.

        Needless to say, even Meir Dagan has admitted that Israel has become a strategic liability for the US, but why take the word of a former Mossad director? What would would he know?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        July 28, 2013, 9:00 pm

        [email protected]:

        In explaining why the M.W. thesis might appeal to those seeking easy scapegoats for America’s foreign policy dissasters, Chomsky concludes with this ;

        The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal.

        The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, “Wilsonian idealism,” etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.

        It’s rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to “exaggerated Cold War illusions,” etc.

        Convenient, but not too convincing.
        In either case.

        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

        Which is more or less what Furedi states in the beginning of his article:

        The authors, academics Stephen M Walt and John J Mearsheimer, insist that this lobby has successfully subordinated Washington’s foreign policy interests to those of Israel, with damaging consequences for the United States.

        Walt and Mearsheimer detect the invisible and not-so-invisible fingerprints of this pernicious Israel lobby in virtually every aspect of American foreign policy in the Middle East..

        Either directly or indirectly the Israel lobby is apparently responsible for the ‘war on terror’, the invasion of Iraq, and America’s poor relations with Syria.

        The implication of Walt and Mearsheimer’s argument is that if it were not for Israel, America’s relationship with the Middle East and the wider Islamic world would be far more harmonious than it is today.

        Indeed, the implicit and often explicit message of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy is that if it were not for Israel, and the insidious influence of its agents in Washington, then the whole world would be a more peaceful place.

        The authors self-consciously try to engage with the post-9/11 sentiment of disillusionment and demoralisation in American circles.

        They seem to believe that if only we could roll the film backward, and rid ourselves of the troublesome ally that is Israel, then America would be great again.

        After 9/11, US President George W Bush and others asked: ‘Why do they hate us?’

        Walt and Mearsheimer offer a very simplistic answer:

        ‘Israel.’

        Furedi has sharp criticisms’ of the methodology in Mearsheimer and Walt’s book :

        Walt and Mearsheimer continually cite the declarations of radical jihadists, which means they effectively rely on rhetoric and propaganda as the empirical foundation of their core argument.

        The methodological naivety of these two seasoned academics is striking.

        Classically, propaganda declarations, including those uttered by radical Islamists, are made for political effect – often to divide opponents and to isolate targets.

        For example, no credible historian would uncritically accept Hitler’s declarations as proof that he had no problem with the French or the British, only with their support for the Czechs and the Poles.

        It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a mean-spirited mood of appeasement, rather than an objective assessment of the evidence, that motivates Walt and Mearsheimer’s views on Israel and the US.

        Furedi’s article ends on a similar conclusion to Chomsky’s:

        Walt and Mearsheimer have a one-dimensional view of the world, where Muslim hatred for Israel is seen to be the principal driver of regional and global instability.

        It is a pity that Walt and Mearsheimer are so distracted by their obsession with the Israel lobby – because one of their premises, which is that the invasion of Iraq was not in America’s geopolitical interest, is essentially correct.

        However, instead of searching for culprits who led America astray, it would be better to explore the wider issue of why Washington promotes policies around the world – in North Korea, Russia, Iran and elsewhere – that often prove short-sighted and which undermine America’s strategic position.

        Surely the Israel lobby is not responsible for bringing about the distracting and unnecessary clash between America and North Korea, which occurred in the middle of the inconclusive engagement in Iraq?

        A closer inspection of the evidence would suggest that, in recent decades, many Western nations have lost the capacity first to evaluate their geo-political interests, and second to act on them.

        Certainly since the end of the Cold War international relations and diplomacy have acquired an unusually arbitrary character.

        It is Western nations’ seeming inability to act in accordance with their national interests – and not just in Iraq – which really needs to be addressed.

        As this book amply demonstrates, the search for a hidden agenda is no substitute for a rigorous analysis of what is really going on.

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/4001#.UfWyeeJwbIU

        In this interview , Chomsky again outlines his position that America controls it’s OWN foreign policy, not the Lobby:

        Traintosiberia @ take note:

        Mouin Rabbani :What is perhaps most striking about Noam Chomsky is his consistency.
        Over the course of more than half a century of political activism, accompanied by a ceaseless output of books and articles as well as innumerable talks and interviews, he has—to the best of my knowledge—never changed his mind on a significant issue..

        Chomsky:
        I mean, control over the Middle East, especially the energy-producing regions, has been the driving force of American foreign policy since World War II.

        The documentary record wasn’t completely available then, but it was already clear. Well, in 1967 Israel dealt a huge blow to Nasser, and this was of particular importance because it’s closely connected to control over Middle East energy supplies.

        At that time, after all, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were essentially at war, a kind of proxy war. Saudi Arabia and Islamic fundamentalism were the most favored element in U.S. foreign policy in the region, and remain so until today in many ways.

        Actually, I didn’t know it then, but U.S. efforts to control the Middle East had been the leading theme in U.S. foreign policy since World War II.One of Roosevelt’s main advisors, A. A. Berle, said around the late 1940s that if we can control the Middle East, we can control the world.

        The State Department described the Middle East as a “stupendous source of strategic power,” the “greatest material prize in history.”

        Those were the common conceptions of planners in the late 1940s. In fact, even during the war they began to sense this, with a mini-war going on between the U.S. and Great Britain over who would control Saudi Arabia.

        Again , Chomsky reiterates how when American interests do not coincide with Israel’s interests, America has no compunction in over-riding Israel and the Lobby..

        Mouin Rabbani :When you look at this conflict, from the vantage point of today versus, say, 1950, what has been the most significant change?

        Chomsky:The U.S. government had an ambivalent attitude towards it

        So for example, in 1956, there was no protest when Eisenhower ordered Israel out of the Sinai; it wasn’t a major issue.

        In fact, the U.S.’s very close relationship to Israel was established pretty much after Israel’s 1967 military victory, which was regarded by American elites as a great contribution to U.S. power.

        Chomsky: Well, it wasn’t because the Lobby suddenly became more effective in 1967.

        Let’s say some left-liberal intellectuals who previously had little interest in Israel or were antagonistic to it suddenly became impassioned supporters.

        Lobby propaganda had always been there.

        In fact, before 1967 it had failed in its efforts to get leading American journals like Commentary, or publications like the New York Times, to adopt a more Zionist line.

        But of course, talking about the Lobby is difficult because: what is the Lobby? Is the Lobby American intellectuals?

        Is the Lobby the Wall Street Journal, the main business newspaper in the political system? Is it the Chamber of Commerce?

        The Republican Party, which is considerably more extreme than the Democrats even though most Jewish voting is Democrat and most Jewish money goes to the Democrats?

        http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=11394&jid=1&href=abstract

        More Chomsky , again taking apart the Mearsheimer/Walt notion that the Israel lobby dictates US policy

        (Chomsky):-cautions against making the Israel lobby in US a monolith or too powerful. Most are Zionist Christians.

        “When a domestic lobby coincides with political interests, you can’t tell which one is influential.

        When their interests conflict, the lobby disappears.

        http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2006/05/4090.shtml

        Personally,I think this decline in American power and influence is the root of angst for some Americans.

        China is rapidly becoming a Superpower , America’s influence is slowly declining..

        So it is not a question of an all- powerful Israel/ Jewish lobby controlling American policy.It is simply that America’s power and influence is in decline..

        After all, look at how America , and most other Western nations were caught be surprise by the so – called Arab Spring.

        Also in 2008-9 Syria and Israel , without any Washington involvement. took the initiative and held indirect peace talks about the Golan Heights, the talks were mediated by Turkey.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        July 29, 2013, 1:28 am

        [email protected]:

        Walt and Mearsheimer’s claims are anything but extravagant. Apart from the boasting of AIPAC itself, even Thomas Friedman was forced to concede that the lobby has Washington completely wrapped around it’s finger.

        So what?

        That’s just your assertion, not real evidence.

        AIPAC and Friedman can boast all they wish.

        It proves nothing.

        You also failed to address the question posed by Furedi in his review of Mearsheimer/ Walt book , which tackle for example , the reasons why Americans like M.W find it so convenient to blame the Lobby’s supposedly over-riding influence on America’s foreign policy disasters. Probabyl becasue Furedi’s arguments are pathetic and don’t warrant a mention.

        Furedi’s counter – argument , against M&W’s thesis ,which you failed to engage with is that:

        A closer inspection of the evidence would suggest that, in recent decades, many Western nations have lost the capacity first to evaluate their geo-political interests, and second to act on them.
        Certainly since the end of the Cold War international relations and diplomacy have acquired an unusually arbitrary character.
        It is Western nations’ seeming inability to act in accordance with their national interests – and not just in Iraq – which really needs to be addressed.
        As this book amply demonstrates, the search for a hidden agenda is no substitute for a rigorous analysis of what is really going on.

        The problem here is your intolerant inability to engage and understand a view opposite to your own.
        Instead of engaging with Furedi’s argument you launch an ad hominem attack on the author.
        Incidentally, weren’t you the commenter on an earlier thread on this website who cheekily criticised me for not engaging with an argument?
        Yes I think you were..

        Furedi’s arguments are a master class in cherry picking and selective reasoning. He’s perfectly happy to cite radical jihadists when it suits his arguments, but in the case of W&M, he claims they are naive in taking radical jihadists at their word.

        Furedi ACTUALLY said this:

        Walt and Mearsheimer continually cite the declarations of radical jihadists, which means they effectively rely on rhetoric and propaganda as the empirical foundation of their core argument.
        The methodological naivety of these two seasoned academics is striking.
        Classically, propaganda declarations, including those uttered by radical Islamists, are made for political effect – often to divide opponents and to isolate targets.
        For example, no credible historian would uncritically accept Hitler’s declarations as proof that he had no problem with the French or the British, only with their support for the Czechs and the Poles.

        It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a mean-spirited mood of appeasement, rather than an objective assessment of the evidence, that motivates Walt and Mearsheimer’s views on Israel and the US.

        I take it then , Shingo you too prefer appeasement of nihilistic radical jihadis like Al- Qaeda than finding the arguments needed to face them down.

        Shingo, cherry – picking is about choosing specific evidence to support one’s argument! , something YOU have failed to do… and where exactly in Furedi’s article DOES he cite radical jihadists to support his argument?

        Nowhere actually !

        In any case you ought to provide the evidence from Furedi’s article in question to support your claim.

        What Furedi ACTUALLY said was this:

        Walt and Mearsheimer have a one-dimensional view of the world, where Muslim hatred for Israel is seen to be the principal driver of regional and global instability.
        To substantiate this view, the authors frequently cite Muslim radicals who attack the US for supporting Israel.
        Their aim is to demonstrate that radical Islamists have no problem with America per se, only with its support of Israel.
        Thus they note that Ramzi Yousef, who organised the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, said he felt ‘guilty about causing US deaths’, but his ‘remorse’ gave way to ‘the strength of his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops’.
        Apparently, the organisers of the 9/11 attack were driven by similar concerns, and Walt and Mearsheimer quote various statements made by Osama bin Laden and others to demonstrate this fact.
        ‘It is hard to imagine more compelling evidence of the role that US support for Israel played in inspiring the 9/11 attacks’, they claim

        At no point in this paragraph or entire article does Furedi cite the opinions of radical jihadists in support of HIS argument.
        In fact, Furedi is critiquing Mearsheimer and Walt’s method of supporting THEIR arguments by citing the opinions of radical jihadists.
        I imagine that what you are attempting to do , is , rather than dealing with the SUBSTANCE of Furedi’s article ,you instead prefer to making an unwarranted ad hominem attack on Furedi.

        But then he ( Chomsky ) actually produces an article questioning and undermining much of M.W ‘s book :

        Not at all. Chomsky has himself stated that W&M’s case in compelling. In fact, your quote goes on to admit that the role of the lobby and US failed ME policy is very difficult to disentangle and that there is plenty of conformity.

        Shingo , you are neglecting to mention that before THAT , Chomsky ACTUALLY had this to say:

        Chomsky: We still have to ask how convincing their (M&W’s) thesis is.
        Not very, in my opinion.
        M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don’t think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation.

        Far from providing a ringing endorsement of M&W’s thesis, Chomsky is actually tearing M&W’s argument apart and finding it lacking as a theory with any real , substantive power of explanation.

        Chomsky : The US has substantially maintained control — and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby.

        And as noted, the energy corporations prospered.

        That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis.

        What were “the Lobbies” that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world?

        M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class — at which point the thesis loses much of its content.

        They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion).

        Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests.
        But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neo con regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel.

        Chomsky: The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, “Wilsonian idealism,” etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It’s rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to “exaggerated Cold War illusions,” etc.

        Convenient, but not too convincing.
        In either case.

        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

        Needless to say, even Meir Dagan has admitted that Israel has become a strategic liability for the US, but why take the word of a former Mossad director? What would would he know?

        Oh the irony! You expect me to believe what THIS particular ex Mossad boss thinks (Meir Dagan) is gospel, but , on an earlier thread , not THIS ONE, Ephraim Halevi.

        Israel’s Man in Damascus Why Jerusalem Doesn’t Want the Assad Regime to Fall by Ephraim Halevi

        Ephraim Halevi served as Chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002.

        Israeli intervention in Syria has remained very limited.
        In part , that is because of Israel’s long history with the Assad regime, which has consistently maintained peace along the two countries borders. Ultimately, Israel has more confidence in President Basher-al- Assad than in any foreseeable successor.

        See, I remember you arguing with great vehemence that this ex Mossad boss , Halevi ,was wrong but ,but then again you only quote ex – Mossad chiefs when it SUITS you..

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/goodbye-solutioncapitol.html

        http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139373/efraimhalevy/israels-man-in-damascus

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        July 29, 2013, 2:28 am

        Sean Mc Bride:

        Powell Admits False WMD Claim

        Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged–finally!–that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war.
        Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons.
        That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.)

        Yet Powell said on MTP, “it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.” Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

        http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0518-03.htm

        Powell noted that he was “comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community.” In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi’s outfit, and it never caught on. So who’s been fired over this?
        After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn’t someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi’s neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

        For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on “good, solid intelligence.” Does he still believe that?

        Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan.

        (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell’s remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.)
        And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was “conclusive evidence” that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels.
        Is he willing to say he was wrong?

        For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, “we are heroes in error….As far as we’re concerned, we’ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.”

        Perhaps not for him. But Powell–fronting for Bush–placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is “out there publicly saying this now because he doesn’t want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war.” But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war…cont.

        By the way, Mr Chalabi isn’t a Jew!

        A History Lesson: U.S. Intervention in the Middle East Has Always Ended Up Being a Disaster for American Interests

        For those who argue that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will somehow advance American interests in the Middle East, an overview of the major cases of U.S. intervention in the region during the past fifty years appears to indicate otherwise.
        Below is a list of major interventions in the region during the five decades along with a brief description of the U.S. role and its result:

        Beginning with American meddling and malfeasance in Iran in 1953…

        http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

        Colin Powell ( satirically I suppose) demands answers over CURVEBALL’S WMD lies!

        Note; Colin Powell is not a JEW!

        Here’s a picture of the offending Mr Curveball – aka Rafid Ahmed Alawan al -Janabi who supplied the dodgy info.

        He’s an Iraqi Arab man.

        Gosh, he doesn’t look AT ALL JEWISH either !

        Well, at least not like an Ashkenazi Jew..

        Well, there are only about SEVEN Jews left in Iraq these days, after all..

        http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/2/16/1297892355352/Rafid-Ahmed-Alwan-al-Jana-007.jpg

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 29, 2013, 2:41 am

        So what?

        The point is neither Hitchens nor Chomsky are making the same extravagant claims that Walt and Mearsheimer are making about an all – powerful – lobby bossing poor little helpless America around , subordinating American interests entirely to those of the Lobby.

        I already explained. Your analysis about the Israel Lobby and conspiracy theory is cherry-picked and unhistorical. Walt and Mearsheimer have repeatedly pointed out that they don’t make many of the extravagant claims in their book or article that critics have tried to attribute to them. They certainly never said that the Lobby is a conspiracy or that it can always dictate US foreign policy or always defeat competing interests. They simply said that the Lobby is a group of organizations and entities with similar goals that can, and have, influenced major foreign policy decisions in cases where the interests of the American people were either not at stake or were not well served.

        Chomsky and Hitchins both agreed that the Lobby exists and is very powerful. They both say that it does play a major role in determining US foreign policy. Chomsky simply points out that it hasn’t been able to dictate terms on issues, like starting a war with Iran. But that’s certainly not for lack of coordinated effort on the part of the government of Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish Lobby groups.

        Anyone remotely familiar with the history of local Jewish and Zionist federations knows perfectly well that they were deliberately established to carry-on propaganda and political lobbying. In many cases, it’s a matter of public record, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/symbols-occupation-settlers.html#comment-576118

        So, it’s no accident or secret that many of the major Jewish and Zionist organizations do have formal business relationships, or written agreements on association and funding with one another. In many cases they share board members, and common political agendas regarding Israel or settlement in Palestine. They even invented lawfare as a tactic to challenge their adversaries and the existence of the so-called “World Jewish Conspiracy” promulgated by entities, like Theodor Fischer’s Bund Nationalsozialistischer Eidgenossen and Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent. All of those practices are still employed today by organized Jewish groups fighting BDS on campuses, in local food coops, and filing amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases like Samantar v. Yousuf, and M.B.Z. v. Clinton.
        http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/samantar-v-yousuf/
        http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/m-b-z-v-clinton/

        In many cases, Israeli foreign ministry officials have admitted that they have played an active role in generating lawsuits in the US and elsewhere. See Israeli Foreign Ministry Sponsoring U.S. BDS Lawsuits, http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2011/09/19/israeli-foreign-ministry-sponsoring-u-s-bds-lawsuits/

        So it has nothing to do with psychological projection to point out those facts.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 29, 2013, 2:04 pm

        Great post, Hostage.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 29, 2013, 2:33 pm

        “Anyone remotely familiar with the history of local Jewish and Zionist federations knows perfectly well that they were deliberately established to carry-on propaganda and political lobbying.”

        You are so damned disingenuous. Young Judea and the ZOA, yes, obviously; there’s no secret that an organization called the Zionist Organization of America was set up to promote Zionism. The Jewish Federation system is something completely different that focuses on Jewish community building in the United States.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 29, 2013, 7:16 pm

        Neocons in the main have done their best to block any resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran. Some elements of stupidity are of course present. Other elements might be called vicious, or worse.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 27, 2013, 12:24 pm

        @ Miriam6
        All of what you say is true to some extent in explaining conspiracy theories, but what you left out is that the public is prevented from connecting dots by the heavy overclassification of government documents, and the heavy cost of FOIA access, which returns documents so blacked out in key content that are virtually useless to connect more dots. 9/11 is of course a key example of this. And take a look at the difficulty of getting official documents relevant to Bush Jr’s decision to attack Iraq, and look at the cover up of the USS Liberty affair. And, more currently, what would the US public know without Manning and Snowden? Even congress has been lied to regarding the extent of our domestic spy program, etc. In other words, there’s plenty of evidence that some “conspiracy mongers” are simply people with little power who look to official explanations of events, and through diligent research where possible, conclude with dot string of their own that may appear to rational people, given the additional facts, as explanations more probable than official explanations.
        Muzzling folks actually witnesses to an event does not help the government’s official explanation. This has certainly been true, e.g., re the USS Liberty crew, and currently, re the Bengahzi event. Too, we know now that the 9/11 Commission’s report to the public was edited regarding motive of hijackers, rendered generic blowback from US foreign policy, when the original finding was very specific: The blowback was against US rubber-stamping of Israel right or wrong.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        July 27, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Noam Chomsky has come around . He now says that the ME policy is dictated by Israeli lobby.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        July 27, 2013, 2:18 pm

        Almost entirely controlled by Israel lobby. Almost.

  16. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 25, 2013, 5:42 pm

    Mmm, the Jewish Me First Crowd will certainly keep the dumb goys wondering as they are dissipated in blood and treasure on Israel’s behalf, as the haven for Jews. There’s no counter to Zionism except Aryanism?

  17. American
    American
    July 25, 2013, 6:00 pm

    I suggest everyone try discussing the Zionist and their activites/operations as if they had no connection to Jews—-and see how you would describe them then.
    Pretend they are communist or a plain old organized crime family network who uses anti semitism to bludgeon their way into neighborhoods or countries and take a slice of profitable deals instead of doing it by breaking arms and busting heads.
    Then you will have an accurate picture of what they are.
    And the Jews?….the zios are running a old timey ‘protection racket ‘on them. Join us and pay us or we’ll throw you to the goys.

  18. James Canning
    James Canning
    July 25, 2013, 6:29 pm

    Interesting piece.

    I continue to think American Jews do Israel a service by telling the Israeli gov’t to get out of the West Bank.

  19. RoHa
    RoHa
    July 25, 2013, 7:30 pm

    As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, whine without end. Amen.

  20. David Green
    David Green
    July 25, 2013, 9:42 pm

    This issue is highly politicized in a number of complicated ways. I grappled with it a few years back:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/19/the-holocaust-industry-comes-to-the-university-of-illinois/

    I’ve never been persuaded that Wyman’s book isn’t a decent piece of scholarship, whatever his Zionist sympathies.

  21. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    July 25, 2013, 11:06 pm

    Well put, Phil.

  22. annie
    annie
    July 26, 2013, 12:20 am

    Why are liberal Jews being manipulated and dealt out? Because in the end, this is an ideological battle over how Jews are to act with the goyim. The goyim would just as well see us dead, so what are we to do about it? We must pressure them in every way, and the bleeding heart liberals in our community must get out of the way and let the neoconservatives handle the life and safety of the Jews in Israel.

    smart phil, thanks for saying it.

    and when i was growing up all i heard about roosevelt were good things. he was an american hero due to the new deal(s). well that just will not do. they are trying to change his legacy. i don’t think it will work. it’s amazing how much access some people have to influence public opinion. and people have such short memories. i suppose if you throw enough crap against the wall anything and everything comes up for grabs.

  23. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    July 26, 2013, 3:47 am

    At that time, Jews had had no “influence,” Crown said. But now, when Iran is threatening to do just what the Nazis did, we do have influence, and dammit we are going to use it in every way.

    Crown is being disingenuous. Iran is NOT threatening to do just what the Nazis did. And Crown knows it.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      July 26, 2013, 1:21 pm

      Bravo, Sibiriak. I too am confident Crown is lying shamelessly on this ;point.

      I presume the calculus behind the deliberate attempt to deceive the American public is to keep pressure on Obama to attack Iran if sanctions do not force Iran to make a deal with the P5+1.

  24. mdesch
    mdesch
    July 26, 2013, 7:12 am

    Agree with Phil re: the importance of the piece, especially given what I understand was the author’s about-face on the subject over the years. Looking at serious history can change minds. Two other essential reads on this topic are 1) Rubinstein’s Myth of Rescue and 2) Segev’s The Seventh Million. Big lacuna is any discussion of how history in often manipulated for political purposes and also the problems with analogies as guides to policy. Think about how 9/11 has become our Holocast/we’re all Israelis now and how that sense had skewed American policy since.

  25. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    July 26, 2013, 10:05 am

    This is an awesome piece and a great opportunity for jews to open up the closet of their past and deal with some very difficult truths about zionism and it’s leaders during that era. I am sure that those truths could be seen through very many different prisms, but as a group, Jews ought not to allow their narrow minded views to be entirely colored by those whom they have considered their only real founts of truths; namely their leaders, the main fabricators of myths that have contributed so much to their current condition of, thoroughly hoodwinked, unquestioning supporters of the Israel myth.

    I see this issue from the past directly correlated to the very uninformed condition of the American jew today, ( as bewitched now as they were then), and how thoroughly hoodwinked they seem to be about the many facts that have been revealed about Israel by historians such as Ilan Pape and Benny Morris. Lenni Brenner’s book Zionism in the age of Dictators can add some granularity to the history as well.

    To say nothing of the history that the naturei karts or Jewsagainstzionism jews have on their plate to also serve up to “community”, but alas one dish at a time.
    Zionist have done a remarkable job at keeping the Israel closet door from swinging wide open to reveal it’s hidden content to it’s supporters, made more unapproachable by the dissonance of the false message of a highly moral creation under the tutelage of Judaisms principles, that particular feature of Zionism, the unholy tethering equating Israel worship and Zionism with Judaism, has been the lynchpin of and bonding agent which, has created the amalgam called zealous Israel support.

    The cognitive dissonance which the opening of that door would cause is more than likely one of the strongest forces that keeps jews from ever wandering near that doorknob. It would be earth shattering to them to learn these truths and only the narrative created by Zionist can serve to justify the fealty to the State and Zionism needed to keep the Jews in the Sht’tl of acceptable community.

    It is a sad joke to be played on a people that consider themselves to be so intelligent by the many measures used to grade intelligence. The shetl mentality and parochial trait of putting their trust on their intellectuals and most highly educated from among them to be the arbiters of what is the accepted narrative within acceptable society/community has done great harm to them as a people but also has to be appreciated for being the most useful tool that their so called leaders have used to mislead them on the Issue of Israel and Zionism.

    Phil your website has been a trailblazer in the opening up of that dialogue which you long for your community to have, I have learned a world from Jews of your stripe.

    “Your stripe” is not anti semitic no matter how you try to make it so, i delivered the word and know it’s intent, am married to a jew, and am a considered a minority in the U.S even though i consider myself just a regular American and have never seen myself otherwise.

    I have used your website along with the few others out there as a source to legitimize the message and to help instruct my wife, for as you know, when the message comes from outside of the accepted source, mainly meaning, that when it’s a non jew saying these things then the message is viewed as suspect and possibly tainted by antisemitism, that unholy strain in the DNA of those with whom Jews do not agree.

    No self hating jew, nor even anti-Semite, just little ole me Underdog.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      July 26, 2013, 12:38 pm

      This needs to be framed:

      the unholy tethering equating Israel worship and Zionism with Judaism

      This is the heart of the matter — the “unholy tethering” of Zionism with Judaism — but even many “progressives” shy away from the topic — it raises too many uncomfortable questions. And this is why the progressive critique of Zionism keeps spinning its wheels.

  26. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    July 28, 2013, 6:08 pm

    Whether FDR was an anti-Semite or not should be totally irrelevant to the present. Israel must not get away with its crimes anyway.

Leave a Reply