Is It Pandering to Jews or Scapegoating Them: Plus McCain's Sterling Endorsement of Talking to Hamas
If I did not know better I would think that there is some conspiracy out there to produce an anti-Semitic backlash in a country, this country, that has been relatively free of that scourge since its founding.
Think about it. President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th anniversary, a nice gesture and one in keeping with a President who personal proclivities are strongly pro-Israel even if his policies have not done Israel much good.
He used his visit there not just to salute our friend and ally but to promote confrontation with Iran, an idea that is utterly unpopular in the United States (to put it mildly) but is an applause producer in Israel. In fact, he went before the Israeli Knesset to denounce Americans who favor negotiations with Iran before resorting to war. He was clearly referring to Sen. Obama although Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates hold the same views and they work for Bush!
Bush told the Knesset: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'"
The Nazi Germany-Iran analogy is, of course, ridiculous. As Bush notes, the senator in question was speaking after Germany had invaded Poland and triggered World War II. It had already dismantled Czechoslovakia and annexed Austria. It was also the most powerful military force in Europe and, at that time, was militarily more powerful than the United States.
Bush is comparing Iran to that. What country has Iran invaded? We invaded the country next door but, so far as I know, Iran has invaded nobody, attacked nobody. It issues ugly threats and may be working on a nuclear weapon. The key word is "may" considering that our intelligence agencies found that it is not currently working on a bomb. (If it is, Israel will handle it. Israel is not Masada. It is not helpless).
Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate a "grand bargain" with us. If Bush really wanted to help Israel, he would at least consider the Iranian offer. Accept the Islamic regime and, in exchange, the Iranians stop meddling in Iraq, stop backing Hezbollah, stop threatening and libeling Israel, and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities to ensure that they are not being used for military purposes. Bush has refused even to discuss this offer.
In any case, Bush went to Israel --a country legitimately worried about what Iran may be up to -- to vehemently denounce Americans who are not ready to rush to war before trying negotiations. It is hard to imagine anything more unseemly. (Just imagine how Bush would holler if Bill Clinton denounced American policies in front of a foreign parliament).
I understand that Bush is no student of history but he should know that he picked precisely the wrong place for saber rattling against Iran. I don't care whether or not the Israelis applauded; they are concerned with their security and not necessarily ours. They are also worried sick about Iranian intentions.
Bush knows that public opinion here (including, overwhelmingly, Jewish public opinion) is strongly against attacking Iran. So is Congress. To rule out negotiations, to ridicule those who advocate them, without offering any realistic plan to deal with the Iranian problem is to toy with the emotions of the people of Israel. And for what: to stick it to the Democrats. This is hardly the behavior of Israel's "best friend."
From an American (specifically an American Jewish viewpoint), Bush is playing with fire. He is sending the message that the reason America would go to war with Iran is because Iran threatens Israel. He's probably said it a half a dozen times. Asked why Iran is a threat to the United States, he says, "its leader wants to destroy Israel."
Imagine if FDR had said that the reason the United States had to prepare for war with Germany was to save the Jews of Europe.
Just that charge alone - coming from the likes of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee - made it impossible for Roosevelt to aid the allies the way he wanted to. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, he would never have been able to convince Americans to risk their kids in what was then called a "foreign war." If FDR had been perceived as having gone to war "for the Jews," Philip Roth's vision of pogroms here at home would not be relegated to the fiction section.
Americans do not send their sons and daughters to war for other countries. That is why the Bush administration made up the Iraq-9/11 connection. Americans would not go to war for oil, or to remove "the dictator" or to strengthen Israel (all goals of the neoconservatives).
They will only go to war if they believe we are threatened. Israel knows that and has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it. So when Bush tells Israelis that he is ready for war on Israel's behalf, he is giving currency to an idea that harms Israel. And Jews.
To their credit, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and a host of others condemned Bush's remarks as offensive and inappropriate. Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman chimed in to agree with Bush.
Like Bush, he cavalierly justifies is hawkish views on Iran by referring to Israel. He has also been leading the charge against Barack Obama for being, you guessed it, being pro-Hamas based on the fact that some Hamas official compared Obama to JFK and said he'd vote for Obama.
That raises another question. Why is Hamas suddenly an American political news story? Hamas is not Al Qaeda. It is not at war with the United States. It is at war with Israel.
Why have candidates suddenly made attitudes toward Hamas some kind of litmus test?
Obama has made it clear, over and over again, that he would not negotiate with Hamas as has Hillary Clinton.
The only one of the three Presidential candidates who has ever said anything remotely pro-Hamas is the candidate Joe Lieberman supports. After Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2007, McCain said the United States should negotiate with them.
According to today's Washington Post, Mc Cain said of Hamas: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice. . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. "
Nonetheless, some people want to talk about Hamas. Maybe it's to tap into some particularly dim donors who can be duped into believing that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has a secret affinity for Islamic terrorists.
But it's an incendiary tactic. All it does is make Americans wonder what is it with American Jews. Why do candidates pay so much attention to a tiny sliver of the electorate? And why does this sliver of the electorate care only about issues relating to Israel and not America?
The answer is that they don't. American Jews vote based on the same issues their neighbors vote on. Israel is one of them--but because every candidate supports the US-Israel relationship and the Israel aid package, it is not a voting issue. (Even when Israel is a factor, Jews support Presidential candidates committed to the two-state solution and negotiations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all received three-quarters of the Jewish vote--including Florida).
No state is going to tip over Hamas. And even if Dade or Broward Counties could be moved by issues relating to Israel, it would still be wrong for candidates to do these full-court suck-ups. It is wrong to talk to American Jews as if we are foreigners. It is not only insulting and disrespectful. It also has the potential of making our fellow Americans start thinking we are somehow alien. And we all know how fond many Americans are about aliens nowadays.
So, the next time you hear some candidate--and Democrats do it just as much as Republicans--shooting his mouth off about Hamas or Ahmedinejad to a Jewish audience, tell him that he just lost your vote.
And skip those ridiculous "debates" where a Jewish Democrat argues with a Jewish Republican over who can do more for Israel. They are as serious as a Mel Brooks film, though not quite as funny. Candidates should stop exploiting Israel. Israel and the Holocaust are not slogans to toss around to raise campaign money.
As for those hell-bent on attacking Iran, let them find an American rationale for their war. The Iraq war wasn't fought for the Jews. The next war, if God forbid there is one, won't be either.
There is a fine line between pandering and scapegoating.
IF YOU WANT TO see how this emphasis on Israel plays out in the media, watch Chris Matthews take down a right-wing talk show host from California last night. Two things to note, one the LA talk show host knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about history. But watch Matthews. He is a friend of Israel and of Jews but he cannot understand why these right-wingers keep bringing up Israel. He simply does not get it. This all goes to my point that these strident partisans (Jews included) who keep using Israel as a political football are harming Jews. That may not be their intent. Their intent is helping their candidate. It is just that they are not worrying about fomenting anti-semitism. They should be. Watch it HERE
Without partners for peace, there can be no peace.
Without moral and intellectual independence, there is no anchor for national independence.
Independent nation seeks partner for peace. Wannabe world leaders with codependency issues need not reply.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/22/us_blunders_roil_the_mideast/
Welcome to the party of mutual Masada.
Go with that.
Mutual Armageddon sounds too much like a good thing to too many Americans.
May 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comments were accidentally off on this previously. Not MJ's fault and not intentional. Fixed now.
May 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, my Harvard educated son.
May 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kremlin on the Charles, I believe it's called.
May 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, I think you meant: Berkeley on the Charles.
They (Harvard) should be so lucky. :-)
May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon MJ! Israel's core ideology calls for the Jewish State's existence to be guaranteed by the Great Powers. I didn't dream this up. It's written right there by Theodor Herzl. So it's a natural. Other countries should support the state because that's the way to get rid of their Jews and they should be happy for the opportunity. In return, "The Jewish State" will be a "rampart" against the people of Asia, the cutting edge of civiliation against the barbarians. I didn't make that one up either. It's right there by Herzl too.
I care that Israel created a black hole with its Zionist obsession. I care greatly that the United States is being played to take the lead in this made-for-Hollywood drama. Isn't it about time the Jewish people stood up to this?
Who were the braintrust of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Pentagon, the policy mavens? The same characters who wrote to Netanyahu that step number one to "Securing the Realm" (that's Israel we're talking about, not the US) was to take out Saddam Hussein. OK, it's only part of the story. The next scene looks like Iran now that Hamas has been relegated to little more than surrogate status.
It gets you thinking the president, and all the candidates, are nothing but fools on this. What is it with we American Jews that we are willing to deceive ourselves into thinking Zionist Israel is nothing but a bunch of people just off the boat, a huddled mass of war refugees, dancing the hora around around a blue and white banner with the Star of David at its center?
May 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop spreading your disgusting Big Lie a la Goebbels: the Iraq war is not the fault of the Jews. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have invaded Iraq and decaptitated Saddam even if Israel had never existed and even if not one single Jew lived in America.
May 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Bush did was politically very, very dumb.
Like you say, the majority will not support an invasion of Iran because of Israel.
Also, the timing was very, very bad.
Obama has not yet won the nomination, there is still some infighting and two primaries coming up that would have distracted the media from McCain for another week.
But, nope, Bush couldn't help himself. He not only unified the Democrats (thank you Hillary, for coming to Obama's defense!), BUT he forced McCain to link himself further to Bush.
If I didn't know better, it sounds like a Democratic plot to win in November!
May 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again. Can anyone please give a rational reason for Israel, with at least two hundred nukes, an air force that is likely the equal of any other including America's, and other superior delivery systems, to be SO AFRAID of a hypothetical Iranian handful of bombs, which are at least 3 to 10 years in the future, and the Iranian delivery systems which have got to be of a lesser order of magnitude than the offensive and defensive weapons systems Israel can muster??
Not to mention A) that an Iranian strike on Israel would incinerate many of the Palestinians that Iran claims to be supporting, or B) that both Supreme Ayatollahs Khomenei and Khamenei have specifically issued religious pronouncements on the un-Islamic-ness of nuclear weapons (since Muslim warriors are supposed to avoid harming civilians).
Or C) that there is very little independent evidence that Iran is aggressive towards its state neighbors or that it actually believes it can maintain any kind of "regional hegemony" in the Middle East.
Sure Iran wishes to be respected, sure they wish to maintain their strengths vis-a-vis the Sunni Muslim states and post-Communist states and states allowing American bases that surround them, but if anyone can point to anything approaching real evidence, not derived from Likudist or neo-con sources, that they seek actual "hegemony" in the region, as a guy who's been trying to be a reasonably objective historian since 1972, I'd like to see that evidence.
May 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg writes:
This shows a rather poor understanding of history.
Germany annexed Austria, and invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland under the supposed need to protect and defend their Aryan (ethnic German) populations, usually following skirmishes - staged by Germany - against the said Aryans.
After WWII, the Soviet Union perfected this technique. It was no longer necessary to physically invade the satellite countries: a Soviet-propped communist entity would destabilize the existing regime, then capture power through coup d'état and pledge allegiance to the Soviet Union.
(We used this technique too, in our sphere of influence.)
Iran's actions are similar to that. It exercises its influence in Iraq and Lebanon based on the supposedly mistreated Shia majorities there, and it has formed ad hoc alliances with the majority-Sunni Syria, Hamas as well as the resurgent Afghani Taliban (and even with North Korea!) based on their inclusion in the "axis of evil", or states that support terrorism. Militarily, there is no question that Iran has supplied both Syria and Hizballah; Hamas and Taliban get money from Iran, and maybe weaponry as well.
So, technically Rosenberg is right - Iran did not invade anyone, but so is Bush: Iran is sending out its tentacles into areas that will bring it on a collision course with the U.S.
May 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you keep on wishfully thinking that for the American Right it's really about Jews in I/P.
The reason the likes of Bush and Hagee instinctually side with the right wing Israelis is not because they're Jewish. It's because Israel is the great desired vindicating anomaly in the world for that crowd: as they see it, it's a colonization project that can claim moral justification in the West.
Israel is not as morally bankrupt an enterprise as Western colonizations have been. The American Right admires that it can behave as badly as it has and still retain legitimacy, and wish their enterprises could be likewise.
Everything Bush preaches is invariably colonialist doctrine. We're always the victims of some Evil Leader of some remote Barbaric Tribe, and we have to destroy and subjugate them and deprive them of resources to engage in their immoral attempts to upset the Natural Order of the world. The Natural Order having "us" at the top and "us" as the definition of Civilization, of course. Sometimes the Barbaric Tribe is Al Qaeda, sometimes it is Iran, and sometimes it is the Democratic Party.
May 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
make that "deprive them of resources to prevent them from engaging in their immoral attempts to upset the Natural Order of the world."
May 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks much for posting this article. People like Lieberman, Bush, and McCain have NO IDEA what they're doing to this country in the long run. Or Israel, for that matter.
They constantly talk, as you say, about Israel's security. They never, ever seem to see that by weakening the US on the world stage that, in the long run, they're weakening Israel.
The canary in the coal mine was the Lebanon war back in '06. For the very first time in my life, I was largely sympathetic to the Lebanese. The thing to do back then was to work behind the scenes to get the release of the two Israelis captured. By blowing up southern Lebanon, bombing Beirut, and moving forward with a totally unwarranted invasion of southern Lebanon. The last straw for me was when the Christian old guy that exercised under the bridge was killed. There was no reason to take out the bridge, and all it did was cause a lot of justifiable hatred towards Israel from the people that lived in the area.
Israel ultimately was shown to be somewhat impotent in two areas. 1. They couldn't stop the rockets. Day after day, the Israeli army was on TV saying that it was coming to an end the next day. The next day would come, and even more rockets would come. It only ended when the Shia said it would. 2. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, the Arabs actually held their ground. They were dug in those southern Lebanon villages, and the Israelis had troubles advancing.
They're getting better at this thing. Israel's peril is immense. The Neocons are making it worse. Sometime in the next several years Jews -- as opposed to Israelis -- will become the minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Peace needs to happen now, because as time moves on, the Palestinians may not feel any urgency for it.
The real 500 pound gorilla in the room is the rise of China and India. While there's no anti-semitism in either country, clearly, they're on the hunt to secure more resources -- oil. Food for thought: Given the lack of cultural ties between the Chinese and Israelis, in the race to secure those needed resources, who will get thrown under the bus if they're forced to make a decision, Israel or the Palestinians?
May 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Hawkeye once said to BJ, 'with friends like this, who needs enemas?'
I'm heartened by a resurgence of the progressive Jewish wing, but I feel that the state of Zionist Israel is incredibly damaging to the Jewish 'brand' with its increasingly lame one-eyed pursuit of local hegemony.
Today, i'm thinking about language, and how it is used in the context of the ME conflict. Growing up in the US, we were all taught that the Holocaust was the supreme example of 'man's inhumanity to man,' and that, rightly, it should never happen again. More enlightened teachers would often extend this example to include other minority people who were targeted for ethnic cleansing or genocide, but in general, those people have not had the organization and the means to promote awareness of their peoples' plight. This is the backdrop of awareness that I think most 'middle Americans' have, and I would contend that their support of the Jews is based more than anything on the raised awareness of the plight of the Jews during WWII, and a sense of fairness and justice for the underdog.
However, that understanding and sympathy are being destroyed by the Zionuts, who are growing ever increasingly unhinged in their pursuits; witness their attempts to spin the dialogue:
One main reason given by the 'bomb Iran' crowd is that 'Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier,' yet, this has been proven to be taken out of context--by actual Persian-speaking translators, not political talking heads. Furthermore, while the Holocaust should never happen again, apparently this, like the right of return and so many West Bank roads are 'Jew only,' as an Israeli minister recently threatened Gaza with 'shoah.' While jaws dropped around the world, the Israeli PR machine kicked into gear saying, 'of course he really didn't mean capital 'S' shoah, just a small one,' or words to that effect.
Other words that have been Zionized are 'ghetto' and 'bantustan,' as the world is told repeatedly that these words cannot possibly be applied to Gaza, and if they are used without Zionist approval, it is then to be considered 'anti-Semetism' and condemned virulently. (so it goes for Noam Chomsky, one of the truly brilliant linguistic minds of our time, who finds himself placed in the Zionist box of 'Jewish anti-semite' or 'self-hating Jew')
The capper of Zionist exceptionalism is now occuring at the UN, where Israel is now protesting Ban Ki-Moon's use of the term 'nakhba'
So, we are today being treated to the Orwellian spectacle of a ruling ethnic group who's slogan is 'never forget,' telling their captive minority that they will never be free unless *they* forget!
Good luck, Tzipi, and here's a non-sectarian concept for you to ponder, as you wonder why your best-laid plans go astray:
May 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bowman writes:
Given the regular tone of your comments on TPM, I don't really expect you to be fair-minded about anything regarding Israel. However, seeing that you grew up in the U.S., it would have been nice if you at least made an effort to fake fair-mindedness.
Indeed, first you grant absolution to Ahmadinejad who speaks in his native tongue -- on the basis that he was mis-translated, hence he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Then, you attack Tsipi Livni who spoke in English -- not her native tongue, for inartfully expressing a sentiment you found offensive (to you? to Palestinians? to humanity? whatever!), a sentiment which may sound perfectly alright in Hebrew, but was lost in Livni's flawed translation.
Now, many Israeli leaders whose native tongue is Hebrew, Livni included, have difficulties communicating effectively in English. Part of this is personal -- mastering foreign languages requires aptitude, the rest lies in the fundamental impedance between the centuries-old modern English with its 400K+ vocabulary and the barely 100-years-old modern Hebrew: vocabulary less than 25K. This makes spoken Hebrew far less nuanced than English.
People who are sufficiently skilled in both languages have no trouble properly translating Hebrew sentences into English (the opposite is not as easy!) However, native Hebrew speakers whose English vocabulary is limited often come off sounding incoherent or unintentionally rude. The problem gets worse since unlike in the U.S., Israeli leaders don't employ professional speech writers, i.e. they are expected to either write their own material or to speak off-the-cuff.
I have no idea what Tsipi Livni tried to convey with her speech -- probably something to the effect that the Palestinians must turn their collective minds to the better tomorrow that a future Pal. State holds for them, rather than dwell on their bleak past. There is no question that she could have expressed this idea more cogently and compassionately. However, your rush to condemn her tells us more about your fundamental bias on the Israeli-Pal. issue -- namely, your eagerness to believe the worst about Israel and its people -- than it says about Tsipi Livni.
May 17, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellen post!
May 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg writes:
To remind Rosenberg and his ultra-lefty Jewish American friends: it was you guys who, for purely political reasons (and for a good dose of Sin'at Ahim), spread around the ugly lie that the majority of the neocons are Jews, or that it was the Jewish neocons, and not the gentiles G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, who made the decision to invade Iraq.
That's the main reason for the canard you identified above. By hashing and rehashing the Jewish neocons phrase, you and your friends gave legitimacy to MSM to use it. It's like in: "Well, if a Jew like Rosenberg says that the majority of the neocons are secret agents of the Likud, then it's kosher for us to repeat it."
Moreover, it is you guys who use every forum to incessantly scream that Israel is the primary reason for every bad thing that happens in the MidEast. And as soon as Israel expels all the settlers and withdraws to 1967 borders, everything will be hunky dory: the Palestinians will become the angels Allah destined them to be and will coexist with Israel in heavenly harmony, the Shiites will live in peace with the Sunnis, and hey -- who knows, it may even stop global warming and cure cancer!
Then, don't forget your unabashed promotion of the plain-wrong idea that: (a) the foreign & military aid the U.S. gives to Israel is the sole reason for Israel's existence; and (b) our aid entitles the U.S. to dictate Israel its policies.
So, why are you surprised when your average decent American progressive gentiles get frustrated and a little angry? Many of them here on TPM express it as follows: "Here's a bunch of quarrelsome Jews who among themselves can't agree on anything -- and point fingers at each other; who got us into this horrible mess in Iraq; who tell me that my hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted on Israel; and who betray America all over the eastern seaboard."
Can you blame them? I mean, who's contributing more to the growing anti-Semitic sentiment in the liberal-progressive circles in America, G.W. Bush or the Jewish Peaceniks?
May 16, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Like most your stuff MJ but here you are sounding a bit defensive. W&M cover the political support that Israel and her leaders offered to lead us into the Iraq war. It is an impressive list of references, you should take a look at it.
Now I do not agree with W&M that Israel was the main reason for our going into the Iraq fiasco, but I do believe, if they were not a sufficient reason, they were a necessary ingredient. Indeed, it will probably be a question that will be debated for decades to come "Why did the US invade Iraq?"
May 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reading of the sources indicate that Hezbollah is primarily and overwhelmingly indigenous to the Lebanese Shia, as Hamas is to the Palestinian Sunni.
So they have an association with a regional state actor that supplies them with finances, guns and favors.
Wow, that is so unusual in the context of the Middle East.
When I came in to serious study of it, in the 70's, it's was Nixon's America and the Shah's Iran supporting different branches of the Kurds against the rising dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The far-right Zionists didn't have so much problem with THAT example of Iranian playing-the-game of regional influence, did they? Nor do have any objection to more recent Israeli funding of Kurdish factions reported (IIRC, by Sy Hersh) to be supporting Israeli intelligence incursions into Iran itself. Or to American funding of the terrorist group MEK which also targets Iran.
So is that Israel and America seeking regional hegemony, or not? I do distinguish between nations and states which can't escape their geography, playing a game of regional influence, and an aggressive stance of actually seeking hegemony over the region. The US is the most likely candidate for that role, if we could actually look at ourselves objectively; I could listen to arguments that the Shah's Iran, Hussein's Iraq and some Saudis have aimed at regional hegemony, Put the Soviets in there too in the old days, but none of them has done that well with it, have they?
I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that post-1979 Iran falls into the same category as those three, and that it might have any success with it ... except for America (think Imperial Spain in the late 1600's) handing it successes by over-extending our military forces on poorly-defined missions FAR FROM ESSENTIAL to our actual "defense", far over-extending our financial resources for this sort of imperial nonsense, and destroying our moral credibility.
May 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Other Alan writes:
Hmm, that's a tough one. Let's see: I'll say, they were:
(1) Harvard/Yale educated G.W. Bush;
(2) U.Wy/U.Wisc.-Madison educated Dick Cheney;
(2) Princeton/Georgetown educated Donald Rumsfeld; and
(4) Stanford Political Sci. Professor Condoleeza Rice.
Why,did you have anyone else in mind?
Let's see: Netanyahu was Israel's Prime Minister in 1996-1999 and never pushed for an Israeli attack on Iraq. Funny how the same characters to whom you ascribe so much influence over the U.S. foreign policy couldn't get the like-minded Netanyahu to make as much as a verbal threat against Saddam.
May 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK- Let's see:
Richard Perle- Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.
Doug Feith- Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
David Wurmser- Mideast advisor to VP Dick Cheney, former aide to Undersecretary of State John Bolton.
Meyrav Wurmser- Israeli cofounder of MEMRI, married to David Wurmser.
James Colbert- communications director of JINSA on whose board sat or sits, Bolton, Perle, Cheney, Ledeen, Woolsey, a few Congressmen, a ton of retired military brass, and a few other ideologues.
Charles Fairbanks, Jr.- former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and member of the department’s policy planning staff under Reagan, and Wolfowitz buddy.
Robert Loewenberg- president of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, dedicated to keeping us up and keeping the Islamic world down.
Jonathan Torop- scholar at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, founded by AIPAC research director and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, and part-time home to US Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross, peace lover Daniel Pipes, with an advisory board of the usual big stick types like Perle, Wolfowitz, Woolsey among others.
So that about does it. Israel doesn't need to, because these folks are all too willing to do it, with Israel in mind of course, and for us, for oil, for the good ol' military-industrial complex.
May 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alan:
Those are all mighty names, but only one held a Cabinet-level position (Bolton - not Jewish, btw), and one (Wolfowitz) was #2 at the Pentagon.
All the rest either never served in the Administration or were fairly low on the food chain. I mean, you could have also thrown in for good measure a bunch of Jews from AEI, Cato Institute, Rand Corp., Hoover and Manhattan Institutes, as well as a good number of prominent liberal hawks.
It doesn't change the main premise: there are numerous advisors, but the buck stops with the decision-maker(s), and none of the people you named were making the decisions.
If you claim that this premise is wrong, then you obliterate Rosenberg's line of defense when pro-Israel activists criticize Obama for seeking advice from the likes of Rob Malley, Khalid Rashidi or Zbigniew Brezinski, namely, that these folks are only advisors: Obama is the ultimate decision-maker.
You guys can't have it both ways.
May 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Numerous advisors, yes, but all who confuse Zionism with Israel or the Jewish people. It's an ideology, let's not forget, and its anti-native in its conception. Enabling a foreign policy that pushes this concept is where we've been most at fault. It's not good for the Jewish people, or the region where half the world's Jewish population lives. I think MJ makes the point that continuing this mindset might ultimately bite the Jewish-American population on the backside, until we see who is pushing for what, and how that is undermining everyone's security. Oil, Israel, what else is there over there?
May 16, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alan writes:
I think you're overlooking the following:
(a) Israel is Zionism. The former would not exist without the latter; and
(b) Zionism is not anti-native; it's pro-Jews, and Jews are, and always have been native to the land of Israel. This, by-the-way, is a secular point of view, not a religious one: check out the research of the highly respected anthropologist Melvin Konner of Emory Univ.
As I never tire to point out, the fate of the State of Israel is in the hands of the Israelis. Israel is a vibrant democracy, and we must let them make their choices and respect their popular will.
Israel's Jewish population is growing -- it's already larger than the U.S.'s, whereas our Jewish population is dwindling. Therefore, American Jews are being recast into a supporting role, with the emphasis on "supporting." It's not an easy adjustment, for some.
I think in the long run it's healthy for both communities. Israel must learn to present itself to the scrutiny of the American public opinion and make a solid case for the continuing U.S. support, military as well as diplomatic. Moreover, Israel must learn to fly solo, i.e. do it without the "crutch" that is the Jewish-American community.
(FYI, I believe Israel's annual PR budget - for the entire world - is around US $50 million. Jesus! Friggin' Greenland probably spends more than that. No wonder Israel has such a lousy public image!)
May 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Other Alan,
Only if you believe that there is no legitimate socio-political connection between Jews, and Israel and that Arab peoples are the only peoples native to the region. But these notions are at odds with the historical and archaeological records. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you must support it with a credible argument if you want it to be taken seriously in a public discourse.
May 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
the sign that things are unraveling is when all the actors start pointing fingers at each other as to who is the culprit of this blunder.
I say a pox on all your houses!!
May 17, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
May you have a long and ordinary life in the lonely peanut gallery of your choosing.
May 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
peanut gallery is not a bad place to be when most of the world is an insane asylum
May 18, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli spies have been found in our government more than once in recent years. What were they doing there, who let them in, and why was it not a huge story at a time when we are sacrificing 4000+ of our troops and our economic stability to protect a theocracy? The more a candidate kowtows to Israel, the more suspect they should be to the American people.
May 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save the USA:
On behalf of TPM, let me welcome you, the proud disciple of the Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan brigades. It's always great fun when the freak show, ... oops, I meant: the circus, is in town.
May 16, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, iaf, but Alan's lengthy list derives from a miniscule percentage of our population.
People begin to think about the Jewish-Americans comprising some 2-percent of our population, but having 13-percent of the Senate seats, 7 or 8-percent of the U.S. House of Reps seats...I wonder just what percentage of the almost 4,100 American service-personnel dead in Iraq were Jewish?
I hope MJR is incorrect with his prediction of an eventual back-lash, but it can happen.
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
I can hardly wait for the usual 'anti-Semite' screaming that this post will generate...so I deny that in advance.
May 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee:
Careful there! You are getting awfully close to the dreaded Numerus Clausus.
I'm warning you: if you continue on this path of proportional representation, I'll demand minimum quotas for Jewish linebackers in the NFL and Jewish hockey players in the NHL.
May 16, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might also consider the disproportional representation of Jews as Major League pitchers throughout the history of baseball. Why so few Jewish shortstops, hmmmm...? It must Mean Something.
May 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a rather stupid remark given that linebackers and hockeyplayers have no relevance in the great scheme of things and you know it.
May 17, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee writes:
Don't you worry: the statement "MJR is incorrect with his predictions" is as close to a sure thing as one can get -- better than a double-headed coin.
May 16, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee,
It's almost funny the way such preemptive defenses come so far ahead of any accusations, even as the loyalty and service of American Jews is questioned in the same proverbial breath.
May 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really appreciate MJ and his articles here. He seems to be fair and balanced in most things. I know you don't believe this MJ but it really does look like there is some sort of conspiracy to support radical zionism ( keeping the west bank and expand Israel). Or is it just blind luck that these zionist radicals (neocons and their allies) have such strong influence in US foreign policy toward the middle east? Also is it just blind luck that the MSM has so little to say about why the US is supporting the right wing Israeli agenda? It is pretty evident that the US government has been infiltrated by people who are strong proponents of right wing Israeli agenda. Just how far does this infiltration go? Are these people in the so called "intelligence community" also? Are they controlling it? Are they blackmailing our leaders? How would we ever know except by looking at the results? If there was a conspiracy like I have laid out: How would the results differ from what we have now?
I am NOT anti-semitic but I am currently leaning toward being anti-Israel. I want real justice in the middle east, that will bring peace!
May 17, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
featherfamily writes:
The answer to A) is: this didn't stop Saddam Hussein from showering Israel with Scud missiles in 1991, nor did it stop Hizballah from doing the same in 2006 during the 2nd War in Lebanon. In both cases, Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) got killed.
The answer to B) is: when you put your trust in the words of Iranian leaders, you are doing it selectively. I mean, if we take the Ayatollahs at their word, shouldn't we also give the same courtesy to Ahmadinejad when he proclaims that Israel is a rotting corpse, that its end is near, and Iran is preparing the tools that will bring Israel's demise?
Btw, from the materials I read, Israel is not afraid of Iran. Israel simply plans for the worst and hopes for the best, and that's a perfectly prudent thing to do.
May 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, iaf, for so tirelessly and cogently speaking truth to ignorance here.
May 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I knew there was at least one TPM reader who didn't hate my humble scribblings! :-)
Thanks much for the kudos, apacmember.
Demanding that Israel be treated fairly is an uphill battle on progressive forums like the TPM, maybe even a lost cause? (Nope, that would be the DailyKos.)
This is particularly disappointing since on many issues held dear by our liberal progressives -- healthcare, child care, abortion rights, women's rights, worker protection, gay rights, social safety net, conservation, etc. Israel is far more advanced than the U.S.
I wish I could share in your optimism and attribute the venom that often permeates some peoples' comments to ignorance alone.
May 17, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah demanding that the guy who has his boot stomping on the neck of the Palestinians to be givern "his due" is quite a trick.
May 17, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is particularly disappointing since on many issues held dear by our liberal progressives -- healthcare, child care, abortion rights, women's rights, worker protection, gay rights, social safety net, conservation, etc. Israel is far more advanced than the U.S.
True enough--it's just hard for us progressives to ignore the fact that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians seems to lie somewhere between Jim Crow and apartheid.
May 18, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
iaf, when you speak of Israel 'hoping for the best', how do you define the 'best' for Israel?
May 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. I am talking nuclear weapons, that's the big scare that the propaganda machine is trying to put into us.
And there is a big difference in the Iranian system, between the Supreme Ayatollah and the President. The one doesn't talk much, because his word is essentially law. The president is much more circumscribed in his power, and it really is a fundamental distortion of the situation to act like he is THE leader of Iran. If you're going to call them a rogue theocracy, shouldn't you pay attention to the words of the Theocrat-in-Chief ? And no, we should be properly skeptical of everyone's words and focus on their actions, yet don't words like that create an internal barrier to that same Theocrat later brandishing nukes, a moral price in internal and external credibility if the original statement is reversed.
The ones with no credibility are those that are trying to scare us into a war with big bad Iran.
May 17, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
A fair question, SeeDee.
Let me preface it by stating that I'm just a private person, not a member of AIPAC or any other PAC, and that no one in the Israeli govt., or ours for that matter, knows that I'm alive. IOW, this following is my own opinion. I apologize if it's a bit long.
I think the best outcome for Israel and the rest of the world regarding Iran would be a regime change in Tehran. A sane, responsible leadership in Iran, whether a real democracy or less so (a la Russia or China), would first and foremost benefit the people of Iran.
Such a leadership could re-establish normal ties with the U.S. and the West, both economic and political. Their nuclear program would have to go, period. It's inconceivable that a country with the 4th largest proven oil and natural gas deposits and an abundance of hydro-electrical power needs nuclear energy in this century.
I'm sure Israel would be happy to be included in such a detant with Iran, but in my view it'd be more than satisfied with a truce which removes Iran from Israel's list of enemies. IOW, Israel wouldn't mourn if, like Cuba, Iran didn't give a damn about Israel and simply voted "For" in the UN each time an anti-Israeli resolution came up. (And what are the odds for that, huh?)
Sadly, this scenario is unlikely to happen as long as the U.S. is unwilling or unable to convince our European friends -- Germany, Austria, Switzerland -- not to sign multi-billion dollar oil and natural gas deals with the Ayatollahs. (They all did, just in the last few weeks.)
P.S. Despite other commenters' often repeated nonsense about Israel's desire for a regional hegemony, I have never heard anyone in Israel advocating such thing. Israel is very well aware of its puny size and its status as a perpetual outcast in a predominantly Arab/Muslim neighborhood. That's not gonna change any time soon, and so any talk of hegemony or dominance by Israel is ludicrous. Maintaining security, defensible borders and a unique pro-Western cultural identity while being surrounded by "a sea of Arabs/Moslems" who in the best case hate you only 95 percent of the time, is tough enough.
May 17, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has few exports right now beyond petroleum. By developing nuclear power to meet its internal energy needs, it can reserve its petroleum for export. That's a sensible long-term strategy for Iran, which will allow the country to benefit from their oil wealth for the longest period possible.
Iran may very well want nuclear weapons, but their claim that they need nuclear capability for peaceful purposes is not by any means a claim that can be dismissed as absurd. Iran with nuclear power would be a much stronger and wealtheir nation than Iran without nuclear power.
May 17, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State writes:
Look, one doesn't have to be an economist to realize that this is ANYTHING BUT a sensible long-term strategy.
Indeed, compare Iran with its next-door neighbor Turkey. The two countries are about equal in population (70 million), Iran's area is more than double the size of Turkey, plus Iran has oil and natural gas -- Turkey does not.
Now, Turkey's GDP is more than twice that of Iran and growing, while Iran's stagnant economy still derives 45 percent of its revenue from oil and gas, both non-renewable resources.
Surprisingly, Turkey sees no need to invest in nuclear energy: they spend their money investing in manufacturing, improving their formidable agri-business, expanding their booming tourism sector, and educating and training their workforce. All this makes Turkey a magnet for foreign investment, and gives it an industrial base which will keep the country a net exporter of foods, manufactured goods and services for the long term.
What does Iran do? They use their petro-dollars to buy foreign-designed and built nuclear plants that may produce electricity for domestic consumption, but will contribute zero to Iran's ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Please tell me, how is that a sensible strategy?
May 17, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah and when the "non-renewable" source of revenue dries up Turkey will be in the shitter with the rest of the non producing countries while the producing countries will have saved up enough to get them by for anothe hundred years or so. You are a nudnik
May 17, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
If you don't believe in alternative energy sources and research, don't be shy -- just say so. Of course, in that case the U.S. is perfectly justified to invade any country that has oil, just because we can and we need the oil.
As to your specific point, Turkey won't be alone: the same fate will befall the EU, Japan, China, India and a host of other large economies, many of which don't invest in nuclear energy.
Btw, Turkey itself has nothing to worry about: it gets its oil and gas from the Caspian basin, an area hospitable to the Turks.
May 17, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right iaf. See it is a matter of physics. "other sources of energy" implies other sources that are as efficient (and efficiency is defined by the amount of energy it takes to produce the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel provides) and there really IS NO OTHER SOURCE OF THAT KIND AROUND.
So your second observation is a lot more realistic.
However, this means decades and decades of war where soem of the energy producing states such as Russia cannot easily be confronted militarily. And as to others there is the phenomenon of asymetric warfare to contend with.
So you see gloating as to how you have it made is ridiculous. There are no easy answers and those that are available will come at the price of oceans of blood shed. So you see it is farshlepteh krenk
May 17, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
I understand the physics and the efficiency topics -- I'm an engineer by training. However, there is always the matter of cost: at some point ($200/barrel? $500/barrel?), certain less efficient alternatives will become attractive.
Petroleum's one great advantage is its incredible versatility: over the years we've developed dozens of different ways to use it and its numerous byproducts.
It's unlikely that in the future one single source of alternative energy will replace petroleum -- we'll probably have to use a "cocktail of power sources": bio-fuels and fuel cells for cars, solar energy for heating/cooling, water and wind power for industry, etc. We may also have to revisit older technologies e.g. cleaner burning of coal or safer use of nuclear power.
Bottom line: over the next 10 years, federal and national govt's must invest at least $100 billion per year (equals 3 months of war in Iraq) on basic research in alternative energy. No private corporation can do this.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that this can avert your doomsday scenario of a devastating global war over natural resources.
May 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf
thank you for a thoughtful reply.
I agree with most of what you say. But I draw slightly different conclusions from it.
Obviously when you get into negative efficiency territory it's a no go.
The problem is the efficiency (and versatility as you say) of oil is far greater than anything on the horizon.
So we (as a planet) will have to live with less energy consumption than we are living now. That much is physics.
We Americans have had it good. And we are probably not going to give up our energy squandering ways without a fight. Neither will the Europeans, the Chinese, and the rest of the BRIC gang and, let’s say, those who are destined to become part of the "club" (which has not been determined yet with any amount of finality)
Also keep in mind our military depends on large consumption of petroleum.
If we are going to be the Top Dog, we need to keep feeding the military machine with all that energy it needs.
If we don't, the Chinese or the Russians or a combination of other powers will (by different means) overtake us militarily. In other words we are going to be priced out of the petroleum market unless we secure favorable long term contracts and other arrangements for ourselves; and that will require let's say some form of persuasion.
It is tragic but that's the deal.
We decided to go down this path partly, I's say, when we decided to invade Iraq and partly when we decided to maintain Israel as a "garrison state" surrounded by hostile neighbors.
The time for getting together (as Obama promises he will do) is long gone and a big joke. What is there to talk about?
See what I mean?
May 18, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
This is getting way off topic and we're running out of indentations, so I'll be brief.
Even if we accept your premise, this needs not end in a global war. Wars have a nasty habit of spinning out of control -- with unpredictable results, and if there is one thing capitalist economies hate even more than regulation, it's uncertainty.
Of course, the U.S. cannot indefinitely consume 35 percent of world's natural resources -- we'll have to settle for less and pay more for it, adjust our collective appetites and conserve what we got.
It's unlikely we'll continue to dominate the globe: the future world may be divided into "shires" (spheres of influence, not necessarily geographical), and ours will continue to be the most secure and the wealthiest.
Our #1 problem is to be viewed as the Top Dog, not the "Top Wolf" we've become since 9/11. I think most mid-size & small countries don't mind to be herded by a strong, wise Top Dog. However, no one appreciates being eaten, and BushCo has left us with some ugly-looking carcasses.
May 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, you need energy to build a strong industrial economy and Iran has a shortage of electrical power right now. That's why building a nuclear power plant makes sense to them. They may very well want nuclear arms too, but their claim that they need nuclear capability for domestic energy production is not absurd.
And besides, aren't you the one who is always telling us that Israel is an independent nation and we have no right to dictate what they do? Why doesn't this same principle apply to the Iranians? I mean the US and Israel both have nuclear capability. Who are we to tell the Iranians they can't have the same?
May 18, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State writes:
Why then won't they build a bunch of conventional power plants? After all, conventional plants are uncontroversial, cheaper to build, easier for an underdeveloped country to operate and maintain, rely on domestically available fuel, and pose no risk for a catastrophic environmental disaster.
I'm sure you're asking in jest, but I'll give you a serious answer, just in case your moral compass is temporarily disabled.
Reason (a): Unlike the U.S. and Israel, Iran is governed by an opaque, murderous absolute dictatorship, which often behaves unpredictably and irresponsibly, and lacks internal mechanisms of checks and balances.
Reason (b): Less than a generation ago, Iran engaged in a war with its neighbors which resulted in over 1 million dead.
Reason (c): Official Iran repeatedly questions the legitimacy and issues statements threatening the physical destruction of a UN member state (Israel) -- an act of aggression in violation of the UN charter.
Reason (d): Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, yet it prevents independent inspections of its nuclear projects.
A general point: drawing moral equivalencies between the different countries or different governments is ludicrous. While no country or govt is perfect, some are undeniably far more menacing, dangerous or even toxic to the rest of the world than others. I think all of us should be able to agree on that.
May 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you remember back a post or two, I mentioned that Iran wants to preserve its fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) for export, so an oil or natural gas burning plant isn't as desirable to them as a nuclear plant. And while nuclear power has its environmental risks, many countries (like France, for instance) have chosen it over expensive and dirty fossil fuel based power. Iran has vigorously pursued hydroelectric power, but that's not sufficient to meet its needs completely.
And my moral compass is obviously not as finely tuned as yours to point always in one completely predictable direction.
May 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State writes:
Look, I don't know if you have ever been to France (I have) or to Iran (I have not), but technology-wise these two are VERY FAR APART.
We've seen the horrible consequences of Chernobil, and Russia is a technologically advanced society. It may sound elitist, but on environmental grounds alone, I would advocate prohibiting the sale of nuclear power plants to under-developed countries. Or, if circumstances make nuclear power generation a must, I'd compel the sellers to operate and secure such plants with their own personnel.
Well, while I'm busy nursing the near-mortal wound that your above sentence has inflicted, please explain your reasoning. Do you really think that we ought to treat Iran with the same reverence, respect and, most important -- TRUST, that we reserve for Western democracies? And should we have done it in the past? With Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot? Or today with Burma's junta?
Again, I'll grant you that no country is perfect incl. the U.S. and Israel, but ... Iran? Come on, you're yanking my chain.
May 18, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iaf, when it comes to relations with foreign nations, I stand firmly in George Washington's camp:
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. . .
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations [i.e., Iran], and passionate attachments for others [i.e., Israel], should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils -- Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.
May 19, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State:
First, a word on nettiquette: there is no need for such lengthy quotations -- that's what hyperlinks are for.
Second, when George Washington gave his farewell address to Congress the U.S. was not a superpower, and our foreign relations were primarily with Europe -- a place our early leaders knew and understood very well.
Very little of this applies today: the mindset and cultural values of many of our enemies is very different from ours and often poorly understood, whereas for better or worse our national interests -- both political and economic -- encompass the globe.
If you wish to live strictly by the ideals and principles formulated in the 18th century, you ought to reveal your true identity -- a staunch conservative. Not that there's anything wrong with it... :-)
May 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg your pardon, IAF. While I claimed for George Washington's words just a fraction of the space you take every day for your own words, I hadn't yet realized to what depths of irrelevance the thoughts of our first President had sunk, nor had I realized to what comparatively exalted heights your own wisdom had soared. Next time I'll try do better and simply sing bomb, bomb, bomb Iran to Beach Boy tunes in the vain hope of earning just a modicum of your applause.
May 19, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I did't know that Leiberman was a senator from the United States. I thought he was a member of the Knesset!
May 17, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You, rdevin, are a disgusting bigot.
May 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Please provide any particular examples of antisemitism that they (and/or we) should worry about.
May 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but when United Staes of America contemplates any action it has no obligation to ask every time "yes but is it good for the Jews?"
May 17, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
featherfamily writes:
Look, I'll admit that we don't always understand the inner wheelings and dealings of Iran's govt., but it's not for the lack of trying. After all, the Ayatollahs are not exactly known for their openness to Western press, granting interviews, holding press-conferences, etc.
As to Ahmadinejad's supposedly freelancing "streak of unconsciousness" with regard to Israel, if you're right about Iran's power structure, isn't it logical to assume that, had it been contrary to the Theocrat-in-Chief's own opinion, he would have silenced Ahmadinejad a long time ago?
Finally, on the credibility question. I realize that you strongly dislike Bush and Olmert; I do too. However, ascribing these two democratically-elected, subject-to-public-scrutiny leaders LESS credibility than to Iran's Ahmadinejad or "Theocrat-in-Chief" is simply irrational. You can't advance your point of view when others begin to question the rationality of your arguments.
May 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
dear iaf, just keep twisting away from the main argument and trying to raise red herrings. (Or green herrings, for the color of Islam, or blue herrings for the color of Israel.)
How and why should Israel's top-line air force and presumably top-line offensive and defensive missles and hundreds of nukes RIGHT NOW IN HAND be afraid of whatever planes and missiles Iran can muster, AND A HANDFUL OF NUKES YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
Yes I know the Iranians are supposed to have some sort of missile with Israeli-reaching range, is that North Korean or Pakistani or Soviet or homemade or whatever, it is still going to be presumably of some lesser accuracy/reliability than the missiles Israel has.
Why can't any of these factors ever get into the corporate press when the big Likudist/neocon propaganda scare of "nuclear Iran, nuclear Iran" gets promoted all the time?
Your other twistings are also too slippery for yourself or anyone else to score any points with. None of us ever really knows how much to trust anyone else, do we? We do as an era tend to take words for more seriously than they sometimes deserve. I'm just pointing out the very public anti-nuclear weapon stance the Ayatollahs have taken, and again mostly wondering why it doesn't even get any play, even as a "pro and con" part of an article on terrible, aggressive, threatening Iran article ... because those articles are always one-way, only Likudist talking points are allowed.
And your comments to SeeDee about Israel not seeking hegemony are also quite disingenuous. It is American policy right now to maintain a complete global military hegemony, extending ever-forward into time. Israel is quite happy to tag along with America on this errand, especially as we do allow Israel special regional privileges (of intelligence action and military capability/action) on any regional point Israel really cares about.
To point out this American goal is, I hope to thinking people everywhere, to point out its absurdity. With $125 oil, our American empire is far more like Spain in 1647 or 1697 than it is like Britain in 1882 or ourselves in 1945. We are spending MORE MONEY THAN ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED ON DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE, yet it seems to be making us -- and Israel -- LESS SECURE than more secure. And that was before the latest oil price rise that further kicked away the financial and economic "crutches" America has been leaning on to pay for the empire for the last ten years.
Or rather, fail to pay for the empire for the last seven years while racking up debts to the Chinese and Arabs. Empires simply don't survive massive foreign debts ... so I really do spend a lot of time worrying about the future of my chidren and grandchildren. And myself. The fall of this empire is not going to pretty, and it is not going to be avoidable.
So please iaf, just keep singing your little Likud songs if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe one word of it without some outside evidence.
May 17, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a rather stupid remark given that linebackers and hockeyplayers have no relevance in the great scheme of things and you know it.
May 17, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Jewish linebacker Mike Vrabel is pretty damn important in the great scheme of Bill Belichick's defense!
May 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I largely ignore some of the junk folks like iaf post...but there is still no definitive answer for what is 'best' for the state of Israel...and I notice when it came to ratios, no effort was made to tell us how many of the circa 4,100 dead Americans in the Iraq war are Americans of Jewish descent. If as many as 80 of them are American-Jews, I'll ask not again.
I personally feel that America should guarantee protection for Israel from whatever threat (or guarantee obliteration as reprisal for a first strike against them by what ever nation..ala Hillary), and that Israel should confine themselves to the area they agreed to under the UN charter of 1948, stop oppressing the Palestinians...and everyone should combine their efforts to address and solve the many ills of the world...In Asia, in Africa in South America, and, yes, in Europe and North America also.
Very simplistic, but let's try it...it might work.
May 17, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee,
Yeah, come on Jews! If you really are loyal Americans, let's see the body count. (Yes, that is sarcasm, folks.)
To SeeDee, seriously, you are a shameless self-righteous demagogue. Any of us could probably do a simple search engine query to answer your cynical question. But I will only answer saying that I have my late father's Purple Heart. He got it fighting for your right to be a divisive obnoxious jerk. I only hope some day you grow to be worth it.
May 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to agree with Chomsky in that what drives US policy in the Middle East is NOT Israel. Needless to say it is also NOT the magnanimous desire to see "democracy" flourish in the region.
I believe that Israel is caught in a bind.
The reason why there is no peace in the Middle East is because it is not in OUR best interest at this time, not because of Israel.
May 17, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It irks me every time I read some Israeli-centric post such as this one.
How are Israel & Jews equated? One is a nation & the other is an ethnic group. We should be able to criticize & disagree with nations about their policies without being considered "anti" anyone.
Heck, half of the people in Israel disagree with their government's actions - just as people here disagree with ours. There is a vibrant peace movement in Israel - although you'd never know it by listening to Israeli hawks like Joe Lieberman.
There are Jewish groups - especially form within the Hassidic community - who demonstrate & lobby for better treatment of Palestinians. But you'd never know it by listening to the reporting in this country.
Let's stop labeling anyone who is critical of the politics & government policies in Israel as "anti-Semitic." That kind of talk will generate the very backlash that you're afraid of.
May 18, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Marshall,
Could we at least wait for it to happen before we condemn the practice? Meanwhile, Israel is routinely assumed racist, and anyone who argues otherwise is labeled a right-wing neocon Likudnik.
May 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having grown up with the deep anti-Semitism from many groups of the Christian community, I find it more than scary to see an Israeli flag flying with an American flag at the local fundamentalist church. This is not a good sign. Shows the lunatics can not be trusted.
May 18, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost from the moment the Administration started talking about mushroom clouds, I have worried about this. I loved Moore's movie, but walked out of the theatre worrying about this.
One of the few things I do not agree with you on is that this country has been "relatively free of th[e] scourge [of anti-Semitism] since its founding." I suppose the adverb refers to Germany, which tried to exterminate all the Jews, or the rest of Europe which has historically used the Jews as scapegoat for almost everything, but as an American, and as a Jew, I find it hard to ignore an anti-Semitism, or anti-Jew sentiment which has always been here: worse in other times, to be sure, but always present.
The phrase "neo-con" is the polite expression used to suggest that it was a bunch of Jews who care only about Israel that caused our sons and daughters to be sent to Iraq to be slaughtered, and now they want to do the same in Iran, since their only concern is Israel.
As Tom Friedman tries to explain today, "what's good for the Jews" is a strong, but hopeful United States that stands for the best impulses of men and women --- a country that is slowly disappearing under the weight of horribly misguided attempts to use nothing but military force to protect us from those who want to destroy Israel. Announcing that a country must be "for us" if they are not to be described as "against us"
is not only ridiculous and foolish it is unbelievably dangerous and neither in the interests of the United States or Israel or free people anywhere.
May 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two years ago at Lollapalooza Patti Smith called for Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. A friend of mine who converted to Judaism 8 years ago interpreted her comment that Israel should stop bombing Beirut that the next step would be loading Jews on boxcars to be sent to concentration camps.
Is this what it has come to- Israel must be able to bomb as much as it wants or the next Holocaust is imminent?
May 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
jeffgee,
Of course not. What it comes down to is that your friend's opinion needed some perspective at the time, more than chatting it up behind their back two years later in a comment thread.
May 19, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink