| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:33 pm Post subject: NEOCON WARMONGERS are mostly Jewish Zionist extremists |
| NEOCON WARMONGERS are mostly Jewish Zionist extremists:
Subj: Re: Hostile E-Mail
Date: 4/8/04 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: MORRIS434
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Steve,
Please continue to stand your ground as there are more and more patriotic Americans like myself who are right with you as well...
In a message dated 4/8/04 4:51:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hectorpv@comcast.net writes:
Subj:Hostile E-Mail
Date:4/8/04 4:51:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:hectorpv@comcast.net
To:hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet
Friends,
I have been pretty much bogged down with hostile e-mail since the Rense internet site (www.rense.com) put up my piece ( http://www.rense.com/general51/tef.htm ) "Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish," which dealt with serious attacks on the Canadian magazine Adbusters’ editor, who had the audacity to point out that neocons are disproportionately Jewish and that they have an affinity for Israel. (In the hostile piece I sent to you, I inappropriately kept that writer’s title "Neocons are Jews," which was not my exact title.) The hostile mail sent to me has underscored what I had written. If one faces condemnation for pointing out the totally obvious fact that neocons—such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz—are Jewish with an affinity for Israel, it is completely apparent that one faces even more serious consequences for digging into less obvious ventures involving Jews/Israel—Israel’s connection to the war on Iraq and, even more so, the possible connection of Israel to the September 11 terrorism. That explains why mainstream people do not do engage in these tasks. It is really quite amazing actually (like something out of Orwell or "Alice in Wonderland") that while we currently have a war in Iraq in which hundreds of people are being killed, including significant numbers of American soldiers, what enrages some individuals is the totally truthful statement that Richard Perle and company are Jewish and support Israel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel
Date: 4/3/04 10:38:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Friends,
Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel
The neocons got the US into the war on Iraq for Israel’s sake, now the 9/11 commission is headed by a pro-Israeli neocon ( a fringe neocon) by the name of Philip Zelikow, who actually admits the Israeli motivation for the war. As the article by Paul Skerry points out:
"Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."
It so happens that Zelikow is closely connected to the Bush administration and the neocons. Sperry points out that "In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.." Philip Zelikow also co-authored a book on German reunification with Rice.
An article by Emad Mekay documents that Zelikow revealed that helping Israel was the real purpose of the war on Iraq.
"’Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,’ Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
"‘And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,’ said Zelikow."
Zelikow was not telling the exact truth here. Iraq was never a military danger to Israel. But the neocons/Likudniks planned to attack Iraq because the destabilization/disarmament/occupation of Israel’s Middle East enemies would enhance Israel’s security even in regard to the Palestinian demographic threat.
So here you have it: the head of the September 11 commission once publicly acknowledged that the Iraq war was fought for Israel, but held that the government wanted to hide that motive. Obviously, as head of the commission he will do his best to keep that motive hidden.
Let’s summarize a bit here.
Israeli Likudniks developed the idea of a plan to destabilize the Middle East through a war that would begin with Iraq.
Neocons had been pushing for a US war against Iraq throughout the 1990s.
Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz focused on attacking Iraq from the very start of the Bush administration.
Neocons used September 11 to push the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection lie.
Neocons pushed the WMD lie—especially relying on the neocon controlled Office of Special Plans to provide bogus intelligence derived from neocon tool Ahmed Chalabi and from Israel itself.
Now it appears that an individual who openly admitted that the Iraq war was for the sake of Israel directs the 9/11 commission.
But despite all of this evidence, it is still deemed "anti-Semitic" to point out that neocons or Israel had anything to do with the war on Iraq. Needless to say, it is the neocons who are pushing this lie too.
_________________________
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html
March 31, 2004
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Iraq in Israel's Grand Strategy
Date: 4/7/04 7:15:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
Iraq in Israel’s Grand Strategy
As this article points out, the US attack on Iraq fits into a Zionist grand strategy of weakening Arab neighbors, which was conceived long before the independence of Israel in 1948. To me this appears like a very logical foreign policy for the Jewish state to hold, though it doesn’t help the US to advance this goal.
The neocon aim for attacking Iraq is now revealed quite openly in the major media--that Bush neocons were targeting Iraq for an attack prior to September 11 and that the terrorist attacks provided the pretext to implement their plans. What is still taboo is the neocon connection with Israel. But the neocons have been closely tied to the Israeli right. The original flagship of the neoconservative movement was _Commentary Magazine_, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, which has as its stated purpose the protection of Jews and Israel. Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser even advised then Prime Minister Netanyahu to attack Iraq in 1996 in their "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" policy paper. [http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ]
In Israel, a military attack on Iraq had been discussed by Oded Yinon in a 1982 policy paper entitled, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which proposed a plan for the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s Middle East enemies. [http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm]
As the following article points out, the idea of weakening and dissolving Israel’s Middle East neighbors was not just a Likudnik idea but has been a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, being promoted by David Ben Gurion himself. "It is against this backdrop that Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and its attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement."
Zionist support for the Kurdish effort to weaken Iraq actually began in the 1930s, before the state of Israel existed, and blossomed in the 1950s and 1960s. "By the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Israel became the primary source of arms and military training for the Kurds in their fight against the Iraqi central government. While full details have yet to be revealed, thousands of Mossad agents and Israeli military personnel were located throughout northern Iraq under different covers (military advisors, agricultural experts, trainers, and doctors); Israeli support for the Kurds peaked during the second Gulf War after the Kurdish takeover of strategically important and oil rich Kirkuk. The secessionist movement, however, quickly collapsed after heavy military blows from the Iraqi army before the United States imposed changes that ended control of the centralised government and established an area of Kurdish sovereignty."
Israel’s goal has been not simply to weaken external enemies but to weaken the position of the Palestinians—the internal demographic threat that poses the greatest danger to the Jewish supremacist state. The reason for this is that the Arab states provide spiritual and material aid to the Palestinian cause. Without outside aid the Palestinians would give up hope. The author writes: "Sequential wars with the Arab world have given Israel opportunities to exhaust the Arab world, as well as tipping the demographic and political situation against Palestinians. Even regional wars which Israel has not participated in have benefited Israel and weakened the Palestinian national movement The first and second Gulf War are a few examples." Of course, some of Israel’s wars have involved the expulsion of Palestinians and the occupation of Palestinian lands. Even the US war on Iraq in 1991 had this effect, although Israel was not involved. "Finally, the second Gulf War of 1991 resulted in the expulsion of the Palestinian community from Kuwait, which formed one of the primary arteries of Palestinian income and power in the occupied territories."
With Israel grand strategy in mind, it is apparent that the current war on Iraq has already significantly weakened Israel’s external enemies as well as the Palestinians, even if the US is unable to establish a puppet regime in Iraq.
_____________________________________
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2003/634/op2.htm
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 17 - 23 April 2003 (Issue No. 634)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/634/op2.htm
Israel: the ultimate winner
Saleh Abdel-Jawwad* examines, why Israel wanted the war against Iraq
An important question which continues to surface in the war against Iraq relates to Israel and the effort by the Zionist lobby to push the war option on the American administration as well as the American public. In other words, what are the goals that Israel seeks to achieve from the war in Iraq and how will it impact the Palestinian file?
First, Israel regards any strike against the Arabs, and particularly a chief enemy like Iraq, a major blow to the Arab order as well as weakening the position of the Palestinians. After the Camp David Accords in 1979, Egypt operationally removed itself (and continued to do so until present) from the 'Arab/Israeli' conflict, while intertwining its interests with the United States. Since then Israel has shifted its attention to Iraq, given its status as the sole remaining Arab country to have a powerful mix of resources unavailable to other Arab regimes: petrol, financial assets, plentiful water supplies, significant fertile soil, a sufficiently large population, a clear nationalist political agenda, and military, industrial and scientific infrastructure.
Second, war against Iraq will likely lead to dissolution of the country, even if this is not an immediate American plan. Such dissolution would be in accordance with Israel's vision of the region, and would greatly enhance Israel's power. This regional vision is based on a 19th and 20th century orientalist perspective of the Middle East. According to this view the region is seen as a mosaic composed of many ethnic groups, cultures and nationalities. Furthermore, Iraqi residents are also divided along Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, and Christian lines. Likewise there are powerful regional, denominational, and tribal allegiances concentrated around economic and politically important cities such as Baghdad, Tikrit, Basra, and Mosul. A mosaic perspective of Iraq would reject Arab national ideology and the relationship of Palestine to the Arabs. It would also legitimise Zionism, based on the idea of Jewish nationalism and power for the weak.
Abba Eban succinctly described Israeli Zionist ideology in this respect, in his collection of writings entitled The Voice of Israel. Eban contests the assumption that the Middle East represents a cultural unit, and that it is incumbent upon Israel to integrate within this unit. Instead he 'clarifies' that the Arabs always lived disparately and that the short periods of unity only took place under the power of the sword. He continues by describing how political divisions were not introduced by Western colonialism, and stresses that the cultural and traditional ties which unite Arab countries are insufficient to form the base upon which political unity can be achieved.
For this reason, successive Israeli governments have adopted policies based on the principle of supporting non-Arab ethnic minorities such as the Kurds in Iraq or the Maronites in Lebanon. Literature on the Zionist movement -- particularly those published at the end of the 1930s and the beginning of the Arabisation of the Palestinian question -- indicate that the Zionist leaders in general, and yeshiva leaders in particular, placed their hopes and concerns on establishing relationships with every minority within the Arab world and neighbouring non-Arab countries.
Since the end of the 1930s, Ben Gurion articulated some principles which would become indisputable Zionist tenets:
1.The Arabs are the primary enemy of the Zionist movement. To confront this chief enemy, it is necessary for Zionism to search for allies in the East to stand with its allies in the West. These are needed to act as a counter force and support the power of the Zionist project when faced with this (primary) confrontation. At the end of the day it is a 'bloody struggle between us and them'. Therefore, any group or sect which opposes Arab nationalism -- "the primary enemy of the Jewish people"-- or is prepared to fight against it, is an ally which helps Zionism implement its settlement and state-driven policies.
2.The Jewish people, who have been subjected to the terrorism and oppression of various governments, and particularly those who lived in Arab countries, perceive all minorities and groups "oppressed" by the Arabs or Muslims as allies and partners. Thus the need to free oneself from this oppression is felt and in common to both.
The two principles above form the basis of what is known as the 'Theory of Allying the Periphery.'
3.After the establishment of the state of Israel, Ben Gurion hoped to develop this theory further and create a ring of adversaries around the Arab countries. He focused his on attention on building strategic relationships with Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia (Encirclement Theory). He also aimed to expand the links of this encirclement against the Arab world by expanding Israel's relationships with other Asian and African countries. The most recent phase of this policy focuses on India -- largely as a result of Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, the emergence of Hindu revisionism in India, and the desire to penetrate India's enormous market.
Ben Gurion's ideas (the Theory of allying the periphery and the Theory of encirclement) which were formulated with other Zionist leaders, have provided the basis for interacting with allies in regards to the Arab world.
It is against this backdrop that Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and its attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement. In sharp contrast it failed to gain allies amongst the Coptic community in Egypt primarily because of the historical continuity of the Egyptian state.
Communications with the Kurds began at the end of the 1930s. The responsibility of establishing contacts with the Kurds fell to the infamous Zionist intelligence operative Rubin Shiluah -- one of the important planners and thinkers of the strategy of "allying the periphery".
Shiluah, who at the time was living as a spy in Iraq -- under the guise of studying at a Jewish school in Baghdad -- would take trips to the mountainous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. The relationships he formed there towards the end of the 1940s were primarily with Kurds who were willing to help Iraqi Jews reach Palestine through Turkey.
By the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Israel became the primary source of arms and military training for the Kurds in their fight against the Iraqi central government. While full details have yet to be revealed, thousands of Mossad agents and Israeli military personnel were located throughout northern Iraq under different covers (military advisors, agricultural experts, trainers, and doctors); Israeli support for the Kurds peaked during the second Gulf War after the Kurdish takeover of strategically important and oil rich Kirkuk. The secessionist movement, however, quickly collapsed after heavy military blows from the Iraqi army before the United States imposed changes that ended control of the centralised government and established an area of Kurdish sovereignty.
Similarly, Israel supported the Shah of Iran in its struggle against Baghdad. The beginning of Israel's relationship with the Shah was formed when the Mossad, acting in accord with British (MI6) and American (CIA) intelligence, worked to bring about the collapse of the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadeq in 1953. Their role remains a secret to this day. The relationship forged with the Shah enabled Iran to be the primary importer of Israeli products until the rise of Khomeni. Israel also played a role in training the SAVAK, the infamous and brutal intelligence service which protected the Shah.
Likewise, Israel has worked closely to monitor Iraq, and has done everything in its power to prevent it from developing nuclear capabilities. In this context, Israel destroyed the Iraqi reactor during its assembly in France in 1977. It also assassinated scientists who worked in the Iraqi nuclear programme -- most notably the Egyptian scientist Yehya El-Mashd who was assassinated in Paris. They also assassinated the brainchild of the Super Canon in Brussels, and destroyed the Usaris Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. At the same time Israel provided arms to Iran during the first Gulf War.
Israeli enmity towards Iraq precedes the Saddam Hussein regime -- originating after Iraq participated in the 1948 War. At the time, Iraq was the sole country participating in the war which refused to participate in the negotiations leading up to the Rhodes Armistice agreement in 1949. Likewise, Iraq sent reinforcements to the Jordanian front in 1967. In addition, Iraq continues to refuse to acknowledge UN Resolution 242 and was actively engaged in the defense of Damascus in 1973.
Third, war as an end in and of itself, is an ever- present Israeli objective. Sequential wars with the Arab world have given Israel opportunities to exhaust the Arab world, as well as tipping the demographic and political situation against Palestinians. Even regional wars which Israel has not participated in have benefited Israel and weakened the Palestinian national movement The first and second Gulf War are a few examples.
The War of 1948 resulted in the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians, representing 87 per cent of the population to come under Zionist control. The War of 1956, according to declassified Israeli documents, relating to the Kufr Qasem Massacre, sought to facilitate a new wave of expulsions and to bring about the occupation of the West Bank. The expulsion of 400,000 Palestinians during the 1967 War, and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, further facilitated Israel's ambitions as a regional powerhouse. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 also resulted in dangerous demographic changes for Palestinian refugees. Of the 450,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon in 1982, no more than 250,000 remain today. (Had the war not taken place, the number of Palestinians in Lebanon would have reached at least 650,000). Not to mention the social, morale and political subjugation the Palestinians in Lebanon faced as a result of that war.
The first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran also disempowered the Palestinian cause: the Arab world was split into two camps, Arab resources were squandered, oil income was depleted, and Arab attention was taken away from the Palestinian question. This all negatively impacted the Palestinian position.
Finally, the second Gulf War of 1991 resulted in the expulsion of the Palestinian community from Kuwait, which formed one of the primary arteries of Palestinian income and power in the occupied territories. In my opinion, Yitshak Shamir sought, through the implementation of the 1990 Massacre, to exploit these events by creating a dynamic that would result in the expulsion of West Bank residents. The massacre took place within the Haram Al-Sharif compound three months before the outbreak of the 1991 Gulf War. Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinian demonstrators, killing twenty. Yet at the time, the American administration which hoped to preserve the Arab alliance in the war against Iraq, was one of the main reasons which prevented Shamir from realising his plans.
* The writer is a professor at Beir Zeit University.
Also, see the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at http://www.nowarforisrael.com
NO US/UK SOLDIERS SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Dear Mr. Lasn,
Here is the London Independent article by Robert Fisk which I mentioned on your voicemail moments ago (notice how Dick Cheney and Jean Kirpatrick are associated with JINSA-Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
This is the article (from 'The Nation') which is mentioned in the above referenced article by Fisk:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
'War Conceived in Israel:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
JINSA Mentioned Here as Well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1163521,00.html
Dual Loyalists in the Bush Regime:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html
JINSAN Associates like Perle and Cheney are also associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century):
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Israeli Mossad agents and 9/11:
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
'Democracy' was a propaganda line used by Jewish neocons to dupe the USA into invading/occupying Iraq for Israel (see the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article linked in this URL):
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/offsite_snieg_raimondo.htm | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject: SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL CONTRIBUTED TO 9/11 ATTACK |
| Forwarded:
The Zionist influenced/controlled media/press and government in the USA didn't tell us about this either as cutting the vast US taxpayer billions going to Israel (when US states, Medicare and Social Security are all going broke) was the best way to help prevent the tragic 9/11 attack (as former Republican Congressman Paul Findley also mentions similar in the third edition of his excellent 'They Dare to Speak Out' book):
www.investigate911.com/binladensez.htm
See the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at the following URL:
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
NO US SOLDIER SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject: Zionists in Israel/USA will Trick US into Wars for Israel |
| Zionists in Israel/USA will Trick US into Wars for Israel:
America Jew Jack Bernstein's 'American Jew in Racist/Marxist Israel' write-up (via the following URL) also mentions the USS Liberty attack and how Zionists in Israel and in the USA as well will trick us into fighting Middle East wars for Israel like we are currently doing in Iraq):
http://www.rense.com/general31/lifeof.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:55 pm Post subject: Canadian journalist condemned for writing Neocons are Jewis |
| Canadian journalist condemned for writing Neocons are Jewish
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:55:20 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>
"Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious truth about
Jews, without facing serious intimidation, helps to underscore the
magnitude of Jewish power. And it shows why virtually no one in a
mainstream position dares to deal openly with the neocon role in the
Iraq war and Israel’s connection to the war. "
----- Original Message --------
Subject: Canadian Condemned for Writing
Neocons are Jewish
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:41:58 -0400
From: "Stephen Sniegoski"
<hectorpv@comcast.net>
Friends,
Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish
A left-wing Canadian journalist, Kalle Lasn, wrote the obvious, and all
hell has broken loose. Lasn, the editor of the Canadian journal
_Adbusters_, had the audacity to state, in the March/April issue, that
the neocons are Jewish! and proceeded to list 50 neocons, finding that
26 were Jewish. Moreover, he stated that the neocons have a "special
affinity" for Israel! and that their influence helps to tilt US foreign
policy toward Israel!
Now Lasn was very careful to say that neocons only represented a segment
of the American population. Lasn writes: "Drawing attention to the
Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count
on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not
that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population)
have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote
Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies
and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem
to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political
thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East."
In "free thinking" Canada such language can lead to more than the usual
smears by influential Jewish groups (and concomitant loss of job,
blacklisting, etc), as is the case in the US, but can include actual
criminal penalties as well. As the article that I have included from the
Canadian Jewish News points out: "Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific
region, director Erwin Nest said CJC ‘will be considering action’
against Adbusters, but declined to elaborate." Yes, to point out the
Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz are Jewish should certainly be
regarded as a serious crime! But what do neocons themselves say? Neocon
Joshua Muravchik, in an article entitled "The Neoconservative Cabal,"
published in the September 2003 issue of _Commentary Magazine__, writes:
"The neoconservatives, it turns out, are also in large proportion
Jewish--and this, to their detractors, constitutes evidence of the
ulterior motives that lurk behind the policies they espouse."
[http://www.aei.org/include/news_print.asp?newsID=19107]
_Commentary_ has been the flagship of neoconservatism and is published
by the American Jewish Committee. And Muravchik’s piece is actually a
defense of the neoconservatives. So I guess it’s OK for Jewish neocons
to admit their Jewishness but it is criminal "anti-Semitism" for gentile
critics to say the very same thing.
Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious truth about
Jews, without facing serious intimidation, helps to underscore the
magnitude of Jewish power. And it shows why virtually no one in a
mainstream position dares to deal openly with the neocon role in the
Iraq war and Israel’s connection to the war.
But now let’s move into a taboo implication of the prohibition of
discussing the Jewish/Israel connection to the Iraq war. And this
involves the origins of the September 11 terrorism. As I have pointed
out in other messages, it seems that Israel was aware of the September
11 terrorists. We know that some Mossad agents lived on the same street
in Florida as Mohammed Atta, and that other Mossad agents filmed the
burning Trade Towers from across the Hudson River. These occurrences
would definitely seem to be other than pure coincidence.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm
No mainstream journalist, much less Congress, dares to investigate this
issue. Let us ask the hypothetical: If Israel were somehow involved in
the events of 9/11, could it get away with it?
If it’s dangerous to even state the obvious fact that neocons are
largely Jews who have an affinity for Israel, it would be a veritable
actual death sentence to plumb the depths of a murky conspiracy to try
to implicate the Israelis in 9/11. Everyone realizes this. Thus, the
established media has managed to ignore the whole Israeli spy issue
—beyond some early brief references.
Now, here is a simple question. Would Sharon’s government do anything
that might harm the United States or American citizens if it thought
such an action were vital for Israeli security and that it could get
completely away with it? We know that this war was seen as important for
Israel, to the extent that it produced some of the phony WMD lies.
Now would Israel do anything to harm the US? Let’s check the past
record. Israel was certainly willing to take American lives when it
attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. The government of Yitzhak Shamir is
reported to have sold the Soviet Union valuable U.S. documents stolen by
Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard — information which, once in Soviet hands,
led to the death of American agents. Moreover, in recent years Israel
has resold to China sophisticated American weaponry that could easily be
turned against the United States. Finally, according to a study released
right before September 11, 2001 by the Army's School of Advanced
Military Studies, the Israeli Mossad was sufficiently ruthless to target
American forces and place the blame on Arab terrorists. About the
Mossad, the study stated: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has
capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."
http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.htmlhttp://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_6.htm
It might also be added that Ariel Sharon is about the boldest and most
ruthless Israeli politician ever to hold office.
In short, the fact that the discussion of any Israeli connection to war
on Iraq is totally taboo serves to make it more likely that Israel would
dare to be connected to the September 11 terrorism. This doesn’t mean
that there’s definite proof that Israel was involved in September 11
terrorism. Only that if Israel were involved, no mainstream organization
or individual would ever dare to investigate the situation to come up
with proof. And knowing this, it would seem plausible that Sharon would
try to pull something off, if he thought it would significantly benefit
Israel. In fact, a more reasonable question would be: why would Sharon
refrain from such an endeavor? ________
http://www.jewishottawa.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=106174
Jewish ‘Neocons’ Tilt U.S. Policy Toward Israel, Magazine Says
By Ron Csillag
Canadian Jewish News
The editor of a left-wing Vancouver-based magazine is defending his own
recent article that singles out prominent American neo-conservative Jews
for, he says, tilting the Mideast policies of President George W. Bush
toward Israel.
The March/April issue of Adbusters checked off the names of 26 Jews on a
list of 50 hawkish "neocons" said to have cozy relations with the
war-minded U.S. Defence Department.
The Jewish names include writers Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol;
Deputy U.S. Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former arms negotiators
Richard Perle; and academic Daniel Pipes.
They appear alongside U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
Vice-President Dick Cheney and former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.
But the religions of those people are not identified.
"A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of
American neocons and the fact that a disproportionate percentage of them
are Jewish," states the article, titled "Why won’t anyone say they are
Jewish?"
"Some commentators are worried that these individuals -- labeled
‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right-wing Likud party -- do not
distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests," it goes on.
"For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in
Iraq?"
Adbusters, an alternative bi-monthly known for its biting
anti-consumerist, anti-globalization stance, says it decided "to tackle
the issue head on."
What those on the list share "is the view that the U.S. is a benevolent
hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world
into its morally superior image. And half of them are Jewish."
Kalle Lasn, the article’s author and the magazine’s editor, told The CJN
he felt compelled to write the piece because "the mainstream and
alternative media are somehow scared of talking about the Jewishness of
the neocons and the Zionism there… and the influence this has on
American foreign policy in the Middle East."
Other media outlets "just don’t have the guts because they’re afraid of
this kind of vociferous backlash that I have experienced over the past
few weeks."
Lasn said he’s received much abusive mail and even personal threats. "I
really do understand what it feels like to be targeted by people who
hate you."
He said the negative responses show a "kneejerk political correctness.
It’s almost as if… many of them are Jews themselves. They’re in some
sort of denial. They really think that somehow it is wrong to have a
debate about the Jewishness of the neocons who are, after all, the most
powerful political/intellectual group in the world today.
"They [neocons] literally have the power to start wars and stop wars and
they are the driving force behind the Bush administration’s foreign
policy, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world. They’re
the people who make it possible for the American administration to give
$3 billion a year to Israel, and many of them are connected to the Likud
party.
"It’s almost as though we have become so politically correct that we
don’t even want to discuss the obvious anymore."
Lasn said he has "an incredible amount of respect" for Jews, who, owing
to the Holocaust’s "deep imprint" on them, have developed a keen ability
to spot dictators such as Saddam Hussein.
"In that way, Jewish influence is wonderful."
However, "if 50 percent of the neo-cons were Arabs or Palestinian, then
this war [in Iraq] would not have started."
Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region, director Erwin Nest said CJC
"will be considering action" against Adbusters, but declined to
elaborate. _________
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/jewish.html
Kalle Lasn
From the March/April 2004 issue of Adbusters magazine.
Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?
Friends help each other out. That’s why the US sends billions of dollars
every year to Israel. In return, Israel advances US strategic interests
in the Middle East. But despite this mutual back scratching,
Israeli-American relations are enduring a rough patch. Last December, a
senior State Department official blasted Israel for having "done too
little for far too long" to resolve the conflict with its Palestinian
neighbors. Indeed, President Bush himself had scolded Israel a month
earlier with his demand that "Israel should freeze settlement
construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation
of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the
building of walls and fences."
Harsh words, but is it all just window-dressing? This was not the first
time Bush criticized Israel and he has made numerous calls for a
"viable" Palestinian state during his presidency. Nevertheless, he has
never concretely punished Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for
ignoring US directives and shrugging off his commitment to the peace
process. It’s also worth noting that diplomatic admonitions are the
responsibility of the State Department which has been on the losing end
of the policy wars in Bush’s White House. One wonders what
Israeli-American relations, and indeed what American relations with the
rest of the world would look
like if the neocon hawks who control Rumsfeld’s Defense Department were
also in charge at State.
A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of
American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them
are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals ?
labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party ?
do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For
example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in
Iraq?
Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game.
Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an
anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2
percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective.
Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them
disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in
Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special
affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and
consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up
with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most
influential neocons in the US (see above). Deciding exactly who is a
neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others
embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others
are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists,
academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view
that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by
reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And
half of the them are Jewish. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 8:17 pm Post subject: Whose War? |
| Whose War?
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars
that are not in America’s interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been
exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism,
Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure
American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein
and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not
amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our
neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student
deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted
minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the
world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the
schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ...
Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no
longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in
sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy
theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish)
hijacking of American foreign policy.”
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The
problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to
mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of
public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can
one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto,
impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his
retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse
Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this
venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and
intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would
publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working.
As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe
in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United
States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one
dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s
founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?”
Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous
decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could
ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel
Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare
our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We
charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far
worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these
neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years
of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith,
heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges
harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an
assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.
The Neoconservatives
Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals,
socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who
rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power
with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a
magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a
resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for
Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a
think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry“Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).
All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a
defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane
Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New
Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street
Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
Beating the War Drums
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of
9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider
the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that
we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must
declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be
used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list,
calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya,
and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than
Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to
launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us.
All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime
Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on
American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The
“Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the
Palestinian enclave.”
Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?
The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before
America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United
States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with
someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”
Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael
Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French
ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters,
he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:
First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with
the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips
with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi
Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.
Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to
define America’s authentic “historic mission”:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and
abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science,
literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our
enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which
menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.
To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”
Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some 'moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”
Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and
Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must
reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,”
wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,
We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven
more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of
terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the
turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for
America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor
governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.
Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was
shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that
celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited
by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.
A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen,
Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction
thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant
Islam.”
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds
nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive?
Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.
“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.
Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down
friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.
“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”
On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named
Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that
startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of
evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.
Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis
“prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the
Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we
invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.
In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the
strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing
did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world
might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the
“Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been
in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”
The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.
“Securing the Realm”
The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson,
who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified
information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In
it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the
assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s
regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions
recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.
In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to
re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the
price in blood would be high.”
Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel
and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the
Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to
strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the
region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote,
“Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan
on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in
number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making
circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and
1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.
Right down the smokestack.
Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of
Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State
for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line.
According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli
officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will
be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.
On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use
his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine
In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz
at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a
“classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the
next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military
presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious
strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy
designed to “establish and protect a new order.”
Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reichdescribes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that
he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised
machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly
conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”
In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not
hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense
by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:
[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with
the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet
Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to
dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.
America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand
scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax
Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what
Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”
The Munich Card
As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted
for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack
Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the
neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate
to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:
With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle
Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.
When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,
They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.
Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but
called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.
President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for
peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he
will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style
appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own
Big Tent.
Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is
no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be
no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the
region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to
rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral
complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their
right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic
world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.
Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right
to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.
But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and
when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the
Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”
Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been
Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had
agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of
Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the
machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor
punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.
Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel
refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the
Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold
U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix
air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16
technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our
AWACS system.
Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return
the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to
Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.
Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?
Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to
preserve and protect.
March 24, 2003 issue
The American Conservative | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:44 am Post subject: "Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish,&quo |
| Subj: Re: Hostile E-Mail
Date: 4/10/04 1:22:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: dakersting@earthlink.net
Regarding:
"Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish,"
-----------------------
Maybe we all need to refresh our discernment, about the relevance of Jewish ethnicity, in the current Middle East debacle.
We should be honest and frank, and there is no doubt that support for an officially racist, “Jewish” definition of Israel, prejudicial to Palestinian rights, is spearheaded by people who are Jewish.
And it is not odd that this particular and even racist attack on a fifth of the world’s population has global consequences, orchestrated by an identifiable group, with special affinity for Israel and Zionism, and disproportionately Jewish.
It was not considered racist to say that most Nazis were German. It would not be the same as saying most Germans were Nazis.
We could avoid confusion by identifying the ruling group, not as “neo-cons,” but as “Zionists.” No one would be surprised to hear that most Zionists are Jews. And “Zionist” identifies the person better than “neo-con,” because it indicates the particular pathology of their policies. (“Zionism” meaning the movement to forcibly create and perpetuate a formally “Jewish” state in Palestine.) Surely racism is more particular and pathological than the drive for profit.
We also need to recall our first egalitarian axiom – that all people are equal and different, and no nation or ethnicity is more prone to bad or good behavior than another – and we need to justify or square the current situation with that axiom.
It just so happens that historic circumstances have given Jewish people good reasons for fear, and people in fear are specially vulnerable to exploitation by opportunists who inflame fear and present themselves as the “hard-line” defenders – against the consequences of their own provocations.
It just so happens, as a result, that a racist movement, Zionism, has risen to incite fear in Jews and make them wild promises of “security and independence” in a homeland that is supremacist – officially “Jewish” at the expense of non-Jewish human rights. While the wrongs and horrors – the ultimate futility – of supremacist politics apply in whole to “the Jewish state,” we should note that most Jews think they need that supremacy, not because they are superior, in the Nazi mold, but because they are the eternal victims of racism, against which they need a counterbalancing and even prejudiced buffer.
Of course the fatal error of that justification is that violent racism is counter-sustainable, no matter what the reason for it – and security and independence are minimized, not maximized, by systems of injustice, as required for “Jewish” supremacy in Palestine.
It just so happens that, the most virulent emergence of racist ideology, at this time, on the global stage, is the Zionist transformation of Palestine into a “Jewish” supremacist state, in which every Jew is tempted to harvest special ethnic advantages and many choose not to do so.
If current world instability were prompted by Amish leaders offering special Amish advantages over other ethnicities, we would find a disproportionate number of Amish people leading the general war-effort that rises from and harvests the ensuing instability.
Since this current surge of racism, a temporarily profitable, polar reaction to Nazism, in a pendulum cycle, happens to favor “Jewish” ethnicity, it is natural that many or most of its promoters are Jewish.
So we must be able to say they are, but if we call them “neo-cons” we should avoid misunderstanding by pointing out, in the same sentence, that the distinguishing trait of the neo-cons is their energetic promotion of any policy that fosters, expands, or anchors Zionist “Jewish” supremacy in Palestine.
We should also point out that Zionism is the source of “pro-Jewish” racism and the backlash against it.
We should also note that those who wish to be taken seriously when they decry generalized or stereotyped claims about “the Jews” should start by reviling the Zionists – who constantly claim to represent “the Jews” and “World Jewry,” stealing Palestine for “the Jews,” and opposing the human-rights return of Palestinian refugees, expressly because such equality would, in their own words, end “the Jewish character” of Zionist Israel. To a modern person or a believer in equality, those statements are among the most anti-Semitic ever heard. It is beyond hypocrisy to approve that stereotyped phrasing by the Zionists, but not when it is reflected in their opponents.
And it is ironic that those who complain most when Israel’s opponents mention “Jews” are the leaders in falsely equating “Jews” with “Zionists”: the racist murderers and thieves of Palestine.
Short form: Of course most of the neo-cons are Jewish: they all are Zionists. Everything offensive about their policies is designed to promote openly racist, pro-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, US-Israeli belligerence toward the Middle East. With such horrors being committed on behalf of all Jews, those who do not want the world to think that all Jews are Zionists should take care to distance themselves from Zionism, not just nit-pick about differentiation.
Dave Kersting
--------------------------
Subj: Re: Hostile E-Mail
Date: 4/8/04 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Steve,
Please continue to stand your ground as there are more and more patriotic Americans like myself who are right with you as well...
In a message dated 4/8/04 4:51:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hectorpv@comcast.net writes:
Subj:Hostile E-Mail
Date:4/8/04 4:51:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:hectorpv@comcast.net
To:hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet
Friends,
I have been pretty much bogged down with hostile e-mail since the Rense internet site (www.rense.com <http://www.rense.com/> ) put up my piece ( http://www.rense.com/general51/tef.htm ) "Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish," which dealt with serious attacks on the Canadian magazine Adbusters’ editor, who had the audacity to point out that neocons are disproportionately Jewish and that they have an affinity for Israel. (In the hostile piece I sent to you, I inappropriately kept that writer’s title "Neocons are Jews," which was not my exact title.) The hostile mail sent to me has underscored what I had written. If one faces condemnation for pointing out the totally obvious fact that neocons—such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz—are Jewish with an affinity for Israel, it is completely apparent that one faces even more serious consequences for digging into less obvious ventures involving Jews/Israel—Israel’s connection to the war on Iraq and, even more so, the possible connection of Israel to the September 11 terrorism. That explains why mainstream people do not do engage in these tasks. It is really quite amazing actually (like something out of Orwell or "Alice in Wonderland") that while we currently have a war in Iraq in which hundreds of people are being killed, including significant numbers of American soldiers, what enrages some individuals is the totally truthful statement that Richard Perle and company are Jewish and support Israel. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:23 pm Post subject: How to Answer and Escape Liberal Zionist Dodges |
| From: Dave Kersting <dakersting@e...>
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 12:03 pm
Subject: FW: Hostile E-Mail
------ Forwarded Message
From: Dave Kersting <dakersting@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Hostile E-Mail
Or: How to Answer and Escape Liberal Zionist Dodges
------ Message from mitchelcohen@ ----------
> Dave Kersting dakersting@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Short form: Of course most of the neo-cons are Jewish: they all are
>> Zionists.<
>
> But most Jews are not neo-cons.
>
> So while your statement is literally correct, this way of formulating it
> feeds an anti-Jewish whirlwind, not an anti-neo-con one.
Dave Kersting replies:
It is quite odd that you would say so, since the statement in question was preceded and followed by so many explications as to make a repetition redundant and tiresome. I left no doubt:
>> It was not considered racist to say that most Nazis were German.
>> It would not be the same as saying most Germans were Nazis.
>> We could avoid confusion by identifying the ruling group, not as
>> “neo-cons,” but as “Zionists.” No one would be surprised to hear
>> that most Zionists are Jews.
>> ..a “Jewish” supremacist state, in which every Jew is tempted to
>> harvest special ethnic advantages and many choose not to do so.
>> Since this current surge of racism ... happens to favor
>> “Jewish” ethnicity, it is natural that many or most of its
>> promoters are Jewish.
>> With such horrors being committed on behalf of all Jews, those
>> who do not want the world to think that all Jews are Zionists
>> should take care to distance themselves from Zionism, not just
>> nit-pick about differentiation.
Those statements more than thoroughly cover your point, Mitchel. You only succeed in proving that, if someone wants to nit-pick and use shabby debate methods, objections can be raised no matter how clear we make ourselves.
That is actually standard practice for the Zionists themselves, as they seem to wager that a majority of the audience and participants will get lost in mere obfuscation. Zionism cannot be defended, but - for some portion of the public - any discussion about it can be muddled.
I encourage everyone to call the Zionist bluff: go ahead and speak clearly: don't be afraid to use the word "Jew" or to address Zionism plainly, just because some muddler will do his best to cry "Wolf!" We have to act on the hypothesis that good intentions and rock-solid reason are a better bet than their opposites.
> Also, some of the leading proponents of the State of Israel -- indeed,
> those who actually imposed its existence, against the will not only of
> non-Jewish Palestinians but of many Jews who had lived in Palestine
> as well -- were ANTI-Jewish oligarchs ruling the British empire at the
> time. And today we have the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's
> leading the applause for Israel, along with the neo-cons and Jewish
> Zionists. You don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. Lots of
> ANTI-Jewish "leaders" support the state of Israel -- it keeps the Jewish
> people locked into a small territory and away from England, or
> Germany, or Russia, or even the U.S. (remember the SS St. Louis?),
> and in perpetual war, and it also promotes Israel as an outpost of
> Christianity (of all things!) in its crusade against Islam (no doubt fueled
> by the battle over who controls the world's oil supply).
Economic control of the world's oil supply would be far more efficient than the old, discredited systems of colonial-military bargain-hunting: the conquest and decimation model of international relations is REQUIRED in the Middle East only because Zionist interests, with their demand for "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine, absolutely require the total subjugation of all Middle East populations. This has been explained to you before, Mitchel.
As to the rest, it is another standard Zionist dodge - pretending that the movement for a "Jewish" state in Palestine has NOT been led by people who are Jewish. Again, this does not mean that all Jews are Zionists, but it would be a pedantic kindergarten exercise to start listing the proofs that Jewish Zionists fought against the net British position, as well as the Palestinians. Those who have been active in this issue know full well that our attackers, slanderers, and muddlers, over the decades have all been Jewish - without exception - and that anti-Arab racist speech has been standard at Jewish social and religious gathering, for decades, virtually never raising a peep of protest from anyone. The Jewish community newspapers have - all my life - been alone in their freedom to purvey hate-speech, against "Arabs," "the Arabs," etc.
Again, obviously, this does not mean that "all" Jews are racists.
I urge you Mitchel, to do a little reading on these subjects and talk to people who have been active in opposing Zionist racism in the US, before you believe what is said by liberal Zionists - many of whom seem quite sincere on other progressive issues but use that credibility and every kind of sleazy trick to support right-wing "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine.
The particular problem in stopping the US-Israeli war-drive against the Middle East is the fact that - unlike other "imperial" ventures - this belligerence is based on a POPULAR demand for ethnic advantage. The real problem is the pervasive nature of Zionist activists, who stand personally to gain from Jewish supremacy in Palestine, throughout the Organized Jewish Community and the "anti-war" movement, and who do all they can to block and disrupt normal discussion - which would otherwise lead to rapid rejection of Zionist racism, at the roots of US-Israeli belligerence to the Middle East, and would thus allow infinitely more effective anti-war activism.
It takes no brilliant ethics to keep in mind that some Jews do not approve of Zionism.
> Dave also wrote:
>> It just so happens that, the most virulent emergence of racist
>> ideology, at this time, on the global stage, is the Zionist
>> transformation of Palestine into a "Jewish" supremacist state.
>
> It's only the word "most" that I address here, the rest of the statement
> being true enough. It does no one any good to rank holocausts, there
> are unfortunately enough to go around. The situation in central Africa
> has taken far more lives, if that is the measuring stick (I'm not saying
> that it should be), and the mass-incarceration of the Black population in
> the United States -- around 4 million Black males now in one part or
> another of the criminal injustice system -- is virulently racist and fueled
> by sometimes overt, often covert (but just as deadly) racist ideology.
> And, the virulent racism and sexism of some strains of political Islam is
> no laughing matter either.
In none of those cases do we find a vast number of Americans, in all walks of life and an enormous percentage of "peace and justice" leaders very actively supporting an OPENLY DECLARED demand for violent racism.
It is suspiciously odd that we have to keep pointing that out, over and over.
Having worked with children, deep in the heart of segregation issues, for several decades, I am only too aware of the forces that maintain racism against Blacks and other domestic minorities - and I have never, EVER met anyone who openly calls for any racist or unfair policy: US domestic racism really is rooted in a degree of bureaucratic disregard and "liberal" lifestyle phoniness that hurts all children and females, while posing a "double-jeopardy" for minority children and females.
Zionism stands in extremely stark contrast with that kind of problem and similar foreign-policy problems. Only in the case of Zionism do we find open demands for official "Jewish" supremacy, at all levels of society, and even dominating the "anti-war" movement - which has yet to find the courage to speak plainly against the whole, openly racist and violent CONCEPT of a "Jewish" state forced into a multi-ethnic region.
The peace movement's adamant accommodation of violent racism - for the sake of Zionist Israel - and in fear of the violence and slander of liberal Zionists RIGHT INSIDE THE PEACE AND JUSTICE MEETINGS - is utterly unique and very dangerously regressive.
We certainly cannot expect greater sensitivity toward the problems of Africa, Haiti, Afghanistan, and US domestic minorities, as long as Zionist activists have almost everyone convinced to quietly support OPENLY DECLARED racist and violent demands in against Palestine - including a demand for the 10 million tax dollars required, per day, to maintain the military existence Zionist Israel requires, in order to perpetuate and expand its UNDISGUISED ethnic-cleansing of Palestine: an amount that reflects a large and very well organized, popular base of support for Zionism, and thus exceeds the entire amount sent to all of Africa.
Those comparing US support for Zionist racism with other racist results of US disregard only reveal that they have made no particular efforts to oppose Zionism.
> So I agree that the actions of the Israeli government must be
> condemned, the Occupation of Palestine must end, and -- here I go
> further than many (but not all) Jews -- the existence of any and all
> states based on a particular religion must end, including Israel. And,
> that also includes many of the Islamic countries too.
>
Again, it seems that you have been listening to too many Zionists.
Our own US and Israeli invasive ethnic-cleansing of Palestine is OUR OWN responsibility. It is very active racist crime against humanity, and we are responsible, and we must stop supporting it actively or passively (through our taxes).
Our responsibility in this crime cannot be equated with some fanciful drive to act as policeman for the entire world. Nations that are stuck in religious or ethnic political structures will develop out of those inefficient and unjust forms at their fastest pace, if we stop ACTIVELY committing the most aggressive racist crimes of all.
Our responsibility to stop financing the murder of ethnically undesired Palestinians, in their own country, cannot be equated with our moral indignation against "Islamic" countries - which must be allowed to develop in their own ways.
To lose this distinction - between our obligation not to murder ethnically undesired people and our need to police the entire world - is pure Zionist racism.
As to the Islamic countries, the single most suppressive factor against development and democratic expression of their popular wills is again Zionism - which depends on maintaining regressive royal families and other co-opted rulers, who will cooperate with Zionist regional demands.
Zionist demands REQUIRE the decimation of every Middle East nation that does not bow to ethnic-cleansing in Palestine, and that demand is the primary factor in the endless sequence of Middle East wars: against Palestine in '48-now, Egypt in '56, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in '67-'73, Lebanon in '69-'88, Iraq in '81, Iraq in '91-now, Afghanistan in '02.
And Zionist control of the "peace movement" prevented - even banned - protest against all of these US-financed wars, until Zionism had thoroughly subjugated all of Israel's bordering states and reached its second tier of popular regional opposition (in Iraq and Afghanistan), thus requiring direct US troop involvement.
Even then - even NOW - Zionist subversion of peace efforts prevents any plain talk about the regionally carcinogenic racist core of the "Middle East conflict" - the relentless, virtually unprotested ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
And even now, in order to discuss this unique situation at all, we must re-explain its most elementary realities, even to people who seem to sincerely believe in equality and oppose war. I think it is fair to identify such people - who would forever bog Middle East progress in endless reviews of basic facts and progressive concepts - as direct examples of the Zionists among us, doing all they can to make this issue seem "too difficult" for progressive consciousness, whether intentionally or in thoughtless transmission of Zionist perspectives.
It is essential to note that ORDINARY Americans and progressives have no such problem understanding our own responsibility to stop supporting the wrong of an officially Jewish state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine.
We must be able to answer the nonsensical objections of "peace" Zionists, but it is more important to step past them, trusting less compromised, ordinary people to understand the obvious.
------ original message from Dave Kersting -------------
Regarding:
"Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish," | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
