Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Israel lobby

The Israel lobby (at times called the Zionist lobby) is the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or as groups, seek to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of Israel or the policies of the government of Israel...The largest pro-Israel lobbying group is Christians United for Israel; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a leading organization within the lobby, speaking on behalf of a coalition of American Jewish groups. ~Wikipedia

News Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Recommended Links New American Militarism American Exceptionalism Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA
"F*ck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Demonization of Putin Anti Trump Hysteria The Great Democratic Party Betrayal: Pro-War Democrats as Vichy Left Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
Wolfowitz Doctrine Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Nation under attack meme Neocons Credibility Scam Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Obama: a yet another Neocon
War is Racket Media-Military-Industrial Complex Merkel as Soft Cop in Neocon Offensive on Eastern Europe and Russia Madeleine Albright Samantha Power Susan Rice
Robert Kagan Anatol Leiven on American Messianism National Security State / Surveillance State Predator state National Socialism and Military Keysianism Roots of Reaganolatry 
Neoliberalism as a New form of Corporatism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Machiavellism vs Mayberry Machiavellians Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime Power abroad rests on justice and decency at home
The Deep State Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Two Party System as polyarchy Neoliberal Propaganda: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few  Leo Strauss and the Neocons
Color revolutions Neoliberal Compradors and lumpenelite From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Hong Cong Color Revolution of 2014 Russian White Revolution of 2011-2012 Conservatives Without Conscience
War is racket War is a Racket - Incredible Essay by General Smedley Butler Media domination strategy Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition Bureaucratic avoidance of responsibility Bureaucratic Collectivism
Fighting Russophobia Neo-fascism Anti-Americanism Torture Politically Incorrect Humor Etc
 
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. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

George Washinton farewall address, 19th September, 1796

We Should Not Be Deterred by Political Pressures,

President Eisenhower about pressures of Israel Lobby

"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it."

-- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

In his volume Cultural Insurrections, Kevin MacDonald has accurately described neoconservatism as “a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”[3]Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilizations, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, The Occidental Press, 2007, p. 122. The proof of the neocons’ crypto-Israelism is their U.S. foreign policy:

“The confluence of their interests as Jews in promoting the policies of the Israeli right wing and their construction of American interests allows them to submerge or even deny the relevance of their Jewish identity while posing as American patriots. […]

Indeed, since neoconservative Zionism of the Likud Party variety is well known for promoting a confrontation between the United States and the entire Muslim world, their policy recommendations best fit a pattern of loyalty to their ethnic group, not to America.”[4]Kevin McDonald, Cultural Insurrection, op. cit., p. 66.

Laurent Guyénot, The Unz Review. Apr 8, 2019

 

 

The United States and Israel have long had a special relationship. The USA became the first country in the world to recognize the state of Israel in 1948, and has been an important ally and benefactor ever since. A critical component of the special relationship is the pro-Israel lobby. While Israel remains the USA vassal state and generally promotes the USA imperial foreign policy in Middle East that relationship is far from one way street. Due to existence of the influential Israel lobby the tail often wag the dog. The main objection of many Americans is about the level of control of  Zionist lobby of the USA foreign policy and securing the flow of aid to Israel. in 2016 Obama signed a new 10-year military-assistance deal, representing the single largest pledge of its kind in American history. The pact will be worth $38 billion over the course of a decade, an increase of roughly 27% percent on the money pledged in the last agreement, which was signed in 2007.

The book of Mearsheimer and Walt was the first to describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a two major groups:

  1. A loose coalition of rich donors (such as Adelson, who financed Trump campaign and previously Romney compaign) and controlled by them authoritarian, often mafia-style, organization such as APAIC, which in no way represent the views of the US citizens of Jewish nationality, but are closely allied with Israel  and promote Israeli interests.  None of them is registered via FARA.
  2. Lobbyists of MIC (aka neocons) who while while predominantly Jewish  in reality represents interests of major  defense contractor.

The activities of those two groups shaped US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israel lobby advocates policies which are in neither America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest. In this sense Israel lobby is more Zionists then Israeli politicians (Israel's Armor The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (Cambridge Studies in US Foreign Relations):

The Israel lobby can be defined as a continuous campaign of advocacy on the part of Israel and its American supporters to secure US foreign policies that are perceived as favorable to the Israeli national interest. The lobby is both highly structured including well-organized and well-funded entities, notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) but also decentralized, encompassing a broad array of individuals and groups, Christian as well as Jewish, which offer spontaneous support of Israel. AIPAC and its precursors, backed by local councils and advocates across the United States, have long lobbied the president, members of Congress, and ultimately the public in order to secure political support and financial and military assistance.

The lobby stresses Israels vulnerability to various neighboring regimes while emphasizing that Israel seeks to live in peace, shares common goals and values with the United States, helps anchor security, and is the sole democracy in the Middle East.

Finally, the lobby condemns critics of Israel. When they perceive political threats to Israeli interests, lobby supporters strive energetically to limit or obstruct debate.

The Israel lobby is “widely viewed as the most powerful diasporic lobby seeking to shape US foreign policy.”3 Thus, no other country’s partisans in the history of US foreign policy – including the venerable China Lobby, Irish-Americans, or the influential Miami-based Cuban-Americans – have had a commensurate impact on American diplomacy. As the most influential pressure group associated with another nation in the history of American foreign relations, the Israel lobby clearly merits sustained analysis.

... ... ...

Both the Americans and the Zionists viewed themselves as chosen peoples. Both were settler societies fired by perceptions of their “manifest destiny” to inherit a promised land.10 Ultimately, the special relationship cannot be fully understood apart from the historical and cultural affinities – both “preexisting and constructed” – between the United States and Israel. Indeed, these forces are what made the relationship special – and enduring.11

The lobby's influence also affects America's relationship with important allies. It alienates Russia (several neocons were a players in Russiagate scam, and if justice to be served some of them should land in jail for their subversive activities directed on removing the elected President)  and increases dangers that the USA faces from global jihadist terror network.  Which paradoxically was created and partially financed by CIA as a tool for removing  President Assad in Syria -- the move which also was in Israel interests.

In view of crumbling the USA infrastructure this generosity toward Israel looks misplaced as they add to already inflated military expenses in the USA and increases that probability of nuclear war with Russia (especially via direct engagement in Syria, where Russia and USA support opposite sides of the conflict. or Iran which now is the next goal of Israel lobby). The level of military expenses in the USA (over one trillion, if counted all sources) are also partially influenced by neocons as  lobbyists for MIC and Israeli lobby. In two recent administrations (Bush II and Trump) Zionists occupied prominent positions and controlled the USA foreign policy.  And Hillary was as close to Zionists  in foreign policy as one can get.  Israel lobby played a role in  putsch of 2014 in Ukraine (EuroMaydan revolutions) which brought to power far-right nationalist from Western Ukraine, who fought on the side of Third Reich in the WWII. There were former Israel commandos who participated in Maydan armed uprising.

In the past, Iraq war was fiercely promoted by Israel lobby and partially launched to benefit Israel, although the USA have their own geopolitical goals in the region connected with the control of oil.

In his interview to Playboy, veteran US journalist Helen Thomas reiterated her Israel lobby related comments that led to her resignation and that perfectly reflect the dominant mood of the US public: Zionists have "total control" over the White House and US Congress, and "Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies." Which of course means every US politician, as the last thing Israel lobby is interested in is US citizens interests. Thomas, who covered the White House for more than six decades, was forced to resign from her position at Hearst Corp after she stated that:

The neocons’ U.S. foreign policy has always coincided with the best interest of Israel as they see it. Before 1967, Israel’s interest rested heavily on Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. From 1967, when Moscow closed Jewish emigration to protest Israel’s annexation of Arab territories, Israel’s interest included the U.S. winning the Cold War. That is when the editorial board of Commentary, the monthly magazine of the American Jewish Committee, experienced their conversion to “neoconservatism,” and Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative right .[5]Benjamin Balint, Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right, Public Affairs, 2010. Irving Kristol explained to the American Jewish Congress in 1973 why anti-war activism was no longer good for Israel: “it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. […]

American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”[6]Congress Bi-Weekly, quoted by Philip Weiss, “30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views,” Mondoweiss.net, May 23, 2007: mondoweiss.net/2007/05/30_years_ago_ne.html This tells us what “reality” Kristol was referring to, when he famously defined a neoconservative as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality” (Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea, 1995).

With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed once again. The primary objective became the destruction of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East by dragging the U.S. into a third world war. The neoconservatives underwent their second conversion, from anti-communist Cold Warriors to Islamophobic “Clashers of Civilizations” and crusaders in the “War on Terror.”

In September 2001, they got the “New Pearl Harbor” that they had been wishing for in a PNAC report a year before.[7]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Rebuil...es.pdf Two dozens neoconservatives had by then been introduced by Dick Cheney into key positions, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon, David Wurmser at the State Department, and Philip Zelikow and Elliott Abrams at the National Security Council.

Abrams had written three years earlier that Diaspora Jews “are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart — except in Israel — from the rest of the population.”[8]Elliott Abrams, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, Simon & Schuster, 1997, p. 181. Perle, Feith and Wurmser had co-signed in 1996 a secret Israeli report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993 and reaffirm Israel’s right of preemption on Arab territories.

They also argued for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as “an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” As Patrick Buchanan famously remarked, the 2003 Iraq war proves that the plan “has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.”[9]Patrick J. Buchanan, “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest,” The American Conservative, March 24, 2003,

How these neocon artists managed to bully Secretary of State Colin Powell into submission is unclear, but, according to his biographer Karen DeYoung, Powell privately rallied against this “separate little government” composed of “Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, and Feith’s ‘Gestapo Office’.”[10]Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 156. His chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, declared in 2006 on PBS that he had “participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council,”[11]http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html and in 2011, he openly denounced the duplicity of neoconservatives such as Wurmser and Feith, whom he considered “card-carrying members of the Likud party.” “I often wondered,” he said, “if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel.”[12]Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 120.

Something doesn’t quite ring true when neocons say “we Americans,” for example Paul Wolfowitz declaring: “Since September 11th, we Americans have one thing more in common with Israelis.”[13]April 11, 2002, quoted in Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003, p. 19.

The neocons’ capacity to deceive the American public by posturing as American rather than Israeli patriots required that their Jewishness be taboo, and Carl Bernstein, though a Jew himself, provoked a scandal by citing on national television the responsibility of “Jewish neocons” for the Iraq war.[14]April 26, 2013, on MSNBC, watch on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRlatDWqh0o. But the fact that the destruction of Iraq was carried out on behalf of Israel is now widely accepted, thanks in particular to the 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Thomas appeared to show no regret for last year's comments:

"Why shouldn't I say it? I knew exactly what I was doing -- I was going for broke. I had reached the point of no return. You finally get fed up," Thomas said.

Thomas denied claims that she was anti-Jewish. "I think they're wonderful people. They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They've always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. "

Thomas added that Jews "carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing that every Jew is a persecuted victim forever -- while they are victimizing Palestinians."

I'm not anti-Jewish; I'm anti-Zionist."  She explained her comment that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany meant "they should stay where they are because they're not being persecuted -- not since World War II... If they were, we sure would hear about it." Thomas added that Jews "carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing that every Jew is a persecuted victim forever -- while they are victimizing Palestinians."

The neocons have perfected this mask of fake American patriots promoting foreign policy profitable only to Israel, and ultimately disastrous for Americans — a pseudo-Americanism that is really a crypto-Zionism.

When asked whether she believed their was a secret Jewish conspiracy at work in the US, Thomas stated that it is "not a secret. It's very open... Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There's total control."  ( Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2011)

Overview of studies  of the "Isreal lobby

Extracted from  and excellent  book Israel's Armor The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (Cambridge Studies in US Foreign Relations)

Previous Studies of the Israel Lobby

This study is not the first on the Israel lobby, and it will not be the last, yet the subject is a difficult one and typically there is a price to pay for taking it on. Especially in the United States, critical studies of Israeli policy are certain to be targeted for condemnation. Studies of the lobby are even more susceptible to attack. Paradoxically, the condemnation of these works underscores both the intensity of the special relationship and the clout of the Israel lobby.

In the 1980s, critical studies of Israeli policy and substantive analysis of the role of the lobby began to emerge in the wake of Israels turn to the right with the electoral triumph of the Likud Party. The Camp David Accords (1978) led to a separate peace with Egypt, but failed to lead to a broader resolution of the Palestine conflict. A longtime proponent of annexing the biblical Israel, Prime Minister Menachem Begin accelerated the development of already proliferating Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. In 1982, Israel also launched a punishing attack on Lebanon. By this time the lobby had grown powerful and multifaceted, with AIPAC as the spearhead. AIPAC boasted of ousting elected officials critical of Israel, a process book-ended by two chairmen of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), Sens. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), defeated in 1974, and Sen. Charles Percy (R-IL.), targeted by the lobby and defeated in 1984.12

In 1982, Seth Tillman, a former member of the SFRC staff, published a book arguing that the powerful Israeli lobby impeded efforts to pursue a Middle East diplomacy grounded in the national interest and dedicated to achieving settlement of the Palestine conflict. Fulbright wrote the foreword to the study. Another critic of US Middle East policy, Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL), who had been targeted by AIPAC and ousted in the 1982 congressional elections, condemned the lobby and lauded its critics in a book published in 1985, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israels Lobby.13

More impactful than the early works on the lobby was the broadside delivered by the linguist turned foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky. In The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, published in 1983, Chomsky condemned the United States and Israel for the destruction in Lebanon and the ongoing repression in Palestine. The MIT professor acknowledged the clout of the organized lobby, but argued that it was far from the whole story and that an excessive focus on it, underestimates the scope of the support for Israel in American life. Chomsky explained that one-sided US policies backing Israel sprang from sources far broader than the Jewish community, including Christians, liberals, labor unions, the oil and gas industries, and a power elite that benefited from constructing Israel as an American strategic asset.14

Defenders of Israeli policy found Chomskys incendiary account difficult to refute and the book became a classic (the latest edition was released in 2015). While Chomsky offered a broad indictment of US and Israeli policies, other works homed in on the Israel lobby. In 1986, political scientist Cheryl A. Rubenberg published a book with a nearly 50-page chapter arguing that pro-Israel advocacy had achieved a virtual stranglehold over US Middle East policy. As with Chomsky, critics condemned Rubenberg for her polemical tone and alleged animus toward Israel a familiar refrain.15

In 1987, Edward Tivnan secured a major mainstream publisher for his journalistic assessment of the lobby and its influence. Whereas a capsule review in Foreign Affairs concluded that Tivnans research is sound and his tone temperate, but somber, a reviewer in Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), declared Tivnans account was so fevered, so riddled with errors of both methodology and substance, so driven by animus, as to render his book useless except to those similarly tormented. In the Los Angeles Times, political scientist Steven Spiegel likewise condemned the book as a snide, sometimes bitter, largely trivial and even boring account of the role of the American Jewish communitys efforts on behalf of Israel. Two years previously Spiegel had published his own book on US relations with Israel, which had downplayed the role of the lobby.16

In a book coauthored with his son in 1992, veteran DOS diplomat George Ball invoked President George Washington, who had warned in his farewell address in 1796 about the pitfalls of developing a passionate attachment for any foreign nation. The first president was referring to revolutionary France, but the Balls were targeting Israel and the lobby in a substantive study published by a major mainstream press. They warned that the passionate attachment to Israel had produced a morally as well as financially irresponsible foreign policy divorced from the realities of the Middle East conflict. Despite George Balls celebrated sagacity for having advised Johnson against escalation of the Indochina War in the mid-1960s, The Passionate Attachment was widely ignored.17

The same was not true, however, of another coauthored and now famous or, to some, infamous book: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Published by a mainstream popular press, The Israel Lobby ignited a vitriolic response from Israels defenders. The book and its authors two highly accomplished political science professors from distinguished institutions, the University of Chicago (Mearsheimer) and Harvard (Walt) became a national if not international cause célèbre. Never before was the Israel lobby so widely discussed, nor chroniclers of its influence so bitterly condemned.

The MearsheimerWalt thesis was clearly stated, bolstered by evidence, and forcefully driven home in the book. Today, they argued,

Americas intimate embrace of Israel and especially its willingness to subsidize it no matter what its policies are is not making Americans safer or more prosperous. To the contrary: unconditional support for Israel is undermining relations with other US allies, casting doubt on Americas wisdom and moral vision, helping inspire a generation of anti-American extremists, and complicating US efforts to deal with a volatile but vital region.

They added, We believe the activities of the groups and individuals who make up the lobby are the main reason why the United States pursues policies in the Middle East that make little sense on either strategic or moral grounds.18

Pro-Israeli public officials, academics, journalists, and pundits tore into the book, setting the tone for a campaign of discrediting the study as simply an anti-Israel, if not anti-Jewish, diatribe, rather than an analysis of one of the most powerful lobbies in American politics. Writing in The New Republic, Jeffrey Goldberg equated Mearsheimer and Walts views of Israel with those of September 11 terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Most Jewish organizations harshly condemned the book, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which published its own book in rebuttal, entitled The Deadliest Lies. Former CIA Director James Woolsey discerned a commitment to distorting the historical record, while Israeli historian Benny Morris, whose work had been quoted in the book, found it riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity.19

... ... ...

The brutal reaction to the MearsheimerWalt book doubtless exerted a chilling effect on scholarship on the lobby. The only major academic study produced since the controversy has been a richly detailed recent book on the origins and evolution of the lobby by Israeli scholar Natan Aridan. Advocating for Israel: Diplomats and Lobbyists from Truman to Nixon is especially useful for its exploitation of sources in Hebrew and its elucidation of disputes as well as cooperation between and among the Israeli government and the American lobby.22

A nationalistic assessment indeed, virtually a court history Aridans book is the antidote to Mearsheimer and Walt, as it reflexively celebrates Israel and the lobby. Throughout the work Aridan castigates American diplomats and the Arab states for their alleged unprovoked hostility to Israel. The book thus reflects an orthodox school of interpretation of Israeli innocence in the Palestine conflict, thereby eliding two generations of post-Zionist scholarship. It also appears to aspire to deflect attention from the US lobby by emphasizing the primacy of Israeli hasbara (a Hebrew term for generating favorable propaganda for foreign audiences) in propelling Zionist advocacy.23 As this study will show, Israeli hasbara played a crucial role, but key Israeli officials notably the skilled diplomat Abba Eban collaborated with the American lobby rather than creating or controlling it.

Originating in 2002, a growing counterlobby has emerged in Washington to challenge the Israel lobby. The Institute for Research: Middle East Policy (IRMEP) has amassed a substantial archive on the Israel lobby, offers polling data and policy analysis on the Middle East conflict, and hosts an annual conference in Washington that is televised by C-SPAN. The IRMEP conference features speakers critical of Israeli policies, and the lobbys role in bolstering them, and is held on the eve of AIPACs signature annual conference in Washington. IRMEPs full-time director Grant F. Smith has published a series of books analyzing the history and current activities of the Israel lobby.24

Wikipeadia article

Wikileadia article generally is not critical and  is wek in major analysys areas. but it is widelyavaible and as such is an important document:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israel lobby (at times called the Zionist lobby) is the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or as groups, seek to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of Israel or the policies of the government of Israel. The lobby consists of secular, Christian, and Jewish-American individuals and groups. The largest pro-Israel lobbying group is Christians United for Israel; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a leading organization within the lobby, speaking on behalf of a coalition of American Jewish groups.

Contents

[hide]

A Christian belief in the return of the Jews to the Holy Land has roots in the US, which pre-date both the establishment of the Zionist movement and the establishment of Israel. Lobbying by these groups, to influence the US government in ways similar to Zionist ideology, dates back to at least the 19th century.

In 1844, Christian restorationist George Bush, a professor of Hebrew at New York University and distantly related to the Bush political family, published a book entitled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived.[1] In it he denounced "the thralldom and oppression which has so long ground them (the Jews) to the dust," and called for "elevating" the Jews "to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth" by restoring the Jews to the land of Israel where the bulk would be converted to Christianity.[2] This, according to Bush, would benefit not only the Jews, but all of mankind, forming a "link of communication" between humanity and God. "It will blaze in notoriety...". "It will flash a splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth."[3] The book sold about a million copies in the antebellum period.[4] The Blackstone Memorial of 1891 was also a significant Christian Restorationist petition effort, led by William Eugene Blackstone, to persuade President Benjamin Harrison to pressure the Ottoman Sultan for the delivery of Palestine to the Jews.[5][6]

Starting in 1914, the involvement of Louis Brandeis and his brand of American Zionism made Jewish Zionism a force on the American scene for the first time, under his leadership it had increased ten-fold to about 200,000.[7] As chair of the American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, Brandeis raised millions of dollars to relieve Jewish suffering in war-torn Europe, and from that time "became the financial center for the world Zionist movement."[8] The British Balfour Declaration of 1917 additionally advanced the Zionist movement and gave it official legitimacy. The US Congress passed the first joint resolution stating its support for a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people on September 21, 1922.[9] The same day, the Mandate of Palestine was approved by the Council of the League of Nations.

Zionist lobbying in the United States aided the creation of the State of Israel in 1947-48. The preparation of and voting for the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which preceded the Israeli Declaration of Independence, was met with an outpouring of Jewish American support and advocacy in Washington.[10] President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders-actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats-disturbed and annoyed me."[11]

In the 1950s, the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs was created by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen. During the Eisenhower administration, Israel's concerns were not at the forefront. Other problems in the Middle East and USSR were paramount, and Israel's U.S. supporters were not as active as they had been. AZCPA formed a pro-Israel lobbying committee to counter rumors that the Eisenhower administration was going to investigate the American Zionist Council.[12] AZCPA's Executive Committee decided to change their name from American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs to American Israel Public Affairs Committee.[13]

The relationship between Israel and the government of the United States began with strong popular support for Israel and governmental reservations about the wisdom of creating a Jewish state; formal inter-government relations remained chilly until 1967.[14] Before 1967, the government of the United States provided some aid but was generally neutral towards Israel.[15] Since 1979, Israel has received the most foreign assistance. The roughly $3 billion in assistance to Israel comprises a small percentage of the roughly $3 trillion US budget.[16] AIPAC "has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement" and claims that it is America's "pro-Israel lobby."[17]

Structure

The pro-Israel lobby is composed of formal and informal components.

Informal lobby

Support for Israel is strong among American Christians of many denominations.[18] Informal Christian support for Israel includes a broad range varieties support for Israel ranging from the programming and news coverage on the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Television Network to the more informal support of the annual Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem.[19]

Informal lobbying also includes the activities of Jewish groups. Some scholars view Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel as one of many examples of a US ethnic group lobbying on behalf of an ethnic homeland,[20] which has met with a degree of success largely because Israel is strongly supported by a far larger and more influential Christian movement that shares its goals.[21] In a 2006 article in the London Review of Books, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote:

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's task even easier.[22]

Bard defines the Jewish "informal lobby" as the indirect means through which "Jewish voting behavior and American public opinion" influence "U.S. Middle East policy".[23] Bard describes the motivation underlying the informal lobby as follows:

"American Jews recognize the importance of support for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from the alternative. Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to now as the fourth most powerful country in the world, the perceived threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is annihilation. At the same time, American Jews are frightened of what might happen in the United States if they do not have political power."[23]

Formal lobby

The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby groups, political action committees (PACs), think tanks and media watchdog groups. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the 'background' of those 'Pro-Israel' as, "A nationwide network of local political action committees, generally named after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in US politics. Additional funds also come from individuals who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the PACs. The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel relations and to support Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its Arab neighbors."[24]

According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:

Christians United for Israel give "every pro-Israel Christian and Christian church the opportunity to stand up and speak up for Israel." According to the group's founder and head, Pastor John Hagee, the members "ask the leadership of our government to stop putting pressure on Israel to divide Jerusalem and the land of Israel."[25]

In his 2006 book The Restoration of Israel: Christian Zionism in Religion, Literature, and Politics, sociologist Gerhard Falk describes the evangelical Christian groups that lobby on behalf of Israel as being so numerous that "it is not possible to list" them all, although many are linked via the National Association of Evangelicals.[19] It is a "powerful religious lobby" that actively supports Israel in Washington.[19]

According to the author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg, "Evangelical Christians have substantial influence on US Middle East Policy, more so than some better-known names such as AIPAC."[27]

According to Mitchell Bard, the two Jewish groups aim to present policy makers with unified and representative messages via the aggregation and filtering of the diversity of opinions held by smaller pro-Israel lobby groups and the wider American Jewish community.[23] The diverse spectrum of opinions held by American Jewry is reflected in the many formal pro-Israel groups, and as such some analysts make a distinction within the Israel lobby between right-leaning and left-leaning groups. This diversity became more pronounced following Israel's acceptance of the Oslo Accords, which split "liberal universalists" and "hard-core Zionists --- the Orthodox community and right wing Jews".[28] This division mirrored a similar split for and against the Oslo process in Israel, and led to a parallel rift within the pro-Israel lobby.[29][30] During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama implicitly noted differences within the lobby in his comment that "there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says, 'unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you're anti-Israel,' and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Commentary Magazine, notes "It was an odd choice of words-Likud has not been Israel's governing party for more than three years-but what Obama clearly meant was that an American politician should not have to express fealty to the most hard-line ideas relating to Israel's security to be considered a supporter of Israel's."[31]

US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, focusing almost exclusively on Jewish groups, define the core of the lobby to include AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League and Christians United for Israel.[32] Other key organizations which they state work to benefit Israel, in many cases by influencing US foreign policy, include the American Jewish Congress, the Zionist Organization of America, the Israel Policy Forum, the American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Americans for a Safe Israel, American Friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA, and Hadassah.[33] Fifty-one of the largest and most important come together in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, whose self-described mission includes "forging diverse groups into a unified force for Israel's well-being" and working to "strengthen and foster the special US-Israel relationship"[34]

Stephen Zunes, in a response to Mearsheimer and Walt, lists "Americans for Peace Now, the Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Israel Policy Forum" as "pro-Israel" organizations that, unlike the right-leaning organizations focused on by Mearsheimer and Walt, are opposed to "the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's unconditional support for Israeli policies."[35] These organizations, however, are not PACs and therefore, like AIPAC, are prohibited by campaign finance regulations from financially supporting political campaigns of candidates for federal office.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial bestseller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hudson Institute.[36] They also state that the media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is part of the right-wing component of the lobby.[36][36]

In The Case for Peace, Alan Dershowitz also of Harvard, argues that the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but Evangelical Christians. Dershowitz cites "Stand for Israel, an organization devoted to mobilizing Evangelical Christian support for Israel" co-founded by "[f]ormer Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed."[37] Although the rhetoric of most groups like Stand for Israel is similar to their Jewish-based counterparts, some individuals have based their support on specific biblical passages, thus they have been vulnerable to criticism from Israelis and US Jews for having "ulterior motives" such as the fulfillment of "prerequisite to the Second Coming" or having "better access for proselytizing among Jews."[37][38]

In April 2008, J Street was established, describing itself as the only federal "pro-peace, pro-Israel" PAC. Its goal is to provide political and financial support to candidates for federal office from US citizens who believe a new direction in US policy will advance US interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel. Founded by former President Bill Clinton advisor Jeremy Ben Ami and policy analyst Daniel Levy and supported by prominent Israeli politicians and high-ranking officers (see Letter of support from prominent Israeli leaders), J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including with Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialog over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors.[citation needed]

Means of influence

As with all interest groups, it matters what they are asking for and when they are asking for it.-Stephen Walt

The means via which Israel lobby groups exert influence are similar to the means via which other similar lobbies, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the AARP (formerly known as "American Association of Retired Persons"), exert influence. A number of commentators have asserted that the Israel lobby has undue or pervasive influence over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.[citation needed] However, other commentators note that no similar volume of criticism exists concerning the NRA, AARP or other major political lobbies, and claim that much of this criticism is based on antisemitic notions of a Jewish conspiracy.[40]

Voting power

According to Bard,[23] "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor." He cites that "Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group" and that of the American Jewish population "roughly 94 percent live in thirteen key electoral college states" which alone "are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. If you add the non-Jews shown by opinion polls to be as pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of the largest veto groups in the country." Bard goes on to say that for United States congressmen "there are no benefits to candidates taking an openly anti-Israel stance and considerable costs in both loss of campaign contributions and votes from Jews and non-Jews alike."[23]

"Most important fact about the Jewish vote in America", according to Jeffrey S. Helmreich of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "lies in the fact that it is a uniquely swayable bloc. [...] The issue of support for Israel [by a candidate] has proven capable of spurring a sizable portion of Jews to switch parties-in large enough numbers to tip the scales in national or statewide elections. Moreover, the "Israel swing vote" is especially open to political courtship because, unlike the interests of other minority groups, support for Israel has long been compatible with traditional Republican and Democratic agendas. ... On the other hand, being distinctively unsupportive of Israel can significantly hurt a candidate's chances."[41][42]

Campaign donations

"Political campaign contributions", writes Mitchell Bard, "are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors."

According to Bard, objective quantification that the impact of campaign contributions have on "legislative outcomes, particularly with regard to Israel-related issues" is difficult. This is because raw analysis of contributions statistics do not take into account "non-monetary factors" and whether or not "a candidate is pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a donation as a result of taking a position in support of Israel."[23]

Targeting

AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it's clear where they stand on the subject."[43]

This process has become more targeted over time according to Bard, "In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and targeted than other interest groups, but this has changed dramatically as Israel-related PACs have proliferated."[23] Among politicians considered unfriendly to Israel who AIPAC has helped defeat include Cynthia McKinney, Paul Findley, Earl F. Hilliard, Pete McCloskey, Senators William Fulbright and Roger Jepsen, and Adlai Stevenson III in his campaign for governor of Illinois in 1982.[44] The defeat of Charles H. Percy, Senator for Illinois until 1985, has been attributed to AIPAC-co-ordinated donations to his opponent after he supported the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. Donations included $1.1 million on anti-Percy advertising by Michael Goland, who was also a major contributor to AIPAC.[44] Former executive director of AIPAC, Tom Dine, was quoted as saying, "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message".[45]

Financial figures

A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by Center for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the US Republican party since 1996.[46] The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[47] In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990–2006) period.[48] In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party's fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources.[49]

Education of politicians

According to Mitchell Bard, Israel lobbyists also educate politicians by

"taking them to Israel on study missions. Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its leaders, geography, and security dilemmas, they typically return more sympathetic to Israel. Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel specifically to demonstrate to the lobby their interest in Israel. Thus, for example, George W. Bush made his one and only trip to Israel before deciding to run for President in what was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters' support."[23]

Think tanks

Mearsheimer and Walt state that "pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the Jewish state."[50]

In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment.[51] Saban has stated of himself, "I'm a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel",[52] and was described by the New York Times as a "tireless cheerleader for Israel."[52] The Centre is directed by AIPAC's former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.

Frontline, an Indian current affairs magazine, asked rhetorically why the administration of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please [Bush's] Gulf allies, particularly the Saudis, go out of its way to take the side of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Two public policy organizations give us a sense of an answer: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs."[53] Frontline reported that "WINEP tended to toe the line of whatever party came to power in Israel" while "JINSA was the U.S. offshoot of the right-wing Likud Party."[53] According to Frontline, JINSA had close ties to the administration of George W Bush in that it "draws from the most conservative hawks in the U.S. establishment for its board of directors"[53] including Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Bush administration appointees John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Armitage and Elliott Abrams. Jason Vest, writing in The Nation,[54] alleges that both JINSA and the Center for Security Policy thinktanks are "underwritten by far-right American Zionists" and that they both "effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East – a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action."

Media and public discourse

Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government."[35] Journalist Michael Massing writes that "Jewish organizations are quick to detect bias in the coverage of the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's especially true of late. As The Jewish Daily Forward observed in late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct and emotional outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles away.'"[55]

The Forward related how one individual felt:

"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis. 'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the Haganah, ' he said, referring to the pre-state Jewish armed force. 'There was a special American brigade. Nowadays you can't do that. The battle here is the hasbarah war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for public relations. 'We're winning, but we're very much concerned about the bad stuff.'"[56]

Indicative of the diversity of opinion is a 2003 Boston Globe profile of the CAMERA media watchdog group in which Mark Jurkowitz observes: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."[57] A former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York City said that the result of this lobbying of the media was: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure."[58]

In addition to traditional media, Israeli public relations on the internet also is targeted with software called the Megaphone desktop tool, which is designed and promoted by pro-Israel interest groups.[59] Regarding the 'Megaphone', the Times Online reported in 2006 that the Israeli Foreign Ministry "ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages."[60] According to a Jerusalem Post article on the 'Megaphone', Israel's Foreign Ministry was "urging supporters of Israel everywhere to become cyberspace soldiers 'in the new battleground for Israel's image.'"[61] Christopher Williams wrote for The Register: "However it is used, Megaphone is effectively a high-tech exercise in ballot-stuffing. We're calling it lobbyware ."[62]

College campuses

There are a number of organizations that focus on what could be called "pro-Israel activism" on college campuses. With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001, these groups have been increasingly visible. In 2002, an umbrella organization, that includes many of these groups, known as the Israel on Campus Coalition was formed as a result of what they felt were "the worrisome rise in anti-Israel activities on college campuses across North America". The mission of the Israel on Campus Coalition is to "foster support for Israel" and "cultivate an Israel friendly university environment".[63] Members of the Israel on Campus Coalition include the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, the Anti-defamation League, Kesher, the Union of Progressive Zionists (Ameinu and Meretz USA/Partners for Progressive Israel), and a number of other organizations. There has been at least one conflict among these groups, when the right wing Zionist Organization of America unsuccessfully attempted to remove the left wing Union of Progressive Zionists from the coalition when the latter group sponsored lectures by a group of former Israel Defense Forces soldiers who criticized the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.[64]

However, there are some who feel that pro-Israel activism on college campuses can cross the line from advocacy to outright intimidation. One highly publicized accusation comes from former President Jimmy Carter, who complained of great difficulty in gaining access to a number of universities to discuss his new book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. In October 2007 about 300 academics under the name The Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the University issued a statement calling for academic freedom from political pressure, in particular from groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel.[65] In December 2007, student leaders who advocate pro-Israel films and groups on college campuses were eligible for being hired as "emissaries of the Jewish state" for their work and would receive up to $1000 a year for their efforts.[66]

Coordination with Israeli officials

Rabbi Alexander Schindler, former chair of the Conference of Presidents, told an Israeli magazine in 1976, "The Presidents' Conference and its members have been instruments of official governmental Israeli policy. It was seen as our task to receive directions from government circles and to do our best no matter what to affect the Jewish community." Hymen Bookbinder, a high-ranking official of the American Jewish Committee, said "Unless something is terribly pressing, really critical or fundamental, you parrot Israel's line in order to retain American support. As American Jews, we don't go around saying Israel is wrong about its policies."[67]

Bard writes that "by framing the issues in terms of the national interest, AIPAC can attract broader support than would ever be possible if it was perceived to represent only the interests of Israel. This does not mean AIPAC does not have a close relationship with Israeli officials, it does, albeit unofficially. Even so, the lobby some times comes into conflict with the Israeli government."[23]

Responses to attacks on Israel and the Jews

Zunes writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than from any all-powerful Israel lobby."[35] He goes on to explain that while "some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism", it is his opinion that some members of the Israel lobby cross the line by labeling intellectually honest critics of Israel as antisemitic.[35] Zunes argues that the mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have "created a climate of intimidation against many who speak out for peace and human rights or who support the Palestinians' right of self-determination."[35] Zunes has been on the receiving end of this criticism himself "As a result of my opposition to US support for the Israeli government's policies of occupation, colonization and repression, I have been deliberately misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and falsely accused of being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism"; my children have been harassed and my university's administration has been bombarded with calls for my dismissal."[35]

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Jimmy Carter wrote that mainstream American politics does not give equal time to the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that this is due at least in part to AIPAC.[83] George Soros pointed out that there are risks associated with what was in his opinion a suppression of debate:

"I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views."[84]

In his book, The Deadliest Lies, Abraham Foxman referred to the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is trying to censor criticism of Israel as a "canard."[85] Foxman writes that the Jewish community is capable of telling the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel "and the demonization, deligitization, and double standards employed against Israel that is either inherently anti-Semitic or generates an environment of anti-Semitism."[85] Jonathan Rosenblum expressed similar thoughts: "Indeed, if there were an Israel lobby, and labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic were its tactic, the steady drumbeat of criticism of Israel on elite campuses and in the elite press would be the clearest proof of its inefficacy."[86]

Alan Dershowitz wrote that he welcomes "reasoned, contextual and comparative criticism of Israeli policies and actions."[87] If one of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby was to censor criticism of Israel, Dershowitz writes, "it would prove that 'the Lobby' is a lot less powerful than the authors would have us believe."[87] Dershowitz himself, claims to have written several critical pieces on specific Israeli policies.[citation needed] Dershowitz disagrees with those who believe that the media is uncritical of Israel and cites the frequent New York Times editorials and even an editorial in The Jewish Daily Forward against some of Israel's more right of center policies as proof.[citation needed] Dershowitz also denies that any significant, mainstream leader in the American Jewish community equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.[citation needed]

Debates

Criticism of the term

According to William Safire, the term "Israel Lobby" came into use in the 1970s and, similar to the term "China lobby", carries "the pejorative connotation of manipulation."[88] He also writes that supporters of Israel gauge the degree of perceived animus towards the Jewish State by the term chosen to refer to the lobby: "pro-Israel lobby" being used by those with the mildest opposition, followed by "Israel lobby", with the term "Jewish lobby" being employed by those with the most extreme anti-Israel opinions.[88]

According to Walt and Mearsheimer, "Using the term 'Israel lobby' is itself somewhat misleading...One might more accurately dub this the 'pro-Israel community'..." since this is not the lobby of a foreign country, rather, it is composed of Americans.[89][90] However, justifying their usage of the term, they write "because many of the key [pro-Israel] groups do lobby, and because the term 'Israel lobby' is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the 'farm lobby', 'insurance lobby', 'gun lobby' and other ethnic lobbies), we have chosen to employ it here."[91]

Degree of influence

Progressive journalist John R. MacArthur writes

Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Nowadays I ought to be even bolder in my critique, since the silent agreement suppressing candid discussions about Israeli-U.S. relations has recently been shaken by some decidedly mainstream figures. These critics of Israel and its American agents include John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, of the University of Chicago, and Harvard's Kennedy School, respectively; Tony Judt, a historian at New York University; and former President Jimmy Carter.

Somehow, though, I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.[92]

Mearsheimer and Walt have collected and quoted some of the lobbyists' comments on their organizations' political capital. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt quote Morris Amitay, former AIPAC director as saying, "It's almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government."[93] They also quote a Michael Massing article in which a staffer[who?] sympathetic to Israel said, "We can count on well over half the House – 250 to 300 members – to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants."[94] Similarly they cite former AIPAC official Steven Rosen illustrating AIPAC's power for Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."[95]

However, some U.S. government officials have stated that the Israel lobby is not so powerful that they control U.S. foreign policy. Former Secretary of State George Shultz stated "... the notion that U.S. policy on Israel and Middle East is the result of [the Israel lobby's] influence is simply wrong."[96][97] Dennis B. Ross, former U.S. ambassador and chief peace negotiator in the Middle East under Bill Clinton, who is now an official at WINEP, wrote:

"never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because 'the lobby' wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because 'the lobby' opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence. They do. But they don't distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests."[98]

Individual journalists each have their own opinions on how powerful the Israel lobby is. Glenn Frankel wrote: "On Capitol Hill the Israel lobby commands large majorities in both the House and Senate."[99] Michael Lind produced a cover piece on the Israel lobby for the UK publication Prospect in 2002 which concluded, "The truth about America's Israel lobby is this: it is not all-powerful, but it is still far too powerful for the good of the U.S. and its alliances in the Middle East and elsewhere.".[100] Tony Judt, writing in the New York Times, asked rhetorically, "Does the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course – that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That's a matter of judgment."[101]

Mitchell Bard has conducted a study which attempts to roughly quantify the influence of the Israel lobby on 782 policy decisions, over the period of 1945 to 1984, in order to move the debate on its influence away from simple anecdotes. He

"found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its policy objective, 60 percent of the time. The most important variable was the president's position. When the president supported the lobby, it won 95 percent of the time. At first glance it appears the lobby was only successful because its objectives coincided with those of the president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated by the fact that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president opposed its position."[23]

According to a public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from October 10–12, 2006, 40% of American voters at least somewhat believe the Israel lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question was used: "Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"[102]

In March 2009, Charles W. Freeman, Jr., criticized the lobby after withdrawing his candidacy for the chair of the National Intelligence Council.[103][104] Freeman said, "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired .... The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency .... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process ...."[105] Members of Congress denied that the Israel lobby had a significant role in their opposition to Freeman's appointment; they cite Freeman's ties with the Saudi and Chinese governments, objections to certain statements made about the Palestinian territories and his lack of experience as the reasons for their opposition.[106][107]

Comparison to other lobbies

The closest comparison is probably to other ethnic-group based lobbies that attempt to influence American foreign policy decisions such as the Cuban-American lobby, the African-American lobby in foreign policy and the Armenian American lobby, although the lobby has also been compared to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the lobby for the Pharmaceutical industry.[108][109] In comparing the Israel Lobby to the NRA, Glenn Frankel concludes that "Nevertheless, the Israel lobby, and AIPAC in particular, gained a reputation as the National Rifle Association of foreign policy: a hard-edged, pugnacious bunch that took names and kept score. But in some ways it was even stronger. The NRA's support was largely confined to right-wing Republicans and rural Democrats. But AIPAC made inroads in both parties and both ends of the ideological spectrum."[99]

Zunes describes that some groups who lobby against current U.S. policy on Israel "have accepted funding from autocratic Arab regimes, thereby damaging their credibility" while others have "taken hard-line positions that not only oppose the Israeli occupation but challenge Israel's very right to exist and are therefore not taken seriously by most policymakers."[35] Zunes writes that many lobbying groups on the left, such as Peace Action, are "more prone to complain about the power of the Israel lobby and its affiliated PACs than to do serious lobbying on this issue or condition its own PAC contributions on support for a more moderate U.S. policy" in the region.[35] Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor of linguistics at MIT, writes that "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."[110]

However, while comparing the Israel Lobby with the Arab Lobby, Mitchell Bard notes that "From the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in organization. There are several politically oriented groups, but many of these are one man operations with little financial or popular support."[111] The Arab American Institute is involved in supporting Arab-American political candidates, but, according to award-winning journalist Ray Hanania "it's nothing compared to the funds that AIPAC raises not just for Jewish American congressmen, but for congressmen who support Israel."[112] Furthermore, Arab American lobbies face a problem of motivation; Jewish Americans feel the need to support their homeland (as well as other states in the Middle East who have signed peace treaties with Israel) in active, organized ways. Arab Americans do not appear to have a similar motivation when it comes to their own homelands.[113]

Israel and U.S. interests

Friendly relations between Israel and the U.S. has been and continues to be a tenet of both American and Israeli foreign policy. Israel receives bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that U.S. and Israel share common "economic, political, strategic, and diplomatic concerns" and that the countries exchange "intelligence and military information" and cooperate in an effort to halt international terrorism and illegal drug trade.[114] Furthermore, a majority of American citizens view Israel favorably.[115]

In 2011, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a think tank founded by "a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East") argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship is "A Strategic Asset for the United States."[116][117] In discussing their report, Walter B. Slocombe said that while in the popular imagination, the U.S.-Israel relationship is only good for Israel, Israel provides enormous assistance to the United States, including military expertise which has saved American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert D. Blackwill countered the claim that the U.S.-Israel relationship significantly damages the relationship between the United States and the Arab world. He asked rhetorically:

"Would Saudi Arabia's policies toward the United States be markedly different in practice if Washington entered into a sustained crisis with Israel over the Palestine issue during which the bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel went into steep, systemic decline? In that instance, would Riyadh lower the price of oil? Would it stop hedging its regional bets concerning U.S. attempts to coerce Iran into freezing its nuclear weapons program? Would it regard U.S. policy toward Afghanistan any less critically? Would it view American democracy promotion in the Middle East more favorably? Would it be more inclined to reform its internal governmental processes to be more in line with U.S. preferences? Walt [Slocombe] and I judge the answer to all these questions [to be] 'No.'"[117]

When asked how this report could so flatly contradict the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, Slocombe responded, "There is so much error in the world," and added, "I think it would be interesting to ask them whether they make the same contrary argument about the other countries to whom we also provide something like this kind of support. There are obviously differences, but the principle is the same."[117]

The Israel Project noted in 2009 that "when you're talking to Americans, you need to know that when you don't support a two-state solution you risk having a major public relations challenge in America and Europe."[118]

In a 2008 editorial, Israeli-American historian and author Michael B. Oren wrote that Israel and the United States are natural allies, despite what the opposition from "much of American academia and influential segments of the media." Oren claimed this was because Israel and the United States shared similar values such as "respect for civic rights and the rule of law" and democracy. Israel and the United States share military intelligence in order to fight terrorism.[119] Oren also noted that "more than 70% of [Americans], according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish state."[119]

In his 2007 review of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

"Forty years of polling has consistently shown that Americans support Israel in its conflict with the Arabs. ... Both Israel and America were founded by refugees from European religious intolerance; both are rooted in a common religious tradition; Israel is a lively democracy in a part of the world that lacks democracy; Israelis seem self-reliant in the manner of American pioneers; and Israel's enemies, in many cases, seem to be America's enemies as well."[120]

Israeli academic and political activist Jeff Halper said that "Israel is able to pursue its occupation only because of its willingness to serve Western (mainly U.S.) imperial interests" and that rather than influencing the United States via the lobby, Israel is actually "a handmaiden of American Empire."[35] According to political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, though, "the combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security." They alleged that while "one might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives....neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel."[121] Robert Satloff cited the events of May–June 2010 (in which Israel stopped a flotilla meant to break its blockade of the Gaza Strip and yet, a few days later, every country expected to vote U.N. sanctions against Iran ended up voting as the U.S. wanted them to) as a counter-example that disproved that point of view.[122] Goldberg similarly cited the Arab Spring to counter Walt and Mearsheimer's point:

"It seems as if the Arab masses have been much less upset about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians than they have been about their own treatment at the hands of their unelected leaders. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, Arabs would still be upset at the quality of their leadership (and they would still blame the United States for supporting the autocrats who make them miserable); Iran would still continue its drive to expunge American influence from the Middle East; and al Qaeda would still seek to murder Americans and other Westerners."[123]

In 2006 former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter published "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change" (ISBN 978-1-56025-936-7). In his book he stated that certain Israelis and pro-Israel elements in the United States were trying to push the Bush administration into war with Iran.[124] He also accuses the U.S. pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and outright espionage (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal).[125]

Media coverage of lobby

American journalist Michael Massing argues that there is a lack of media coverage on the Israel lobby and posits this explanation: "Why the blackout? For one thing, reporting on these groups is not easy. AIPAC's power makes potential sources reluctant to discuss the organization on the record, and employees who leave it usually sign pledges of silence. AIPAC officials themselves rarely give interviews, and the organization even resists divulging its board of directors."[55] Massing writes that in addition to AIPAC's efforts to maintain a low profile, "journalists, meanwhile, are often loath to write about the influence of organized Jewry. [...] In the end, though, the main obstacle to covering these groups is fear."[55] Steven Rosen, a former director of foreign-policy issues for AIPAC, explained to Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker that "a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."[126]

According to Gal Beckerman there are many individual pro-Israel op-ed columnists, but the argument that the media as a whole is part of the Israel lobby cannot be concluded from Mearsheimer and Walt's cherry picked evidence:

"Walt and Mearsheimer undermine our intelligence by assuming that we are simply being manipulated.... If the lobby is so influential over the media, how were Walt and Mearsheimer given such space in every major news outlet in the country to express their 'dangerous' views? You want to tell me that a force that can impel us to got [sic] to war in Iraq can't find a way to censor two academics? Not much of a lobby, now is it?"[127]

Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, Beckerman cites examples of op-eds critical of Israel from several major U.S. newspapers and concludes that an equally compelling argument could be made that the Israel lobby doesn't control the media. Itamar Rabinovich, writing for the Brookings Institution, wrote, "The truth of the matter is that, insofar as the lobby ever tries to intimidate and silence, the effort usually causes more damage than it redresses. In any event, the power of the lobby to do that is very modest."[128]

On The Diane Rehm Show (December 11, 2006), Middle East experts Hisham Melhem, Lebanese journalist and Washington Bureau Chief for Al-Arabia, and Dennis Ross, a Jewish-American diplomat working as counselor Washington Institute for Near East Policy, when asked about the pervasive Israeli influence on American foreign policy in the Middle East mentioned in former President Jimmy Carter's 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid said: [H. Melhem] "When it comes to Israel [discussing Israeli and/or Jewish American issues], it is still almost a taboo in certain parts, not everywhere...there are certain things that cannot be said about the Israeli government or America's relationship with Israel or about the Israeli lobby. Yes there is, excuse me, there is an Israeli lobby, but when we say an Israeli lobby we are not talking about a Jewish cabal. The Israeli lobby operates the way the NRA operates, a system of rewards and punishment, you help your friends by money, by advocacy and everything, and sometimes they pool money in to the campaigns of those people that they see as friendly to Israel. This is the American game".[129] (radio interview: ≈16:30-20:05)

Trump as the President fully controlled by Jewish lobby

Under Trump, the Israel lobby is a Hydra with many heads

The Trump administration's recent steps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should surely lay to rest any doubts about the enormous, and dangerous, power of the Israel lobby in Washington. Under Trump, the lobby has shown it can wield unprecedented influence – even by its usual standards – in flagrant disregard for all apparent US interests.

First, there was the move this month of the US embassy to Jerusalem, not quietly but on the 70th anniversary of the most sensitive day in the Palestinian calendar, Nakba Day. That is when Palestinians commemorate their mass expulsion from their homeland in 1948. By relocating the embassy, Trump gave official US blessing to tearing up the 25-year-old peace process – and in choosing Nakba Day for the move, he rubbed the noses of Palestinians, and by extension the Arab world, in their defeat.

Then, the White House compounded the offence by lauding Israeli snipers who massacred dozens of unarmed Palestinians protesting at the perimeter fence around Gaza the same day. A series of statements issued by the White House could have been written by Israel's far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, himself.

At the United Nations, the US blocked a Security Council resolution calling for the massacre to be investigated, while Nikki Haley, Trump's UN envoy, observed to fellow delegates: "No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has."

None of these moves served any obvious US national interest, nor did Trump's decision the previous week to tear up the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran that has long been reviled by the Israeli government. In fact, quite the contrary: These actions risk inflaming tensions to the point of a regional war that could quickly drag in the major powers, or provoke terror attacks on US soil.

It should be recalled that two decades ago, it was impossible even to mention the existence of an Israel lobby in Washington without being labelled an anti-Semite. Paradoxically, Israel's supporters exercised the very power they denied existed, bullying critics into submission by insisting that any talk of an Israel lobby relied on anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish power.

The wall of silence was broken only with the publication in 2006 of a seminal essay – later turned into a book – by two prominent US academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. But in a sign of the immense weight of the lobby even as it was being dragged into the light, the pair were unable to find a publisher in the US. Instead, the essay found a home across the Atlantic in the prestigious, if obscure, London Review of Books. One of the pair, Stephen Walt, has publicly admitted that his career suffered as a result. Since then, a little leeway has opened up on the subject. Even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a staunch advocate for Israel, has conceded the lobby's existence. In 2011, he explained a well-established, if astounding, ritual of US politics: that the Congress greets every visiting Israeli prime minister more rapturously than the American president himself.

Friedman observed: "I sure hope that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Friedman was alluding to the network of Jewish leadership organisations and political action committees in the US, all of them hawkishly pro-Israel, that at election time can channel large sums of money for or against Congressional candidates.

It is not that these pro-Israel organisations control the Congress. It is that they have mastered the techniques of political intimidation. They understand and exploit a flawed American system that has allowed lobbies and their money to dictate the agendas of most US lawmakers. Congresspeople are vulnerable as individuals – not only to the loss of donations, but to a generously funded opponent.

In Trump's case, the follow-the-money principle could not have been clearer. In the early stages of his battle to become the Republican party candidate for president, when most assumed he stood no chance and he was funding the campaign himself, he was relatively critical of Israel. Hard as it is to believe now, he promised to be "neutral" on the Israel-Palestine issue; expressed doubts about whether it made sense to hand Israel billions of dollars annually in military aid; backed a two-state solution; and refused to commit to recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

All of that got ditched the moment he needed big funders for his presidential bid. The kingmaker in the Republican party is Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire and champion of the kind of Israeli ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab politics in which Netanyahu excels. Adelson likes Netanyahu so much he even bought him a newspaper, Israel Hayom, which Adelson has grown into the largest-circulation daily in Israel.

In the end, Adelson backed Trump's election campaign to the tune of $35m. It was the need for Adelson's support that ensured Trump appointed David Friedman, a long-time benefactor of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, in the supposedly non-partisan position of US ambassador to Israel. And it was Adelson who was among the honoured guests at the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem this month.

Those who accuse anyone raising the issue of the Israel lobby of anti-Semitism either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent what is being claimed.

No one apart from easily identifiable Jew haters is updating the century-old Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious forgery by supporters of the Russian czar supposedly proving that "the Jews" sought world domination through control of the banks and the media. For starters, the argument for the existence of an Israel lobby does not refer to Jews at all. It is about a country, Israel, and its outsize influence over the policies of the US.

Other countries or groups of US citizens try to exercise such influence, either through similar lobbies or through subterfuge.

No one would deny there is a Cuba lobby that helped influence US policy in seeking to oust revolutionary leader Fidel Castro. And most US lawmakers are currently frothing at the mouth about what they see as covert Russian efforts to influence US politics to Moscow's advantage.

Why would we expect Israel to be any different? The question isn't whether the lobby exists, but why the US political system is doing nothing to protect itself from its interference.

Rather than exposing and confronting the Israel lobby, however, US presidents have more typically bent to its will. That was only too obvious, for example, when Barack Obama folded in his early battle with Netanyahu to limit the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

But under Trump, the Israel lobby has come to exercise unrivalled power, because it is now far more than just one lobby. It is a five-headed Hydra worthy of Greek mythology, and only one of its heads relates directly to Israel or organised American Jewry.

In fact, the lobby's power now derives not chiefly from Israel. Since Trump's election, the Israel lobby has managed to absorb and mobilise an additional four powerful lobbies – and to a degree not seen before. They are: the Christian evangelicals, the alt-right, the military-industrial complex, and the Saudi Arabia lobby.

Domestically, Trump's election victory depended on his ability to rally to his side two groups that are profoundly committed to Israel, even though they are largely indifferent, or actively hostile, to the Jews who live there.

Leaders of the US alt-right – a loose coalition of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups – are infatuated with Israel but typically dislike Jews. That sentiment has been encapsulated by alt-right leader Richard Spencer, who describes himself as a "white Zionist".

In short, the alt-right treasures Israel because it has preserved a long-discredited model of a fortress-like, belligerent racial homeland. They want the US reserved exclusively for an imagined "white" community, just as Israel defines itself as representing an exclusive Jewish community.

Trump's reliance on the alt-right vote was highlighted by the early appointment to his administration of several leading figures associated with the movement, including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Michael Flynn, Julia Hahn and Sebastian Gorka.

But more significant still has been the role of evangelicals. That is why Mike Pence, a devout Christian, was chosen as Trump's running mate. Trump's team understood that the votes of tens of millions of Americans were assured if Trump pandered to their prejudices.

And happily for Netanyahu, their keenest prejudice is fanatical support for Israel – and not just for Israel inside its internationally recognised borders, but also for Greater Israel, which includes many dozens of illegal Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land.

The Christian Zionists believe that Jews must be corralled into their biblical homeland to fulfil divine prophecy and bring about the Second Coming of the Messiah.

It was primarily for the sake of these Christian Zionists that Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. And it was why two evangelical pastors with a history of anti-Semitic remarks, John Hagee and Robert Jeffress, were called on to offer their blessings at the opening ceremony.

Trump's indebtedness to the evangelicals is one reason to be worried about his policies in the region. The Christian Zionists have no interest in fairness, justice or international law. Rather, they are prepared to inflame tensions in the Middle East – and even trigger Armageddon itself – if they think it might benefit Israel and further God's prophecy.

The military-industrial complex has enjoyed a much longer, if more veiled, influence on US politics. A former US army general who became president, Dwight Eisenhower, warned of the looming threat posed by an increasingly dominant corporate sector dependent on war profits back in 1961.

Since then, the power of these corporations has accreted and expanded in precisely the ways Eisenhower feared. And that has only helped Israel.

In the early 1980s, Noam Chomsky, the dissident US intellectual, observed in his book The Fateful Triangle that Israel and the US had different conceptions of the Middle East.

The US was then what Chomsky termed a "status quo power" that was mostly interested in preserving the existing regional order. Israel, on the other hand, was committed to destabilisation of the region – its Balkanisation – as a strategy to extend its hegemony over feuding, internally divided neighbouring states.

Today, it is not hard to see which vision of the Middle East prevailed. The US-headquartered war industries lobbied for – and have profited enormously from – an endless, global "war on terror" that needs their expensive killing toys. The West has even been able to market its wars of aggression against other sovereign states as "humanitarian" in nature.

The benefits to the military industries can be gauged by examining the ever-surging profits of large US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon over the past decade.

Israel has not only benefited from the sanctioning and dismemberment of regional rivals, such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, but it has exploited the opportunity to make itself indispensable to these war-profiting industries.

It has, for example, been the linchpin in developing and refining new ways to exploit the cultivation of fear – most significantly, the ever-expanding "homeland security" industry.

Using the occupied Palestinian territories for experimentation, Israel has specialised in developing surveillance and biometric technologies, lethal and non-lethal crowd control methods, complex incarceration systems, psychological profiling of subjugated populations, and highly dubious redefinitions of international law to lift existing restraints on war crimes and wars of aggression.

That has proved invaluable to the military industries that have sought to profit from new wars and occupations across the Middle East. But it has also meant Israel's expertise is much sought-after by US political and security elites who wish to pacify and control restless domestic populations.

Israel's encouragement of the Middle East's destabilisation has raised new threats in the US – of protest, immigration and terrorism – for which Israel has then supplied readymade solutions.

Israel has helped to rationalise the militarisation of police forces in the US and elsewhere, and provided the training. It has also gradually introduced to the US and other Western countries the kind of racial and political profiling that has long been standard in Israel.

That is the reason why Israeli academic Jeff Halper has warned of the danger that the "war on terror" could ultimately turn all of us into Palestinians.

But perhaps the most significant additional boost to Israel's power in Washington has been its newfound and barely concealed alliance with Saudi Arabia.

For decades, the oil lobby in the US was seen as a counterweight to the Israel lobby. That was why Israel's supporters traditionally reviled the US State Department, which was viewed as an Arabist outpost.

No longer. Trump, ever the businessman, has cultivated even stronger ties to the Saudis, hoping that arms and technology sales will revive the US economy and his political fortunes.

During a visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to the US in March, Trump noted: "Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they're going to give the United States some of that wealth hopefully, in the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world."

But Washington's close ties to the Saudis are increasingly a boon to Israel rather than an impediment. The two have found common cause in their feverish opposition to Iran, and its Shia allies in Syria and Lebanon, and their determination to prevent them from gaining more power in the region.

Israel wants a military hegemony over the Middle East that Iran could undermine, while Riyadh needs an ideological and financial hegemony that Iran might be able to disrupt.

And the Palestinians – the only issue that continues formally to divide Israel and Saudi Arabia – are increasingly viewed by bin Salman as a chess piece he is ready to sacrifice in exchange for Iran's destruction.

Trump tore up the nuclear accord agreed by Obama with Iran with such incendiary abandon this month because his two Middle East allies jointly demanded he do so.

And the indications are that he may do worse – even attacking Iran – if the pressure from Israel and the Saudis reaches a critical mass.

All of these various lobbies have long wielded significant power in Washington, but remained largely separate. In recent years, their interests have come to overlap considerably, making Israel ever more unassailable in US politics.

Under Trump, their agendas have aligned so completely that this multi-headed lobby has as good as collectively captured the presidency on matters that concern it most.

That is not to say that the Israel lobby will not face future challenges. Other pressures are emerging in reaction to the unaccountable power of the Israel lobby, including progressive voices in US politics that are, for the first time, breaking with the long-standing bipartisan nature of the debate about Israel.

Bernie Sanders's unexpected surge in the Democratic nomination race for the presidency, the rise of the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, the growing alienation of young US Jews from Israel, and the US public's ever-greater exposure on social media to Israel's crimes are signs of trends it will be difficult for Israel to counter or reverse.

Israel is getting its way at the moment. But hubris is a fault we have been warned about since the time of the ancient Greeks. Israel may yet come to learn a little humility – the hard way. Israel lobby, Israel-US


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 18, 2019] Trump's purported deviation from US foreign policy orthodoxy was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning

Highly recommended!
May 15, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , May 15, 2019 at 17:04

During the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney claimed that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Romney blatantly pandered to the pro-Israel Lobby, including both Jewish Zionists and evangelical Christian Zionists.

In a telling exchange during a debate in December 2011, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: "Before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: 'Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?' "

Netanyahu met with Romney in 2011. The two men had worked together in the 1970s.

Martin S. Indyk, a leading figure in the pro-Israel Lobby who served as United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Romney's statement implied that he would "subcontract Middle East policy to Israel."

"That, of course, would be inappropriate," added Indyk, a former director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who also served eight years as the founding Executive Director of the notorious pro-Israel warhawk "think tank" Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

For years, Netanyahu has mobilized pro-Israel Lobby groups and Congressional Republicans to pressure successive US administrations into taking a more confrontational approach against Iran.

"To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney White House in a way that he doesn't now have to the Obama White House," Indyk said, "the prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage."

In March 2012, Romney spoke via satellite to a meeting of the AIPAC. Like other politicians backed by the pro-Israel Lobby, Romney vehemently criticized the Obama administration over its policies toward Israel.

Romney worked at at Boston Consulting Group from 1975 to 1977; Mr. Netanyahu was involved from 1976 to 1978. But a month after Netanyahu arrived, he returned to Israel to start an antiterrorism foundation in memory of his brother, an officer killed while leading the hostage rescue force at Entebbe, Uganda. An aide said he sporadically returned to the company over the rest of that two-year period.

Romney later decamped to Bain & Company, a rival of Boston Consulting. They did, however, maintain a significant link: at Bain, Mr. Romney worked closely with Fleur Cates, Netanyahu's second wife. (Cates and Netanyahu divorced in the mid-1980s, but she remained in touch with Romney.)

Netanyahu paid him a visit to Romney when the latter became the governor of Massachusetts. Netanyahu, who had recently stepped down as Israel's finance minister, regaled Romney with stories of how he had challenged unionized workers over control of their pensions and privatized formerly government-run industries. He encouraged Romney to look for ways to do the same.

"Government," Romney recalled Netanyahu saying, "is the guy on your shoulders."

As governor, Mr. Romney said, he frequently repeated the story to the heads of various agencies.

A few years later, Romney had dinner with Mr. Netanyahu at a private home in central Jerusalem. Before he left Israel, Romney set up several meetings with government officials in the United States for his old colleague. "I immediately saw the wisdom of his thinking," Romney claimed. Back in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney sent out letters to legislators requesting that the public pension funds they controlled sell off investments from corporations doing business with Iran.

Netanyahu maintained contact with Romney during the presidential campaign. When Newt Gingrich leaped to the top of the polls, an article in January 2012 explored why billionaire oligarch Sheldon Adelson was devoting millions of dollars to back Gingrich. It described Netanyahu and Adelson as close friends. Netanyahu's office quickly relayed a message to a senior Romney adviser, Dan Senor claiming that the Israeli prime minister had played no role in Adelson's decision to bankroll a Romney rival.

Fast forward to the 2016 US presidential election.

Trump's purported deviation from US foreign policy orthodoxy was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning.

Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.

"We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent."
VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U

After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

Trump's questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.

Stage management of both the Trump administration and its Republican and Democratic "opposition" continues apace.

The Israeli government, via the machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby, is an ever more aggressively warmongering "guy on your shoulders".

"Russia-gate" really is about an immense conspiracy to "do things".

The primary "thing", the key pretext that Lazare and other CN contributors steadfastly ignore:

The "Russia-gate" fiction was specifically designed to divert attention from the reality of "Israel-gate".

[May 18, 2019] Is Trump a double dealer. Why Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims

May 16, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

tom , May 16, 2019 at 15:23

Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims

Lavrov responded first to the question. He said that there is no evidence that shows any Russian interference in the U.S. elections. He continued:

Speaking about the most recent US presidential campaign in particular, we have had in place an information exchange channel about potential unintended risks arising in cyberspace since 2013. From October 2016 (when the US Democratic Administration first raised this issue) until January 2017 (before Donald Trump's inauguration), this channel was used to handle requests and responses. Not so long ago, when the attacks on Russia in connection with the alleged interference in the elections reached their high point, we proposed publishing this exchange of messages between these two entities, which engage in staving off cyberspace incidents. I reminded Mr Pompeo about this today. The administration, now led by President Trump, refused to do so. I'm not sure who was behind this decision, but the idea to publish this data was blocked by the United States. However, we believe that publishing it would remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make these exchanges public, but I would still like to make this fact known.

The communication channel about cyber issues did indeed exist. In June 2013 the Presidents of the United States and Russia issued a Joint Statement about "Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)". The parties agreed to establishing communication channels between each other computer emergency response teams, to use the direct communication link of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers for cyber issue exchanges, and to have direct communication links between high-level officials in the White House and Kremlin for such matter. A Fact Sheet published by the Obama White House detailed the implementation of these three channels.

One inference from Lavrov's statement is that the "fundamental understanding on this matter" between the two presidents that has "not been fully implemented" is the release of the communications about cyberspace incidents. The Russians clearly think that a release of the communications with the Obama administration would exculpate them. That would also exculpate Trump from any further collusion allegations. Why then does the Trump administration reject the release? Who is blocking it?

Cont. reading: Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims

https://www.moonofalabama.org/

[May 15, 2019] In 2018, Bahia Amawi had been forced out of the job she had for 9 years for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge in her contract by Kenneth Surin

Notable quotes:
"... In 2018, Bahia Amawi, a Palestinian-American speech pathologist, filed a lawsuit against the Pflugerville Independent School District in Austin, Texas, and the Texas state attorney general, after she had been forced out of the job she had for 9 years for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge in her contract. ..."
"... Amawi said in a radio interview that she didn't "want to support [Israel's] ongoing occupation and aggression and subhumane treatment of the Palestinians, that's making me kind of like a silent participant complicit with the whole occupation". ..."
May 15, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

The late Uri Avnery (1923-2018), the doughty Israeli seeker of peace with the Palestinian people, posted almost weekly on CounterPunch .

Avnery was savvy enough to know that the Zionist failure to achieve peace with the Palestinians meant that Israel could never be a "normal" state, no matter how much it pretended, hypocritically, to be a "democracy" adhering to "Western values".

Avnery would have been aghast, but not surprised, at the turn of events taking place shortly before or after his death– Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital (both Palestine and Israel claim Jerusalem as their capital, and it will take a peace deal, and not unilateral action on Israel's part, in order resolve this dispute); closing down the Palestine Liberation Organisation office in Washington; reducing direct aid and aid to the UN agency aiding Palestinian refugees; recognizing Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights; and supporting Netanyahu in his recent pledge to begin annexing Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank.

The aid reductions involved cutting $200 million in direct aid to Gaza and the West Bank and the freezing of another $300 million dollars provided annually to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).

After Ramadan, taking place currently, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will announce what Trump, with characteristic carnival-barker hyperbole, calls the "deal of the century".

... ... ...

In 2018, Bahia Amawi, a Palestinian-American speech pathologist, filed a lawsuit against the Pflugerville Independent School District in Austin, Texas, and the Texas state attorney general, after she had been forced out of the job she had for 9 years for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge in her contract.

Amawi said in a radio interview that she didn't "want to support [Israel's] ongoing occupation and aggression and subhumane treatment of the Palestinians, that's making me kind of like a silent participant complicit with the whole occupation".

Amawi's lawyer said in the same radio interview: "Bahia would be disqualified from working for any school district in the state that's following this law, simply because she chooses not to buy, for instance, Sabra hummus. So her grocery store decision to not buy Sabra hummus and to buy instead another kind of hummus automatically, under this law, disqualifies her from all public employees -- all public employment of all kinds".

Trump and Kushner clearly believe their "deal of the century" will help "normalize" dealings between the Palestinians and their ethnocidal colonial occupier, even though nothing is "normal" when it comes to Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people.

... ... ...

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

[May 15, 2019] Trump's Hired Hands Want a War in Iran

Trump proved to be controlled by Zionists warmonger; a person far different that he presented to voters during his 2016 campaign. As deceptive as Obama -- the master of "bait and switch" maneuver with his "change we can believe in" propaganda.
He slides to to Bush II replica with a bunch of neocons in his administration. As one commenters noted, "Bolton reminds me a bit of Cheney and his considerable influence over Bush's foreign policy."
Notable quotes:
"... Washington is full of advisers, think tank scholars, and pundits who believe that it's simply impossible for the United States and Iran to coexist and that the only solution to the Iranian problem is to change the regime -- whether by force or by collapsing Tehran's finances and instigating a widespread, domestic revolt. ..."
"... Right now, diplomacy between Washington and Tehran is unlikely over the short-term. The Iranians will likely bide their time and hope U.S. policy will change after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... The American people don't want a war. The Iranian people don't want a war. Trump doesn't want a war. And the Iranian government, increasingly constrained by U.S. secondary sanctions, doesn't want a war it would lose. It's not too late for the president to nip the worst-case scenario in the bud. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson getting his money's worth... ..."
May 15, 2019 | nationalinterest.org

For Trump's hawkish advisers -- National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- instigating or provoking a conflict with Iran would serve their unified purpose of throwing the ayatollahs out of the corridors of power for good. Yet for Trump himself, rightly skeptical of launching dubious wars of choice and having committed to the American people he would extricate the United States from pointless interventions, picking a fight with Iran would be a direct violation of his campaign promise.

More important, a military conflict with Iran would be a U.S. response wholly disproportionate to the threat Iran poses to U.S. security.

Washington is full of advisers, think tank scholars, and pundits who believe that it's simply impossible for the United States and Iran to coexist and that the only solution to the Iranian problem is to change the regime -- whether by force or by collapsing Tehran's finances and instigating a widespread, domestic revolt. But to suggest that the United States, the world's only superpower with global power projection capabilities, is incapable or powerless to manage Iran is a severely flawed interpretation of the overall situation. Indeed, it underestimates the superior power of the United States and gives Tehran far too much credit than it's entitled to.

Right now, diplomacy between Washington and Tehran is unlikely over the short-term. The Iranians will likely bide their time and hope U.S. policy will change after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

However, what the Trump administration can do is decrease the tension before the situation gets to a point where avenues for de-escalation are further constrained. Trump must take control of the policy instead of leaving it in the hands of those who have been promoting unending confrontation with Iran for their entire careers. The simplest way to do this is by establishing direct lines of communication between U.S. and Iranian officials to -- at the very least -- pave the road for a dialogue and create a node that can be used by both to address any misunderstandings that occur at a moment's notice.

The American people don't want a war. The Iranian people don't want a war. Trump doesn't want a war. And the Iranian government, increasingly constrained by U.S. secondary sanctions, doesn't want a war it would lose. It's not too late for the president to nip the worst-case scenario in the bud.

Dan DePetris is a Fellow at Defense Priorities as well as a columnist for the Washington Examiner and the American Conservative. You can follow him on Twitter at @DanDePetris .

R. Arandas • 13 minutes ago

Bolton reminds me a bit of Cheney and his considerable influence over Bush's foreign policy.

AndrewK • 9 hours ago

Sheldon Adelson getting his money's worth...

[May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena. ..."
"... Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters ..."
"... In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations. ..."
May 14, 2019 | www.unz.com

Despite the Jewish domination of the American Left in the post-War period, Mendes notes that "most Americans do not appear to have adhered to the same anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish links with communism that dominated public opinion in parts of Europe." [80] Ibid ., 229.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
As evidence of this, Mendes cites the decidedly muted public response to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Despite the recognizably Jewish identity of the couple (given their name) and of all of their co-conspirators (David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, and Morton Sobell), and the fact the Rosenberg spy network consisted almost exclusively of Jews from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the case "provoked remarkably little overt anti-Semitism." [81] Ibid ., 230.
Nor, he observes, did the "significant number of Jews -- including teachers and Hollywood actors -- who were victims of anti-communist purges" and the prominence of Jews amongst those subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, lead to a significant reaction. All public opinion polls conducted during this period showed a consistent decline in "anti-Semitism," and only a small minority of those surveyed (about 5 percent) identified Jews with communism. [82] Ibid .

The lack of any real backlash to Jewish prominence in the New Left is ascribed to various factors: that many members of the public were not aware of the Jewish background of many of the radical leaders; that these Jewish radicals were ostensibly "not campaigning about any specifically Jewish issues that would have focused attention on Jews per se;" and to the "general decline in anti-Semitism since World War Two." [83] Ibid ., 257. This latter shift in public opinion (unsurprisingly) coincided with the Jewish seizure of the commanding heights of American (and Western) culture in the 1960s, and the growing emergence of the culture of "the Holocaust." The combined effect was to banish overt critical discussion of Jewish power to the margins of public discourse. While Americans rejected communist activities during the Cold War, unlike in Europe, they did not widely equate communism with Jews (at least publicly), or view Jewish participation in leftist politics with particular concern.

Neoconservatism

Neoconservative leaders were among those who feared that the Jewish prominence in the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s would fuel a conservative backlash against Jewish radicalism. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine, attacked leading Jewish leftists as alleged self-hating Jews and completely unrepresentative of the Jewish community. [84] Ibid ., 22.

Mendes ascribes the defection of many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism in the 1970s to a growing misalignment between modern Leftist politics and Jewish ethnic interests: the key factor being "the creation of the State of Israel which transformed Jewish dependence from international to national forces." [85] Ibid ., viii.
With the advent of the state of Israel, Jewish interests were no longer exclusively represented by the universalistic agendas of the Left. According to Mendes: "Most Jews have lost their faith in universalistic causes because they do not perceive the Left as supportive of Jewish interests, and have turned instead to nationalist solutions." [86] Ibid ., 235.

The creation of a Jewish national entity featuring (thanks to US taxpayers) a strong and powerful army meant that Jews all over the world could look to the Zionist state to safeguard their interests, rather than depending on internationalist movements and ideologies (i.e. communism and the Soviet Union) which had often proven to be unreliable allies. Even many left-wing Jews, who might have been anti-Zionist prior to World War Two, shifted their position after the birth of Israel. For example, the long-time Austrian Jewish leftist Jean Amery commented in 1976:

There is a very deep tie and existential bond between every Jew and the State of Israel Jews feel bound to the fortunes and misfortunes of Israel, whether they are religious Jews or not, whether they adhere to Zionism or reject it, whether they are newly arrived in their host countries or deeply rooted there The Jewish State has taught all the Jews of the world to walk with their head high once more Israel is the virtual shelter for all of the insulted and injured Jews of the earth. [87] Ibid ., 236-37

The perceived anti-Zionism of the New Left from the 1967 onwards served to alienate many Jews and confirm their commitment to nationalist, rather than internationalist solutions. An additional factor was the 1967 Six Day War in the Middle East, which provoked fears of "another Holocaust," and galvanized even non-Zionist Jews in support of Israel. There were rallies in support of Israel throughout the Western world accompanied by large donations. American Jews held massive fundraising campaigns and reportedly raised 180 million dollars. Numerous volunteers travelled to Israel to support the Jewish State. In Australia, more than 20 per cent of a total Jewish population of 34,000 in Melbourne -- attended a public rally to express their support for Israel, and 2500 attended a youth rally. 750 young Jews volunteered to go to Israel. According to Taft,

there was a widespread, almost universal, absorption in the Middle East Crisis of June among the Jews of Melbourne. This absorption took the form of extreme concern about the safety of Israel, emotional upsets, obsessive seeking of news, constant discussion of events and taking spontaneous actions to support Israel's cause. [88] Ibid ., 238.

The rise of left-wing anti-Zionism after the Six Day War furthered alienated sections of Western Jewry from the social democratic Left. Another factor that pushed American Jews in a neoconservative direction, identified by Mendes, was the decline in Black–Jewish relations. The emergence of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s led to the removal of Jews from the leadership of organizations like the NAACP. Black hostility was viewed by some Jews as evidence of the failure of the strategy of courting non-White groups to advance Jewish interests. This ostensible failure prompted many Jews to concentrate on a narrower ethnic self-interest in the future. [89] Ibid ., 243.

This, in turn, contributed to the creation of "pragmatic alliances" with conservative political parties such as the Republicans and evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel which "have been consistent supporters of Israel in the USA." An associated factor was that pro-Israel perspectives within Western countries increasingly emanated from mainstream conservatives, rather than from the moderate or radical Left. This occurred despite "many in these groups hold socially conservative views on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the environment, multiculturalism, state support for the poor and disadvantaged, and refugees, which are anathema to many Jews." [90] Ibid ., 287.

Mendes makes the point that "These alliances were based solely on the latter's position of support for Israel, irrespective of their conservative views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and the welfare state, which were often sharply at odds with the more liberal opinions of most Jews." [91] Ibid ., 239.

Despite the defection on many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism, the great majority of American Jews still see their ethnic interests as basically aligning with the Democratic Party. Their willingness to prioritize their ethnic interests over their personal economic interests is reflected in the fact that "high numbers of affluent Jews compared to others of the same socioeconomic status still vote for moderate left parties that do not seem to favor their economic interests." Today, the structural factors which historically drew many Jews to the Left no longer exist. Most Jews sit comfortably in middle- or even higher-income categories. This "middle-classing" of Jews throughout the West has meant that the "Jewish proletariat that motivated Jewish identification with left-wing beliefs no longer exists." [92] Ibid ., 239. Consequently, "the specific link between Jewish experience of class oppression and adherence to left-wing ideology has ended." [93] Ibid ., 241.

Most Western Jews still support parties on the Left

Despite the widespread break with the radical Left over support for Israel, Jews nevertheless remain a “massively significant presence” in the Left in terms of their numbers and fundraising, their organizational capacity, and their impact on popular culture.[94]Ibid., 287. It was estimated that about a quarter of the world’s leading Marxist and radical intellectuals in the 1980s were still Jews, including Ernest Mandel, Nathan Weinstock, Maxime Rodinson, Noam Chomsky, Marcel Liebman, Ralph Miliband, and the founder of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. Despite continuing to comprise much of the intellectual and financial backbone of the Left, today’s Jews, “an influential and sometimes powerful group, with substantial access to politics, academia and the media,” no longer must “rely on the Left to defend their interests and wellbeing.”[95]Ibid., 286.

The primary reason most Western Jews still vote overwhelmingly for parties on the left is the perceived threat posed by the “social conservatism” of parties further to the right of the political spectrum in nations whose majorities are European-derived and nominally at least Christian:

With the possible exception of ultra-orthodox groups, Jews seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as religious pluralism, abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, same-sex marriage, the science of climate change and euthanasia. Another significant factor is the long history of Christian anti-Semitism has led Jews to remain suspicious of any attempts by Christian religious groups to undermine the separation of church and state. This fear of organized religion [and of the White people who practice it] seems to explain the continued strong support of American Jews for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. A further complicating factor is the growing universalization of Jewish teachings and values, including the lessons of the Holocaust, in support of social liberal perspectives. … For example, Berman (2006) presents evidence that the younger Jewish generation in Australia have been influenced by the experience of the Holocaust into taking a strong stand against any forms of racial or religious discrimination. Many are active in campaigns for indigenous rights, and to support refugees from Afghanistan, Sudan, and Middle Eastern countries seeking asylum in Australia.[96]Ibid., 288-89.

This advocacy is, of course, entirely hypocritical and cynical. While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.

The ideological preoccupations of organized Jewry today are reflected in comments by Boston Globe writer, S.I. Rosenbaum, who insisted the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insists, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters:

For decades, leftist Jews have been flooding the West with Third World immigrants, “Hey here’s a plan—lets dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S. That’ll save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with non-White immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough to be manageable.

Jews have done this everywhere—playing two groups against each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad. … But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy to fool entire groups anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity or faction). …

And now we Jews, so worried that Minnesota might become the Frozen Fourth Reich if left in the hands of evil whites, have created for ourselves a good old-fashioned golem in Ilhan Omar (and a bunch of the other Third World freshman congressthingies). Yeah, Omar hates whites. Yeah, she thinks white supremacy lurks behind every glass of milk and “OK” finger sign. But she hates Jews a hell of a lot more…

In a perfect world, the Rabbinical Rain Men would finally get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy, but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S is bad strategy.

Here Cole vividly restates Kevin MacDonald’s point in Culture of Critique that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[97]Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313. The creation of this “monster” is ostensibly regarded by Jewish leaders and activists as a risk worth taking to demographically, politically and culturally weaken threatening White populations.

In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations.

Conclusion

While Jews and the Left offers a useful catalogue of Jewish involvement in radical political movements throughout the world over the last two centuries, it recycles many of the same apologetic tropes that permeate the work of other Jewish historians and intellectuals. Mendes mischaracterizes the Jewish identity and affiliations of important Jewish communist leaders (like Lazar Kaganovich), and offers no examination of their often-murderous actions. He provides feeble apologies for the Jewish practices that engendered hostility among the native peasantry in the Pale of Settlement. The inherent weakness of his position necessitates specious argumentation and desperate resort to that evergreen of Jewish apologetic historiography: the innate irrationality and malevolence of the European mind and character. This is the invariable fallback position in any quest to exculpate Jews from responsibility for the crimes of communism in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe. Though less inclined than Brossat and Klingberg in Revolutionary Yiddishland to glorify Jewish communist militants, Mendes is equally keen to evade, whitewash and excuse disproportionate Jewish involvement in some of the worst crimes of the twentieth century.

[May 13, 2019] "Ten ways the Israel lobby 'moves' America" Grant F. Smith - YouTube

Discussion is based on the book Big Israel How Israel's Lobby Moves America Grant F. Smith
The author said that slides will be put online.
Existence of "Dancing Israelis" on 9/11 should be a warning sign and stimulus to investigation of the Israeli lobby in the USA
Jul 25, 2016 | www.youtube.com

An analysis of the history, size, scope and activities of Israel affinity organizations and their increasingly negative -- but little known -- impact on all Americans.


Capt. George , 5 months ago

CNN & Fox are Israeli lobbyists.

Yasmeen Bibi , 1 year ago

Thank GOD The people of USA are waking up, it's good news

Lenin Lives , 7 months ago

Free Palestine now! BDS Yes!

dan caucci , 9 months ago

Watch '' The Man who solved 911 '' Chris Bollyn names the names . a shocker .Israel is not our friend

Carl Moore , 1 year ago

Real honest report. Israel owns the USA.

Ehsan Khaibar , 10 months ago

Israel moved US to destroy the middle east, slaughter millions, destroyed economies, put people in their worst spot of living, ... Well Bibi said it right, they are moving USA based on their own evil goals. ...

President Kushner , 8 months ago

We must shake the Zionist chains of and return America to it's people

Sasha Stone , 1 year ago

You cannot say these are not Jewish groups. They are named as Jewish groups. It is a Jewish lobby and we should not lie about it.

SpaceOrbison , 1 year ago

Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'

Alex Sunderland , 1 year ago

The lobby controls America

american White Sheep , 1 year ago

Wow !I hope more American Wake up.

Nicholas Santos , 6 months ago

The fact is that Israel is occuping Palestine period

Matthew Jamison , 7 months ago

Israel is the tail wagging the dog

T he , 1 year ago

Before 1949 Israel did not exist. President Truman took a $2million bribe to recognize Israel as a Country. Ironically Trump just recognized Jerusalem as it's Capital. How much did he get?

Bike Maurice , 2 months ago

World Zionism couldn't topple Dr Assad so they're going after Venezuela.

Sheikh Abrahim , 5 months ago

Palestine ought to be recognized as a sovereign nation. Israel the biggest terrorist state:A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. But ain't Britain and America are the guilty culprits of this great injustice?? Let justice prevail for Palestine.

bill hanna , 6 months ago

USS Liberty , 911 , JFK = All have one thing in common - THINK.

Joe Magnets , 1 year ago

THE JEW does NOTHING if, somehow it doesn't benefit the JEW. The JEW a true parasite, loyal only to themselves, has no 'friends' just VICTIMS the JEW CALLS "FRIEND'. Joe Magnets

Theseustoo Astyages , 2 years ago (edited)

"Is the Israel lobby good or bad for the USA?" Bad! VERY bad! And not just for the USA, but for the whole of the rest of the world. The Zionists are a danger to ALL the Goyim (ie, anyone who is NOT a 'Jew'), whom they are taught by their Talmud (their execrable so-called 'book of law'; a book which actually renders the whole concept of law meaningless!) exist ONLY to serve the Jews.

The Zionist banksters have effectively ensured that this is true by using their fraudulent method of money-creation, fractional reserve lending, to enslave the entire populations of any and all countries which have a 'Federal Reserve' or 'Central Bank'; which, btw, are a) privately owned, and b) neither 'federal' nor a 'reserve'...

The clever bit is that most people in said countries understand somehow that they are being turned into slaves; they just can't understand quite how, or by whom. This is due to the almost total nature of Jewish media ownership as these are constantly and consistently used to propagandize Israeli-generated perceptions of a 'reality' which is in fact far removed from what is presented to 'We the People' (of the world). The truth is that Israel is a nuclear-armed, rogue, terrorist state, whose ruling party is comprised entirely of terrorists, and whose prime monster - I mean 'minister' - is also a known terrorist who recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, PALESTINE, in 1946. (Typically, a false flag operation by the Jewish terrorist organization, Irgun, against the British, without whose help Israel would not exist...)

We also know that the ZIONAZI NWO have an agenda to depopulate the planet (Agenda 21) AND IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN! Is the world just going to sit on its ass and wait until the Zionists complete their plans for a global JEWISH empire? It's virtually complete already... but I don't think they'll announce their global empire until they have first completed the borders of their prophesied (read 'planned') 'Eretz Yishrael'... "From the Nile to the Euphrates..." and that's also very near to completion.

We also know that Israel's modus operandi is to use not only 'pre-emptive' strikes but also false flag attacks... so are we going to just sit around and wait until they start treating the rest of the world like the Syrians and Palestinians. "Today 'Eretz Yishrael'... tomorrow THE WORLD!" FFS WAKE UP WORLD, AND BE WARNED!

Ehsan Khaibar , 10 months ago

Salute to these great brave honest caring people, for these great presentations.

Joe Magnets, 1 year ago

The 'dept of justice' should have a name change to 'dept of JUST US JEWS'.
Joe Magnets

T he1 year ago

The US GIVES $1.9 billion every year. Not loan we GIVE that plus a total of other assistance that is classified.
What is the true nature of our relationship with Israel?

A Zambrano, 4 months ago

Here is a social experiment anyone can carry out via twitter, tweet a war crime carried out by Israel, don't use the word Jew or Jewish, just Israel, I can guarantee someone will tweet a very vulgar antisemitic remark, I obviously block such accounts but one day I checked the person who posted the ant Jewish comments and it was anonymous but if you click on the likes you will see that person is a Zionist from Israel who wants to change the topic from Israeli war crimes to the Jewish faith just so they can switch accounts and call you an antisemite

Velvet M, 2 months ago

35 billion a year to Israel
American taxpayers pay
35 billion a year

Steve dell, 2 months ago

Trump approves the allocation of $38 billion to Israel in 2018. Israel has the largest lobbyist group in the US to continue the
US spending million on them. What Israel is doing to Palestine’s is the same as what Saudi Arabia is doing to Yemen.

Why do humans die, 1 month ago

It's the other way.. Colonialists are promoting Israel.. And the reason in very clear.. That's the only way they can occupy the middle East....

Israel is actually a command and control centre of Americans... Every kids knows it..

The middle East is Full of highly valuable natural resources such as crude oil.. and fuels are the backbone of all vehicles, factories, manufacturing, transport, electricity etc.. control over it is control over the world... Guys in America realized it.. After all we know colonialists are highly interested in ruling the world.. Cunning guys..

Claus Bohm, 2 months ago (edited)

Survival of Israel should be important ... but that is not the problem! They have played on the David vs Goliath until NOW they are Goliath!

Cheryl Brandon, 3 months ago

Thank you Grant E Smith; I have your book.Spytrade

Keep it Reel Fishing, 2 months ago (edited)

Israel is a cancer. They are also the ones behind 9-11 . All evidence points to It

[May 13, 2019] Big Israel How Israel's Lobby Moves America by Grant F. Smith

Jewish lobby does not represent the views of the US Jewish population. They represent a small number of rich donors (concentration is just staggering) and of course Israeli government. Those organization are non-representative authoritarian bodies with a lot of functionaries serving for life or extremly long tenures.
Notable quotes:
"... One stunning example of this influence occurred recently. At one time during the nominating process for the Republican candidate for President in the current election, every single aspirant to the nomination made a pilgrimage to Las Vegas to kiss the money ring of Sheldon Adelson, whose only declared interests are Israel and online gambling. This is the same super-patriot Sheldon Adelson who wanted Mitt Romney to pardon Jonathan Pollard, should Romney become President with Adelson's financial backing. ..."
Feb 05, 2016 | www.amazon.com

The latest in the powerful series of titles written by Grant Smith. Highly recommended factual, documented and accessible data that should
be required reading for high school students as well as their parents.!

James Robinson , July 26, 2016

Would have been a tedious read for someone well acquainted with Israeli machinations

Superb compilation of organizations that receive tax exempt status in the US that work exclusively on behave of a foreign nation, Israel,often to the pronounced determent of the US interests and policies. Would have been a tedious read for someone well acquainted with Israeli machinations, but for someone new to the subject the anger that the revelations produce makes the reading of this book a disquietening breeze. Read more

Ronald Johnson , April 11, 2016
non-systematic conjecture about Zionism's amazing insider access to

Book Review of Big Israel, by Grant F. Smith

This is an important book, the latest from Grant F. Smith in the line of his previous investigations into what was referred to as, the "Zionist Occupied Government", an earlier, intuitive, non-systematic conjecture about Zionism's amazing insider access to, and influence of, U.S. foreign policy. It is interesting that Wikipedia describes the "ZOG" exclusively as an anti-semitic conspiracy theory attributed to a list of unsavory persons and racist organizations.

On the one hand, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee puts on a very public celebration every spring, the "policy conference", that is a pep rally of mandatory attendance by national Administration and Congressional people to celebrate Zionism. That event is public. But on the other hand, as Grant Smith analyzes, the "Israel Affinity Organizations" of the United States are a different archipelago.

As to what extent these organizations are legitimate lobbies, versus being mis-identified agents of a foreign power, I won't attempt to summarize, or, "give away" the content of the book; it is for people to read for themselves, to be informed, and to think for themselves.

Grant Smith presents numbers, names, and dates, to be reviewed and challenged by anyone who wants to. There is precedent for that. The USS Liberty attack by Israel was defended as a tragic mistake by author A. Jay Cristol, in his book, "The Liberty Incident". The Wiesenthal Center commissioned the author, Harold Brackman, to write, "Ministry of Lies, the Truth Behind the 'Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews' ". That referenced book was by the Nation of Islam. With facts in hand, the Electorate is empowered to make informed decisions about the US national interest, relative to Zionism.

Another good book is by Alison Weir on essentially the same subject, "Against Our Better Judgement, the Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel". The Amazon servers, for that book review are loaded with discussions, which can be seen under that title. The Amazon book reviews are a valuable national resource that can be a place to survey public opinion, even with the factor that positives have less motivation than negatives to inspire writing an essay.

D L Neal , May 28, 2018
at least at this time- Wonderful, informative and important book

It is obvious why there is no middle ground in the reviews here, at least at this time- Wonderful, informative and important book. Read more One person found this helpful

Luther , May 15, 2016
"America. . . you can move very easily. . .." Netanyahu

No matter what your values -- Christian, Enlightenment, social justice, international law, natural law, the Kantian imperative, crimes against humanity, Judaism's own values (Israel "a light unto the nations" Isaiah 49:6) -- what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians is morally wrong.
Sure. People have done bad things to other people forever, but this evil is orchestrated by a large Zionist organization from all over the world. And the US is being made complicit in this immoral undertaking in the numerous ways Grant Smith explores in his book.

Exposing America's unfortunate entanglement is why he wrote this excellent book: 300 pages and 483 footnotes of support for the claims he makes.
The American democratic process is being corrupted at every level in the interests of Israel, and Smith gives chapter and verse on how this is being done.

One stunning example of this influence occurred recently. At one time during the nominating process for the Republican candidate for President in the current election, every single aspirant to the nomination made a pilgrimage to Las Vegas to kiss the money ring of Sheldon Adelson, whose only declared interests are Israel and online gambling. This is the same super-patriot Sheldon Adelson who wanted Mitt Romney to pardon Jonathan Pollard, should Romney become President with Adelson's financial backing.

In addition, Haim Saban of the Brookings Institution plays a similar role in the Democratic party. He has said: "I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel." He has promised to contribute as much money as needed to elect Hillary Clinton, someone who believes that Israel has a right to exist as a "Jewish state," with Jerusalem (an international city for millenia) as its capital (something no country in the world approves of, not even the USA).

  1. Is this the American democratic process in action?
  2. Is this what the Constitution intends?
  3. Is this our America?

Grant discusses in supported detail the areas of dual citizenship and dual loyalties (American citizens in the Israeli Defense Force); espionage (industrial and military); yearly billions to Israel with no benefit to the US; media control (no debating the facts of history; no Palestinians allowed to articulate and disseminate their narrative); tax exemption for money which goes to Jewish interests as well as the illegal settlements in Israel; perversion of education (forced Holocaust information but no discussion; anti-assimilation); foreign policy (the war with Iraq for the benefit of Israel; the demonization of Iran; no condemnation of Israel's nuclear capability in spite of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; use of the veto in the UN in Israel's interests; Middle East "regime change" wars); Israeli and Jewish influence in Congress (money, intense lobbying by AIPAC and free trips to Israel), and financial contributions only to candidates who are unequivocally pro-Israel, in some cases very large sums of money.

The point is that all of this is being done in spite of the wishes and best interests of the American people and even of Israel. It's not as though the American people voted to do bad things to the Palestinians: kill them, starve them, imprison them, steal from them, and control them. Quite the opposite: as Grant Smith explains, unbiased polls indicate that most Americans show no such support for Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians and believe that if both sides would abide by international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN resolutions relating to Palestine, peace could be achieved between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

But Zionism has a different agenda, an agenda that will use any means legal and illegal to promote its interests by getting the United States to back it up.
And that agenda is the problem because it is built on non-negotiable beliefs.

What can you say to someone who believes that the Bible mandates the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants?

Or, as Rabbi Ovaida Yosef said in 2010, that "The Goyim [non-Jews] are born only in order to serve us. Besides this, they have no place on earth -- only to serve the people Israel."

Not surprisingly, the never-ending "peace process" goes on and on, with no peace in sight.

The US, in spite of itself, continues to support this cruel charade against its own interests and at the expense of neighbors, friends, allies and innocent parties in Palestine and elsewhere in the world.

Grant Smith's excellent book is an attempt to raise America's awareness to the point that something might be done.

[May 09, 2019] John Kelly Said Trump's Family Needs To Be "Dealt With"

Notable quotes:
"... Those who have been following the Trump administration drama since the beginning might remember that, after initially welcoming Kelly as a "steady hand" and "adult in the room" who would bring order to a chaotic West Wing, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump swiftly turned on the former general, and their months-long power struggle become fodder for endless anonymously sourced reports and reprisals. ..."
"... That feud apparently left a bad taste in Kelly's mouth that just won't go away. Which is probably why, five months after being 'liberated' from the West Wing, Kelly felt comfortable publicly expressing his distaste for the two - in his own reserved way, not mentioning the couple by name - Trump Administration senior advisors during an interview with David Rubenstein on Bloomberg TV . ..."
"... And in what sounded suspiciously like ingratitude toward his host, Kelly said he had removed a few "very disruptive" people from the administration after arriving in the West Wing, and was struck by the "intense personal ambition" of some of his staffers. ..."
May 08, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-08/kelly-revives-feud-javanka-says-trumps-family-needs-be-dealt

by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2019 - 20:00 0 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print John Kelly has had a few months to reflect on his tumultuous tenure as White House Chief of Staff. And though he's apparently forgiven the president for the angry tweets and public rebukes, which helped fuel persistent rumors about his impending firing, the former general still holds a grudge against his former West Wing antagonist: Javanka. Those who have been following the Trump administration drama since the beginning might remember that, after initially welcoming Kelly as a "steady hand" and "adult in the room" who would bring order to a chaotic West Wing, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump swiftly turned on the former general, and their months-long power struggle become fodder for endless anonymously sourced reports and reprisals.

That feud apparently left a bad taste in Kelly's mouth that just won't go away. Which is probably why, five months after being 'liberated' from the West Wing, Kelly felt comfortable publicly expressing his distaste for the two - in his own reserved way, not mentioning the couple by name - Trump Administration senior advisors during an interview with David Rubenstein on Bloomberg TV .

Kelly told Rubenstein that members of the Trump family serving in the administration needed to be "dealt with" - even if Kelly wasn't the one to do it.

"They were an influence that has to be dealt with," Kelly said Tuesday during an interview on Bloomberg Television's "The David Rubenstein Show," when asked whether it was complicated to have the president's family working at the White House. "By no means do I mean Mrs. Trump - the first lady's a wonderful person."

The Marine general sat for the interview in Las Vegas, where he was attending Anthony Scaramucci's SALT conference (ironic because one of the first things Kelly did after arriving in the West Wing was fire Scaramucci over an unhinged rant published in the New Yorker where Scaramucci accused Steve Bannon of trying to "suck his own c*ck").

And in what sounded suspiciously like ingratitude toward his host, Kelly said he had removed a few "very disruptive" people from the administration after arriving in the West Wing, and was struck by the "intense personal ambition" of some of his staffers.

... ... ...

Watch the full interview below:

https://www.bloomberg.com/multimedia/api/embed/iframe?id=8dbaab6b-121a-494b-9a03-5389330a01de

He–Mene Mox Mox , 2 minutes ago link

I would have more respect for Kelly, if he bayoneted both Bolton and Pompeo on his way out the door. That would have been the "Marine" thing to do, and would have been a greater service to the country and the world.

[May 08, 2019] Bolton Means Another War for Israel is Coming

Notable quotes:
"... War is likely to start in the Middle East as Iran, Lebanon and Syria are relatively soft targets with only limited capability to strike back. As neocon pundit Michael Ledeen put it , " 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 the world we mean business ." ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | ahtribune.com

Excerpt from the article by Philip Giraldi

Israel controls Trump

With the appointment of leading neoconservative John Bolton as National Security Advisor, the Zionist war-party takeover of the White House is nearly complete. With Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, Nikki Haley at the U.N. and now Bolton whispering in the President's ear, we have a fully endowed war cabinet that will make sure the Mullahs, Russkies and Rocket Man begin to pay attention. As Haley laid down the law in the United Nations recently, "Our patience is not unlimited."

Bolton, the point man for Israeli-American casino billionaire and GOP kingmaker Sheldon Adelson , will be the spark plug that ignites a new round of warfare on behalf of Israel. Bolton has long been planning to attack Iran. He secretly and illegally met with Israel's Mossad intelligence service in 2003-4 when he was in the State Department under George W. Bush to lay the groundwork for such a conflict. Today, right-wing Israelis are certainly cheering his appointment. Naftali Bennett, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet, has already praised the move, calling Bolton "an extraordinary security expert, experienced diplomat and a stalwart friend of Israel".

War is likely to start in the Middle East as Iran, Lebanon and Syria are relatively soft targets with only limited capability to strike back. As neocon pundit Michael Ledeen put it , " 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 the world we mean business ." There have been numerous indications that Israel is preparing for war. Its planning clearly includes deliberately involving the United States in the conflict, turning American soldiers into de facto hostages, with U.S. casualties guaranteeing Washington's direct and immediate involvement in the fighting.

Largely unknown to the American public, the United States has just completed the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel even though it has no defense agreement or treaty with Tel Aviv. That is, in part, because military alliances are dependent on an attack on one partner mandating support from all parties to the agreement. Israel has balked at such an arrangement because it cannot define its own borders, which are constantly expanding.

The recent maneuvers featured scenarios in which U.S. troops fought Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians in a mock-up Arab village to defend Israel. Washington's particularly vulnerability vis-à-vis Israel derives from the recent opening of a U.S. permanent facility at Mashabim Air Base in the Negev Desert.

It is described as a base within a base, completely contained by an Israeli air force installation and operating "under Israeli military directives," meaning that if the facility is attacked Americans will likely die. It has no function in support of U.S. regional interests but is instead a shell facility with a few dozen airmen that can be ramped up considerably if Israel goes to war and calls for American assistance. Together with billions of dollars-worth of U.S. military equipment that is pre-positioned in Israel and can be used by the Israelis as needed, it is all about supporting Israeli war-making and has nothing to do with American security or defense interests except as a tripwire to bring about U.S. involvement.

For that reason, all of the above is something more than just the latest "we have to support Israel" gimmick. The American soldiers and airmen who are now based in Israel are the sacrificial lambs that will guarantee U.S. entry into a war that Israel intends to start, make no mistake about that.

When Israel attacks Syria and/or Lebanon, as it clearly intends to do, Hezbollah will retaliate with its missiles, some of which will surely be directed towards the Mashabim Air Base, which will be targeted to inhibit the base's ability to bomb Lebanon. And once Washington is well and truly engaged in what is referred to as "force protection," Israel will undoubtedly widen the conflict by drawing Iran in through attacks on that country's identified bases in Syria that are supporting the al-Assad government. The bigger war will suddenly become America's responsibility after Israel inevitably proves itself incapable of handling the escalation.

[May 08, 2019] Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel? by Emma Green

Sep 15, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com
Israel was , according to the Congressional Research Service, "the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II." In many ways, Wednesday's deal seemed predestined.

Yet, it's also ironic. Barack Obama has a notoriously cold relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- as my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic 's April cover story , "Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution" to the Israel-Palestine conflict "that would protect Israel's status as a Jewish-majority democracy, but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so." Nonetheless, Obama will leave office having out-pledged all of his predecessors in military support to the country Netanyahu now runs.

Aid to Israel is among the only static issues of this U.S. election season. While the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made somewhat mixed statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict, he has also made strongly worded promises to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. For her part, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has consistently touted her support for Israel, including during her time as secretary of state.

Voters, however, have more mixed views on this kind of support. While more than 60 percent of Americans were more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians in a 2016 Gallup poll, sympathies differed along partisan lines, with around half of Democrats being more sympathetic to Israelis versus nearly 80 percent of Republicans. In a separate Brookings poll , roughly half of Democrats who responded said Israel has too much influence on the United States government. Boycott, divest, and sanction movements, which call on organizations in the United States and abroad to cut their financial ties with Israel, have long been popular on college campuses, although somewhat marginal; this year, however, they got a boost from the Black Lives Matter movement, which included statements against Israel's treatment of Palestinians in its recently released policy platform.

In general, young Americans are far less sympathetic toward Israel than their older peers: A 2014 Gallup poll found that only half of those aged 18 to 34 favored Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict, "compared with 58 percent of 35- to 54-year-olds and 74 percent of those 55 and older." Bernie Sanders, who was extremely popular among young people during the Democratic primary season, controversially criticized Israel, winning "applause and cheers" from the audience at one debate for saying, "If we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."

All of this creates an odd backdrop for a historic military-spending deal. No matter how bad the relationship between the two countries' top leaders, no matter who gets elected to the White House, no matter how loudly some voters voice their opposition or how charged the underlying ideological debate: The United States has pragmatic reasons to keep providing large sums of money for Israel's military.

There are straightforward explanations for why this particular deal got done. Politically, the spending package was partly a response to the nuclear deal that the United States and other world powers finalized with Iran in July of last year, and which Obama hailed as cutting off Iran's pathway to nuclear weapons for more than a decade. Netanyahu was harshly critical of that agreement, which he called a "historic mistake" that would ease sanctions on Iran while leaving it with the ability to one day get the bomb. "Even with the deal in place, and taking the nuclear-weapon capability of Iran off the table at least for the next 10 to 15 years, there are still considerable destabilizing activities that Iranians are pursuing in the region that are not consistent with U.S. or Israeli interests or objectives," said Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The new money is an attempt to pacify Israeli concerns about continued threats from Iran, she added.

The money is also an attempt to satisfy congressional Republicans. The Obama administration reportedly asked Netanyahu to get Lindsey Graham, the head of the Senate foreign-affairs appropriations committee, to agree to the deal. After it was signed, though, Graham released a statement indicating that Congress would not necessarily adhere to the pre-determined funding levels. "I find it odd the [Memorandum] only allocates $500 million for missile defense starting in 2018," he wrote, especially "given provocative Iranian behavior [and] improved Iranian missile technology." While this may be the U.S.'s biggest-ever military-aid deal, the GOP has pushed for even greater spending.

Defenders of the deal would say it's necessary. Dalton described the uptick in spending as a natural extension of the long-standing relationship between the United States and Israel, "as well as close ties between those countries and their peoples." She described the "fraught neighborhood" surrounding Israel: war-torn Syria to the northeast, Hezbollah-influenced Lebanon to the north, and an Islamist insurgency in Egypt's Sinai to the south, all of which help explain the historically high promise of $5 billion in missile funding over the next 10 years. As National Security Advisor Susan Rice said at the signing ceremony for the deal, "This MOU is not just good for Israel, it's good for the United States. Our security is linked. When allies and partners like Israel are more secure, the United States is more secure."

The deal also directs more money back toward the United States. It eliminates a provision in the previous aid agreement that allowed Israel to spend 26 percent of its Foreign Military Financing on weaponry and other resources produced within Israel, rather than in the United States -- a provision intended to help Israel build its own defense industry. Now that Israel's defense industry has developed, Dalton said, that money will go toward purchases benefitting the defense industry in the United States.

While the United States's new Memorandum of Understanding with Israel is historic in its own right, it's most remarkable in its apparent inevitability: It is a foreign-policy move seemingly immune to the electoral politics around it. "At the end of the day, we're electing people to make judgments based on the information and the advice that the receive," Dalton said. "One of the inputs to that process, certainly, is popular opinion. But I don't think it should be the sole determinant of foreign policy." In its own way, that's a good explanation of why America's aid to Israel is so big: Military spending does not go up or down in direct relationship to votes or even the news cycle. In this case, it was a record set as if it were on an unstoppable trend line.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

[May 08, 2019] It is mind bogging that people who came over holocaust do the same to Palestinians

Jimmy Dore is a stand-up comedian, political commentator, host of "The Jimmy Dore Show" available on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3M7... ) and as a podcast available on iTunes.
Aug 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

therosewhisperer , 4 months ago

jimmy Dore is liked on the left and right

The Aiden Feron Show , 7 months ago

this is an incredibly undervalued episode. I learned more about american and international politics in this show than any other 3-hour span in my entire life. Very informative and important episode.

[May 07, 2019] Why neoliberals and pro-Israel Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer are attacking Trump?

Trump does not touch their milt-cow --- the defense budget which now exceed one trillion (see America's Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think)
Trump does not touch their foreign policy: appointment of Bolton and Pompeo means complete and humiliating capitulation to neocons and globalists.
Trump was instrumental in reelecting Netanyahu and give several gifts to Israel.
Despite Hillary fiasco Pelosi managed to cling to power. Thanks to Mueller shenanigans which put deep suspicion on the results of 2016 election which were a crushing defeat of Clinton democrats (DemoRats - or neoliberal wing of Democratic Party) this neoliberal who most probably outlived her political usefulness was not replaced.
Why they are still attacking Trump. What is the logic behind this sustained effort to impeach him not matter what are the costs and with full understanding that President Pence is much worse ?
This is a real mystery of the US political life.
Notable quotes:
"... "What we've seen is a meltdown, an absolute meltdown, an inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel's report," he said. ..."
May 07, 2019 | thehill.com

Republican pollster Conor Maguire said in an interview that aired Tuesday on "What America's Thinking" that the divide over special counsel Robert Mueller 's report into Russia's election meddling is an example of American political tribalism.

"It is really tribalism," Maguire, a senior strategist at WPA Intelligence, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons on Monday.

"You are either supporting or you're not based on your party," he continued. "Interesting to see independents really split pretty much 50-50 as well."

Democrats have continued to dive deeper into Mueller's probe into Moscow's election interference, demanding the full, unredacted report from Attorney General William Barr , and have called to hear from Mueller himself.

The rift has led to a growing gulf between House Democrats and the Justice Department, with House Judiciary Committee Democrats scheduling a vote to hold Barr in contempt.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday the case was closed related to Mueller's probe.

"What we've seen is a meltdown, an absolute meltdown, an inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel's report," he said.

[May 07, 2019] What's in a Cartoon by Philip Giraldi

May 07, 2019 | www.unz.com

Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state unacceptable or even illegal. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been persistently demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech be criminalized. Danon declared that "The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action – and now."

How exactly Danon would enforce his definition of acceptable speech is not clear, but the demands to eliminate any negative commentary regarding the holocaust or on Israel and/or the behavior of diaspora Jews have been promoted for some time, resulting in laws in Europe that inflict harsh punish on those who dare to speak out. The latest incident in the campaign to eliminate the First Amendment in America took place oddly enough on the pages of the New York Times , which, in its international edition, ran a cartoon by a Portuguese cartoonist showing a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash leading a caricature of Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and a blind man's glasses. The Netanyahu-dog had a tag on its collar featuring a Star of David.

There are several ways to interpret the cartoon. It is, of course, an insult to dogs to have them depicted in such a fashion as to suggest that they might behave like the monstrous Israeli Prime Minister. No dog would sink so low. One observer , commenting from a dog's point of view, noted that "We canines share that saying that 'the eyes are the window to the soul.' Look into our eyes and you'll see love and trust. Look into Netanyahu's eyes you see cunning and deceit so why stick his head on our body?"

On the other hand, one might see in the cartoon a serious message, that Netanyahu has been able to "wag the dog" with an ignorant and impulsive United States president who is so desirous of pandering to Jews both in Israel and in the U.S. that he is blind to his obligation to do what is best for the American people. Trump, who is the first president within memory not to own a dog, would rather stroke the head of the disgusting casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson than an intelligent and loyal Labrador retriever.


Paw , says: May 7, 2019 at 4:17 am GMT

This is nothing new. In communist country Czechoslovakia 1948-1989 media every day wrote, several times and they repeated it in TV about "with USSR all the time and never otherwise" And any criticism od the state and the Party was crime.
Fran Macadam , says: May 7, 2019 at 5:33 am GMT
The editorial cartoon was well within the usual and acceptable traditions of political comment. It depicted with the usual license for caricature a political figure being led down the garden path by another, and mocking him for it. What's the big deal?
Robert Dolan , says: May 7, 2019 at 6:43 am GMT
Trump has not built a wall.
We have more immigrants coming in than at any time in American history.
We experienced a record number of opioid deaths in 2018 and the drugs still flow freely.
Trump is attempting to force the US into multiple wars that are of no benefit to us.
Trump bumped stocks.
Trump is allowing all of his supporters (many of them now former supporters) to be banned from the internet.
Trump is allowing his supporters to be arrested and imprisoned for supporting him.
Trump is escalating tensions with Russia for no reason.
Trump has not pulled out of NATO.
Trump's replacement of NAFTA is the same thing as NAFTA.

Meanwhile, he has done more for Israel than any president ever in history.

Trump ended the Iran deal.
Trump attacked Assad over fake gassings.
Trump stopped aid to Palestine.
Trump hired John Bolton as his national security advisor.
Trump turned the US ambassador to the UN into a second Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Trump closed off all official communications and diplomatic relations with Palestine.
Trump sent $38 billion in US taxpayer money to Israel.
Trump made a $110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel.
Trump refuses to pull troops out of Syria.
Trump somehow transferred the Syrian Golan Heights to Israel.
Trump is now apparently planning a war with Iran.

Paul , says: May 7, 2019 at 6:44 am GMT
"And yes, a few million Benjamins scattered around would have underlined why Trump misbehaves as he does."

The New York real estate man Donald Trump is always aware of what side his bread is buttered on. Follow the shekels!

Paul , says: May 7, 2019 at 7:00 am GMT
Donald Trump is considered off limits when doing Israel's bidding. On anything else he is considered fair game.
Been_there_done_that , says: May 7, 2019 at 8:25 am GMT
Would those knee-jerk critics have considered the political cartoon less outrageous or offensive if The Master was not blind and the head of the dog on the leash had the features of Donald Trump instead?
Harold Smith , says: May 7, 2019 at 12:07 pm GMT
Actually the cartoon is somewhat misleading, IMO. It's unjustifiably generous to the orange clown, because what the orange clown does, he does knowingly and willingly, not because he's ignorant and impressionable. IOW, orange clown is evil, not blind.
Philip Giraldi , says: May 7, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMT
@JoaoAlfaiate Correct. I just posted this over on Facebook: Game over. The U.S. will now base its foreign policy, not on national interests, but on the interests of Israel and its cabal in the United States. This was an inevitable progression when you equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and then appoint a high government official to punish countries on that basis. And, one might add, the First Amendment is also under attack by the same folks to make illegal even the mildest criticism of Israel here at home. Will this ever end?

https://news.yahoo.com/u-may-review-ties-countries-deemed-anti-israel-142945941.html?fbclid=IwAR2j9eRtoo4DMMo5YZLBwFpB5Tvm79l1khxrImA_KdHr1Yi6y83HgaN-XTo

turtle , says: May 7, 2019 at 2:05 pm GMT
@Philip Giraldi

appoint a high government official to punish countries on that basis.

The Vice President of the U.S. has publicly declared his primary allegiance is to a foreign power.
Which foreign power is irrelevant.

Agent76 , says: May 7, 2019 at 2:08 pm GMT
May 30, 2018 The Occupation of the American Mind

Over the past few years, Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli policies virtually everywhere in the world -- except the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/dP0-YohJR-g?feature=oembed

[May 07, 2019] Was Tulsi Gabbard right in he attitude to Israel ?

May 07, 2019 | off-guardian.org

der einzige

United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.

Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary efforts to attack only terrorist actors".
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/

What it looked like "focusing on terrorist targets" according to Gabbard can be seen here: https://www.google.pl/search?q=gaza+2014&source=lnms&tbm=isch

Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters -- like right-wing billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".

In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving her the Champion of Freedom award.
http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/

Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of India.

Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed 2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot"

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985

After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom

A year earlier, she carried out a successful campaign to abolish legislation calling on India to improve the treatment of religious minorities. Gabbard condemned the bill as an attempt to "influence the outcome of the national elections in India."
https://www.alternet.org/2015/02/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard/

Gabbard's service for the most right-wing forces in Indian politics leaves no doubt about its Islamophobia.

Gabbard supported Donald Trump's claim that Islam itself is the source of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. She claimed that Obama "completely misunderstands the rational Islamic ideology that drives these people."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/knives-are-out-hawaii-dem-faces-backlash-for-taking-on-obama-over-islamist-extremism

As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values ​​do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism.
http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid

johny conspiranoid

Tulsi Gabard is a member of the Council for Foreign Relations. She’s a phony radical

[May 07, 2019] American Jews Versus Israeli Politics by Steve Hochstadt

Notable quotes:
"... Jews in Israel support politicians and policies that I reject as abhorrent. That is a personal tragedy for me. The larger tragedy is that there appears to be no solution at all to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ..."
"... The Zionist ideology is the DNA of every Israeli governmental act and institution, and is at the root of the Israeli colonial settler state in toto. It is very very simple: Jew are the only valuable human beings and anyone else is defined as either an enemy or someone who cares nothing about Jews ..."
"... Every synagogue I've ever been in has an Israeli flag in it, so their complicity has been bought by Israel for nothing. To oppose Israeli policy or Zionism is to be harassed and hounded out of Jewish institutional life. Israel gets congress to pass laws against political action against Israeli apartheid, which by the way, doesn't " in some ways resembles the former South African apartheid system." No, it surpasses S. African Apartheid and the resemblances far outnumber the differences in principle. Bishop Desmond Tutu clearly said it was than the S. African brand. ..."
"... There is an Israel Lobby, and it has, as Noam Chomsky has just pointed out, and it has been very powerful in American politics. It has interfered with U.S. elections 1,000 times more effectively than any Russian interference, but the corporate media will not allow that be said ..."
Apr 18, 2019 | www.laprogressive.com

The drifting apart of American Jews and Israelis is a tragic development, but perhaps an inevitable one. As Jews gradually assimilated into American democracy, they congregated at the liberal end of the political spectrum, feeling kinship with other minorities which experienced discrimination. American Jewish religious politics affirmed the traditional Jewish ethical ideas of justice, truth, peace, and compassion. Israeli Jews have faced a radically different environment. Although many of the early Israeli settlers and leaders came from the leftist European labor tradition, decades of conflict with Arab neighbors, in which both sides perpetrated countless atrocities, have led to hardening attitudes of self-defense and hatred for the other.

Jews in Israel support politicians and policies that I reject as abhorrent. That is a personal tragedy for me. The larger tragedy is that there appears to be no solution at all to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

RICK CHERTOFF says April 18, 2019 at 8:53 pm

This article is written in good faith falls into the error of complexity, which is the object of deliberate efforts of the Israeli government. . Yes, there is all the above complexity, but if the simplicity is not made clear, the complexity paralyzes the body politic. Therefore, what progressives need to know are a few simple things.

1) The Zionist ideology is the DNA of every Israeli governmental act and institution, and is at the root of the Israeli colonial settler state in toto. It is very very simple: Jew are the only valuable human beings and anyone else is defined as either an enemy or someone who cares nothing about Jews, so any and all means of securing Jewish life are justified, be that the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, en masse, or the simple deception of all other people, including Americans and American Jews, into acceptance or acquiescence of Israeli ethnic cleansing.

2) The so-called 2 State Solution so dear to American Liberal Zionists is a total lie and ruse, designed to make the medicine go down, yet save the liberal facade and vanity of non-Israeli Jews. Israelis don't care a wit about it and only did for a couple of years until the Israeli Right wiped it out. As ruse, it has worked well.

Every synagogue I've ever been in has an Israeli flag in it, so their complicity has been bought by Israel for nothing. To oppose Israeli policy or Zionism is to be harassed and hounded out of Jewish institutional life. Israel gets congress to pass laws against political action against Israeli apartheid, which by the way, doesn't " in some ways resembles the former South African apartheid system." No, it surpasses S. African Apartheid and the resemblances far outnumber the differences in principle. Bishop Desmond Tutu clearly said it was than the S. African brand.

3) There is an Israel Lobby, and it has, as Noam Chomsky has just pointed out, and it has been very powerful in American politics. It has interfered with U.S. elections 1,000 times more effectively than any Russian interference, but the corporate media will not allow that be said, and especially not by an African Muslim woman in Hijab .but, she said it.

Although there is an over-arching design and simplicity to Israeli Apartheid, which is that it is an re-iteration of all Colonial Settler States, sinking into complexities that occlude that dampens creative resistance, such as the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which of course goes unmentioned in this article. It's too direct a resistance and, well, too simple. It is growing and mighty, and is of profound significance to this historical moment.

[May 06, 2019] Trump's top three donors

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative" megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven "philanthropists?" ..."
May 06, 2019 | www.unz.com

Trump's top 3 donors are:

  1. Sheldon Adelson
  2. Paul Singer
  3. Bernard Marcus

Are any of these 3 individuals "evangelical Christians?"
Or is there some other aspect of their identity/ heritage that they have in common?

Some might even go so far as to characterize the common leftist claim that fanatical GOP Israeli-Firstism is driven by evangelical Christians as a "long-debunked semitic canard."

Note also the alternative. Hillary's top donor was that notorious "evangelical Christian," Haim Saban.

Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative" megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven "philanthropists?"

A lot of other "evangelical Christians" among Hillary's top donors, too.

... ... ...

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/top-five-clinton-donors-are-jewish-campaign-tally-shows-1.5453781

[May 06, 2019] Mike Pompeo said that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, or hostility toward Jews

May 06, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , May 5, 2019 3:06:17 PM | link

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-antisemitism/u-s-may-review-ties-with-countries-deemed-anti-israel-envoy-idUSKCN1SB0FI
"U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a March speech that anti-Zionism ... was a form of anti-Semitism, or hostility toward Jews, that was on the rise worldwide and that Washington would "fight it relentlessly".

The State Department's special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, Elan Carr, said this U.S. position could spell reviews of ties with foreign governments or leaders."

.....

This comes after the Israeli attack on Gaza. I have put it here rather than the Gaza Israel thread as nothing can be done there until US power is destroyed. Same with the Wahhabi's of KSA and the Nazi's of Eastern Europe.

[May 06, 2019] Trump is Zionist and neocon' that's why he hired Bolton, Pompeo and Abrams.

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams are Trumps hires and only a moron could fail to recognise that they are neocons stuck in the regime change model of US foreign policy. Venezuela hasn't gone away and if history is any clue, they're going to double down on their initial stupidity. ..."
"... There is only one party, the Pentagon Party, and judging from their $750B budget, $20T 'accounting error', 60% of federal discretionary spend, zero audits and successful scare campaigns that are building up to another Cold War, I'd say they are doing just fine thank you very much. ..."
May 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

curbjob , 1 hour ago link

The key for him now is to undo a lot of the damage that's been done by his staff, disloyal cabinet members and recalcitrant bureaucracy who are all wedded deeply to the old way things are done.

Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams are Trumps hires and only a moron could fail to recognise that they are neocons stuck in the regime change model of US foreign policy. Venezuela hasn't gone away and if history is any clue, they're going to double down on their initial stupidity.

medium giraffe , 46 minutes ago link

There is only one party, the Pentagon Party, and judging from their $750B budget, $20T 'accounting error', 60% of federal discretionary spend, zero audits and successful scare campaigns that are building up to another Cold War, I'd say they are doing just fine thank you very much.

As for Sheldon Adelson's pet chihuahua telling him to get stuffed? Well that would make for a very cold day in hell.

[May 05, 2019] Trump's foreign policy team, the Pompeo-Bolton axis represent the pro-Israel Lobby signature "toxic combination of neoconservatives and evangelicals

Notable quotes:
"... Patrick Lawrence avers that "Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him". There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton (and all their rivals from the 2016 presidential campaign) are Israel-Firsters deep in the pockets of the pro-Israel Lobby. Trump's current policies are not significantly at variance from Clinton's equally pro-Israel policy agenda. At a 2015 gala hosted by the Algemeiner Journal, Trump declared "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." His bid for the presidency was announced soon after. ..."
"... Trump's whole "insurgent" campaign, including his purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were an elaborate propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning. ..."
"... Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East/Israel issues, gave his first on-the-record appearance at the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution on 3 December 2017. Saban praised Kushner for attempting to derail a vote at the United Nations Security Council about Israeli settlements during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Make no mistake, Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby exploit Trump and the GOP, as well as Clinton and the Democrats. ..."
"... The Russia-gate conspiracy theory, eagerly promoted by both key right and left pro-Israel Lobby figures (including Jewish and Christian Zionists, as well as sheepdog Sanders), is partly an effort to distract attention from the pro-Israel Lobby meddling in American electoral politics and its pernicious influence on US foreign policy. ..."
May 05, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , April 30, 2019 at 22:26

Patrick Lawrence avers that "Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him". There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton (and all their rivals from the 2016 presidential campaign) are Israel-Firsters deep in the pockets of the pro-Israel Lobby. Trump's current policies are not significantly at variance from Clinton's equally pro-Israel policy agenda. At a 2015 gala hosted by the Algemeiner Journal, Trump declared "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." His bid for the presidency was announced soon after.

Trump's whole "insurgent" campaign, including his purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were an elaborate propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning.

Trump's "1000 percent" efforts on behalf of Israel began immediately after the election, prior to his taking the oath of office.

Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East/Israel issues, gave his first on-the-record appearance at the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution on 3 December 2017. Saban praised Kushner for attempting to derail a vote at the United Nations Security Council about Israeli settlements during the Obama administration.

Kushner reportedly dispatched former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to make secret contact with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 in an effort to undermine or delay the resolution, which condemned Israel for settlement construction. Saban told Kushner that "this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much." Kushner thanked the audience at Brookings, a leading pro-Israel Lobby think tank, "It's really an honor to be able to talk about this topic with so many people who I respect so much, who have given so much to this issue."

During the keynote conversation, Kushner and Saban framed Middle East peace as a "real estate issue". Kushner acknowledged that "We've solicited a lot of ideas from a lot of places." Trump's understanding of "regional dynamics" in the Middle East clearly manifests "a lot of ideas" from pro-Israel war hawks from the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Make no mistake, Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby exploit Trump and the GOP, as well as Clinton and the Democrats.

The fracture between the Trump and Clinton contingents of the pro-Israel Lobby is rooted in the personal predilections of their major American Jewish oligarch donors. Billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the Koch Brothers of the pro-Israel Lobby.

Both Adelson and Saban are staunch supporters of the Israeli military, vehemently opposed to the global BDS movement against Israeli apartheid, and obsessed about starting war with Iran.

When Adelson and Saban shared the stage at the Israeli American Council's inaugural conference in Washington, D.C. in 2014, Saban quipped, "There's no right or left when it comes to Israel". Despite their shared pro-Israel Lobby objectives, Adelson and Saban had a fracas in 2015 over political tactics.

The Republican Party and Democratic Party campaign platforms in 2016 reflected right and left pro-Israel Lobby orientations. Even the Sanders sheepdog campaign was a far-left pro-Israel Lobby iteration.

The Russia-gate conspiracy theory, eagerly promoted by both key right and left pro-Israel Lobby figures (including Jewish and Christian Zionists, as well as sheepdog Sanders), is partly an effort to distract attention from the pro-Israel Lobby meddling in American electoral politics and its pernicious influence on US foreign policy.

Trump's "foreign policy team", the Pompeo-Bolton axis and myriad minions, precisely represent the pro-Israel Lobby signature "toxic combination of neoconservatives, many drawn from the Heritage Foundation [and other decidedly pro-Israel policy think tanks], and evangelical Christians".

Trump surrounded himself with pro-Israel Lobby "foreign policy Manicheans" devoted to an aggressive, militaristic agenda aimed at "securing the realm" for Israel.

The results are entirely predictable.

The Trump administration's foreign policies are not so much "shambolic", "amateurish and discombobulated" as monomaniacally pro-Israel, no matter how much damage is done to key US interests.

michael , April 30, 2019 at 18:57

Blaming Trump for moving the Embassy to Jerusalem seems disingenuous since Congress passed a law moving the Embassy to Jerusalem in 1995 (the Senate voted (93–5), and the House voted (374–37 in favor of the move). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act Clinton started a charade, justified by "National Security" and signed a waiver every six months to stall the move; the game continued under Bush II and Obama and even Trump, his first turn. But then "on June 5, 2017, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of reunification of Jerusalem by 90-0. The resolution reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act and called upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions." Trump abided.

jessika , April 30, 2019 at 12:34

Absolutely JohnP is right, Kushner should be scrutinized for his pro-Israel positions. The ball should be on AIPAC and Israel but instead is on Russia even now. Trump is just the frontman for the activity of Adelson, Bibi, Bolton, Pompeo, Kushner: Bolton pushes for the neocons post Bush II; Pompeo for evangelicals in US who know nothing, as well as for neocons; Kushner for Israel Netanyahu politics. Trump is their foolish pawn. Iran is in crosshairs because of Israel.

dean 1000 , April 30, 2019 at 07:56

Trump got elected by running against the empire. What he is doing in the mid-east won't last. The demography and need for oil is against it. The birth pangs of a new mid-east started when Russia came to the aid of Syria. Does Bolton and Pompeo mean that Trump has been completely co-opted by the duopoly he ran against? His supporters say wait till 2020. Fat chance.

I agree with Joe Tedesky. Washington is going to sanction itself out of its empire. The end of empire is hardly the end of the US. The Brits didn't get single payer healthcare until the empire was gone. Will Washington make the same mistake?
A country the size of the US will not become obscure.

[May 05, 2019] The Zionists use the Hitler comparison routinely, but us goyim aren't supposed to do that.

May 05, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zachary Smith , May 5, 2019 1:30:33 PM | link

@ BM #15

Usually a search will turn up part or all the text of a paywalled article. In my opinion the original folks don't mind so long as only the "right" people know about the bypass.

Here is a quote from the Haartz piece:

Everything is completely disconnected from context and reality, intentionally and willfully. Half a week after Holocaust Remembrance Day, the knowledge that 2 million people have been locked up more than 12 years behind barbed wire in a giant cage doesn't remind Israel of anything and doesn't arouse anything. Half a week before Independence Day, the struggle for freedom and independence of another people is perceived as murderous terror for no reason.

Even the desperate attempt to prevent the brink of starvation is perceived as greed; the effort to somehow impart the appearance of a holiday in the holiest month of the year is depicted as extortion. That's how low the brainwashing goes and no one protests. Everyone accepts it with a shrug. Anyone who doubts how hollow and destructive the inculcation of the Holocaust is in Israel should look at the responses in Israel to this Gaza Ghetto Uprising. Anyone who ignores the reality in Gaza or tries to deny its disaster has learned nothing.

Note to the smug JoeG at #7: the Zionists use the Hitler comparison routinely, but us goyim aren't supposed to do that. Some of them are a bit contrite about it, but others wave it around and bray like the holy jackasses they really are.

Two rabbis at a pre-military religious academy in a West Bank settlement were recorded making derogatory and racist comments about Arabs, defending Adolf Hitler's worldview, and openly promoting Jewish supremacy.

In a series of undated recordings published by Channel 13 news on Monday, Rabbi Eliezer Kashtiel, the head of the Bnei David academy in Eli, can be heard calling for the enslavement of the "stupid and violent" non-Jews due to their genetic inferiority.

"The gentiles will want to be our slaves. Being a slave to a Jew is the best. They're glad to be slaves, they want to be slaves," he told a class in one of the video clips. "Instead of just walking the streets and being stupid and violent and harming each other, once they're slaves, their lives can begin to take shape."

Embracing racism, rabbis at pre-army yeshiva laud Hitler, urge enslaving Arabs

The Nazis were Aryan Supermen, and their Heirs in Holy Israel are 'Yahwehan' Supermen. Chosen, select, and all head-and-shoulders above the common drek.

Neither of these groups give a damn what anybody thinks about their self-declared Superhuman status. Who cares what subhumans think about anything?

What has troubled me is the way "Christians" have developed moral systems as flexible as a limp rope. They embrace Trump of the Seven Deadly Sins. His pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are OK, and he's their man!

Never mind that they have thrown every single teaching of Jesus into the trash bin. Their insane desire is to build a fire under the reluctant Jesus and get him back to Earth smashing all their enemies (including the Jews they pretend to love at the moment). In their fantasies they'll be the Numero Uno types, and for that destroying the Earth is well worth it. They'll become the Final Supermen, forever and ever and ever! We're in a hell of a mess, especially when the ignorant and indifferent Orange Potus has become the tool of such end-timers as Pompeo and Pence.

[May 05, 2019] Did Mueller substituted Russia for Israel in his report

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me). ..."
"... "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?" ..."
"... The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say. ..."
May 05, 2019 | www.unz.com

Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC) writes:

"I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind. Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy, arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country:

https://youtu.be/E96084YuYyE?t=812 .

His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me).

I don't know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I would have followed up with "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?"

"The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg's remark. He seemed to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It might be interesting to compare Trump's contacts with the Russians during the campaign with his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater significance. Certainly, Trump's acts as President would seem to indicate he's more Netanyahu's puppet than Putin's: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed doing in the Golan Heights!

"P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation."

Rational , says: May 1, 2019 at 5:02 pm GMT

THE WHOLE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A SCAM.

The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats, Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called contacts with Russians.

They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens before the election, so it is illegal.

What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?

They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was allegedly broken itself is illegal.

It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

This law is a joke, because Trump never “negotiated” with any foreign govt. on behalf of the USA, and Russia is not having a dispute with the USA.

Most importantly, the Logan Act is unconstitutional.

That is why nobody has been prosecuted under it–for decades!

So any American who posts on rt.com or on an Iranian website suggesting peace is technically violating the Logan Act.

Any newspapers that publishes articles about Iran or Russia or Syria and suggesting peace or war is technically violating the Logan Act.

So why are all they not in jail?

Because the Logan Act is unconstitutional and it violates the first amendment.

Go, say, “I will talk to the Russian govt. all I want and promote world peace.”

Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.

Rational , says: May 1, 2019 at 8:51 pm GMT
ADDENDUM: NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER THE LOGAN ACT.

This is stated in the wikipedia article I put the link for above.

In fact, the wikipedia article also talks about its unconstitutionality.

Sin City Milla , says: May 2, 2019 at 5:11 am GMT
@Rational

Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.

While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been ‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.

One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being ‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”

The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say.

[May 05, 2019] Countries the NYT cares about by Audacious Epigone

May 05, 2019 | www.unz.com

Thulean Friend , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:24 am GMT

I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that about many countries.

Israel arguably gets some amount of 'undue' coverage given its size and location, but it's not nearly as predominant as "ZOG"-types probably assume to be the case.

Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under what conditions . The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special treatment of Israel.

216 , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:59 am GMT
@Thulean Friend

the UK is the strongest ally of the US

Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc

Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so out of support for Assad.

The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.

mark green , says: May 1, 2019 at 5:21 am GMT
@Thulean Friend Israel gets by far the most coverage if one throws in these related terms: 'Holocaust' and 'anti-Semitism'.

These are just two of the political pillars which elevate the Zionist state's unique status in American life.

Audacious Epigone , says: Website May 1, 2019 at 7:51 pm GMT
@mark green Over the same time period, "Holocaust" gets 5,168 and "anti-Semitic" gets 2,187. If we add those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots, still behind Mexico.
Muggles , says: May 1, 2019 at 9:00 pm GMT
I suspect the high ranking for Russia is due to the NYT coverage of the Russia-gate hoax. Otherwise, who in Manhattan cares about Russia? (Okay, maybe in Brooklyn).

As for Israel, well, you know Probably ranks #1 if you do the list on a per capita basis.

This story would be more important if the NYT hadn't fallen into the Prog-Left black hole, where if you don't agree with their Party Line nothing in that paper makes any sense. And no intellectual illumination can escape.

mark green , says: May 2, 2019 at 4:35 am GMT
@Audacious Epigone I stand corrected. (But if you toss in 'Jewish' as well as 'anti-Semitic', that may put the Jewish state in first place).
Jack Highlands , says: May 2, 2019 at 2:30 pm GMT
As another has pointed out, a per capita analysis would shift Israel comfortably to the top. Sure, population is in a sense already factored into the question of what makes a country newsworthy, but every other country above Israel on the list has a far larger population, even Canada, which is also one of only two US border countries, of course. And all the Mid-East countries not far below Israel interest NYT readers primarily because of wars and enmities fomented by the 'Pow-ah Brokers' within their readership, if you get my drift. Much larger, wealthier and religiously more important Saudi Arabia is way down the list because they were comfortably sidelined with Judeo-Muslim values decades ago. (Right, Anthony and Huma?) I'd say the list substantially strengthens the case of us 'ZOG types', not weakens it.
Logan , says: May 2, 2019 at 3:57 pm GMT
@216 Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

Kind of depends on how you define democracy, doesn't it?

Ancient Athens is routinely classified as a democracy despite perhaps at most 30% of the adult population having the franchise.

Democracy is rule by the demos, so who you include and exclude from the demos is pretty important.

reiner Tor , says: May 2, 2019 at 4:59 pm GMT
@216

Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing

But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses, animals).

216 , says: May 2, 2019 at 5:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor The Arabs lost on the field of battle in 1948.

South Africa actually won on the battlefield in Angola, the ANC did not win a guerilla war, they won at the negotiating table.

[May 03, 2019] Trump lost anti-war right. Forever.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
May 03, 2019 | www.unz.com

Scalper , says: May 3, 2019 at 9:45 am GMT

@A123 You Trump shills are chutzpah personified:

The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S. became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/trump-syria-missiles-assad-chemical-weapons

Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.

The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom. Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a blatant lie.

Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/white-house-asked-pentagon-plans-strike-iran

Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war.

Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict

Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.

Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.

Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.

Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation.

Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.

Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.

Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.

Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.

Johnny Walker Read , says: May 3, 2019 at 1:20 pm GMT
@A123 Here's your numbers TROLL.

Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.

Here's more perspective:

The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year. The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.

Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.

We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia taking the lead) in Yemen.

Then there is Somalia:

In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S. intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned. Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its hands of the whole thing.

And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.

Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016 (themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.

And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest attention.

So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.

And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.

After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts, staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because, shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")

And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it regularly digests.

And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is way down:

As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively, Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.

U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change occurring since the start of the current decade.

Most interesting is this Gallup observation:

Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church, synagogue or mosque.

The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all contributing to the accelerating trend.

Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.

I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began in earnest.

Enter Donald Trump.

As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump. (Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)

So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance and church affiliation in U.S. history.

The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel, pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.

The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception. Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed; the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel. Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people (including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.

Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.

From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class; and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering nation.

Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists without becoming one himself.

After Trump finishes this term in office, two-thirds of this young century will have seen a "Christian" warmonger in the White House. It is no coincidence that during this same period of time, wars are way up and church attendance is way down.
https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3866/Americas-Wars-Are-Way-Up-Church-Attendance-Is-Way-Down.aspx

Anonymous [102] Disclaimer , says: May 3, 2019 at 1:23 pm GMT
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
Johnny Walker Read , says: May 3, 2019 at 1:36 pm GMT
America's foreign policy since the end of WWII. End of story.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/O66UKjCwmTw?feature=oembed

EliteCommInc. , says: May 3, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of torture by Democrats, and deep state."

When this president stated during the campaign,

that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway

that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what christianity means

when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition and supported him anyway

when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway

when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought nonsense and supported hum anyway

when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .

when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .

when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway, afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large scale strategies such as the US is engaged in

when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .

I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported him

There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .

And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the turn inward was dead.

Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers – that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at the border welcoming illegals . . .

If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand against it -- he chose an easier path.

And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to him.

I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held to blame for so much --

But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this occurred under this admin.

And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior -- – deep state my eye . . .

the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.

I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the US.

I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very little.

Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only consider your comments as an attempt at humor.

[May 03, 2019] President Donald Trump is a blind man being led by a guide dog -- Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu,

May 03, 2019 | www.unz.com

Charles Pewitt , says: May 3, 2019 at 3:22 pm GMT

The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is using the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel and to keep the dollar-based global financial system operating to their benefit.

Republican Party politician whores are led by the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative foreign policy faction and the Democrat Party is led by the Jew-controlled Humanitarian Interventionist Harpy foreign policy faction.

Debt-based fiat currency systems must always expand or they implode.

Empires must expand or they implode.

The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is stuck with a federal funds rate of 2.50 percent or so when the normal level is 6 percent.

Yellen was talking about 4 percent being the new normal level, but she was off by 1.5 percent.

Tweets from 2015:

anonymous [204] Disclaimer , says: May 3, 2019 at 6:32 pm GMT
Tucker Carlson is another charlatan who still refuse to hold the Jewish mafia servant, Trump, responsible for the massacre in Venezuela. He is trying to please both sides to collect his $$$.

He is complicit in Trumps' crimes against Venezuelan people. Trump is a terrorist and mass murderer who tried to assassinate Maduro few months ago unsuccessfully. This does not dilute the fact that TRUMP IS AN ASSASSIN. All these criminals must be arrested and put on trial to be executed, if not possible then people must assassinate these scums who have no shame to starve millions of people to death by violating international laws to grab their land and resources. The world cannot wait. Their complicit, like Tucker Carlson, should be exposed all over the world. We are fed up with these criminals who received $$$$$ for their lies, continue to help the criminals at the Pentagon and WH.

Those criminals who spread the lies that Venezuela is Maduro's fault. Carlson and other CHARLATANS refuse to see the role of the US criminals against Venezuelan people for over 20 years, attacking the population, country's infrastructure well being, economic system and engaging in assassination , staging riot using their traitor pawns in the country to topple a legitimate government in order to steal Venezuela's RESOURCES where pays for the liars like Carlson's salary to spread his propaganda. The US criminals who have assassinated many leaders to bring down the governments around the world should be assassinated themselves along with their propagandists.

You criminals have been exposed all over the world and soon should go into your graves, one by one. These criminals including trump and Carlson, hold Chavez responsible for the chaos in the country and now Maduro, but ignore the US criminals acts even assassination of the leaders.

Carlson should stop supporting the Jewish mafia illiterate and mass murderer Trump and shut up on blaming Maduro, a victim of US brutality and its complicit media like Carlson.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-apologizes-anti-semitic-cartoon/5676246

[President Donald Trump as a blind man being led by a guide dog with the face of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, identified by a star-of-David collar.]

[May 01, 2019] The president has said he doesn t want to see this country wrapped up in endless wars and I agree with that -- Bernie Sanders

Notable quotes:
"... In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020 ..."
"... If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become. ..."
"... Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command. ..."
"... Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. ..."
May 01, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

Originally from: Who Will Be the War Candidate in 2020? by Manuel E. Yepe

"The president has said he doesn't want to see this country wrapped up in endless wars and I agree with that," Bernie Sanders said to the Fox News audience last week at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Then, looking directly at the camera, he added: "Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia must not determine the military or foreign policy of this country."

Sanders was talking about a resolution on the War Powers Act that would put an end to U.S. involvement in the 5-year civil war in Yemen. This war has created one of the biggest humanitarian crises in the world of our time, with thousands of children dead in the middle of a cholera epidemic and famine.

Supported by a Democratic Party united in Congress, and an anti-interventionist faction of the Republican Party headed by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged the President to sign it, Trump vetoed the resolution, describing it as a "dangerous attempt to undermine my constitutional authority."

According to journalist Buchanan J. Buchanan, “with enough Republican votes in both chambers to resist Trump’s veto, this could have been the end of the matter; but it wasn’t. In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020.”

If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

In 2008, John McCain, hawk leader in the Senate, was defeated by the progressive Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the bellicose Hillary Clinton who had voted for authorizing the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who was much more aggressive than Obama in his approach to Russia lost.

However, in 2016, Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war, an anti-interventionist, and promising to get along with Russian Vladimir Putin and getting out of the Middle East wars.

None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become.

Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Trump has spoken of getting all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are still there.

Although Sanders supports Israel, he says he is looking for a two-state solution, and criticizes Netanyahu’s regime.

Trump came to power promising to get along with Moscow, but he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced the US withdrawal of the 1987 Treaty of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) subscribed by Ronald Reagan, who banned all ground-based nuclear intermediate range missiles.

When Putin sent a hundred Russian soldiers to Venezuela to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in the recent blackouts, Trump provocatively ordered the Russians to “get out” of the Bolivarian and Chavista country. According to Buchanan, the gravity center of U.S. policy is shifting towards Trump’s position in 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the Republican Party is growing.

The anti-interventionist wing of the Republican Party together with the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in Congress are capable — as they were War Powers Act resolution on Yemen– to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Buchanan predicts that in the 2020 primaries, foreign policy will be in the center and the Democratic Party would have captured the ground with the catchphrase “no more wars” that candidate Donald Trump exploited in 2016.

[May 01, 2019] The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead

May 01, 2019 | www.unz.com

anon [271] Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 11:23 am GMT

@Thulean Friend The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead.

MIGA!

[Apr 30, 2019] A neocon pretending to be a diplomat Pompeo trying to explain the difference between Israel annexation of Holan Heights and Crimea

Apr 30, 2019 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

Mao Cheng Ji says: April 25, 2019 at 3:01 pm

If you continue making outrageous false equivalence arguments, mister, you'll have have to spend time in a reeducation camp, I'm afraid.

It's been explained to you a million times already:

"Earlier, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the situation with recognizing Crimea as part of Russia differed from acknowledging Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

According to him, what US President Donald Trump did is to "recognize the reality on the ground." Pompeo stressed that Washington seeks to work on Middle East stability, noting that "America is a force for good in the region" and its intentions are noble."

[Apr 29, 2019] Some good advice

Apr 29, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

[Apr 29, 2019] Israel just wants instability for Syria and to deprive that state of the use of its own resources. It's just gangsterism, but America fully goes along

Apr 29, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

JOHN CHUCKMAN , April 26, 2019 at 12:14

Worth reading, as are most things Jonathan Cook writes.

But I'm not sure I accept his notion of The Lobby's hold in the United States weakening in any way. Yes, there finally are a few people in Congress who speak truth for the first time ever. But look at the choke-hold Israel has on the county, despite those minor influences. Many of Trump's most senior appointments are people serving Israeli interests to a record degree -- Bolton, Pompeo, Abrahams, Kushner, and others.

And look at the things, not his to legally dispose of at all, that Trump has "given" Israel. It's shocking, but there are almost no voices in the United States saying so.

And by all accounts, Trump's big "peace plan" could have been written by members of Netanyahu's staff. There is no pretense of working with two sides to solve a problem involving two sides.

We have matters like Trump's "Syria withdrawal" reduced to dust under Israeli influence, for there is no other serious known interest keeping American military, illegally, in northwestern Syria.

Israel just wants instability for Syria and to deprive that state of the use of its own resources. It's just gangsterism, but America fully goes along.

And the steady drumbeat against law-abiding Iran is becoming deafening.

There is only one interest pushing this pointlessly destructive policy, Israel with its intense desire to dominate its region and benefit from all the favor of the United States in doing so.

America's own long-term interests all dictate that it should work to establish good relations with Iran, a major and peaceful state with many things to offer in trade and friendship, but America cannot do so under Israel's withering influence. America just keeps flagellating itself to exhibit its reverence towards one small and extremely belligerent state.

Israel is under absolutely no threat from Iran. It's just empty rhetoric, an excuse for itself promoting threats and belligerence.

Imagine a non-nuclear state attacking a nuclear state such as Israel, one with a sizable arsenal? One, moreover, doubly protected by America's nuclear arsenal. It's a darkly laughable idea, but it is never laughed at by anyone in Washington, it is only ritualistically honored and repeated.

Israel's destructive viewpoint prevails in almost all important matters. Even much of America's intense Russophobia reflects stoking by Israeli interests. Israel simply views Russia, without saying so publicly, as a big stumbling block to the kind of American international dominance Israel would be very happy seeing.

There is not much to be hopeful about that I see. Perhaps, if Israel keeps so grotesquely over-playing its hand, there will be a backlash in the United States. But that's only a "perhaps." Americans, on the whole, just go right along with things, much resembling a herd of cattle quietly grazing in a pasture while just over the distant hills, vicious armies clash and threaten their future.

[Apr 29, 2019] UK Israel Lobby Adds Muscle as US Lobby Weakens Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... For decades it was all but taboo to suggest that pro-Israel lobbies in the United States such as AIPAC used their money and influence to keep lawmakers firmly in check on Israel-related issues -- even if one had to be blind not to notice that that was exactly what they were up to. When back in February U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar pointed out the obvious – that U.S. lawmakers were routinely expected to submit to the lobby's dictates on Israel, a foreign country – her colleagues clamored to distance themselves from her, just as one might have expected were the pro-Israel lobby to wield the very power Omar claimed ..."
"... Omar found herself in the firing line in February when she noted that what mattered in U.S. politics was "It's all about the Benjamins" – an apparent reference to the 1997 Puff Daddy song of the same name in which Benjamins refer to $100 bills. She later clarified that AIPAC leverages funds over congressional and presidential candidates. ..."
"... The claim that the pro-Israel lobby isn't really in the persuasion business can only be sustained on the preposterous basis that Israeli and U.S. interests are so in tune that AIPAC and other organizations serve as little more than cheerleaders for the two countries' "unbreakable bond." Presumably on this view, the enormous sums of money raised are needed only to fund the celebrations. ..."
"... Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a key backer of Republican candidates for the presidency, has never hidden his passion not only for Israel but specifically for the ultra-nationalist governments of Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... In fact, he is so committed to Netanyahu's survival that he spent nearly $200 million propping up an Israeli newspaper over its first seven years – all so he could assist the prime minister of a foreign country. ..."
"... Similarly, Haim Saban, one of the main donors to Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, has made no secret of his commitment to Israel. He has said : "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." ..."
"... This point really should be beyond doubt by now. This month The New York Times published an unprecedented essay in which author Nathan Thrall quoted political insiders and lobbyists making plain that, as one would expect, the pro-Israel lobby uses its money to pressure congressional candidates to toe the lobby's line on Israel. ..."
"... Ben Rhodes, a former confidant of Barack Obama, says the lobby effectively tied Obama's hand's domestically on efforts to promote peace. "The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the donor class," he told Thrall, adding: "The donor class is profoundly to the right of where the activists are, and frankly, where the majority of the Jewish community is." ..."
"... Joel Rubin, a former political director at lobby group J Street and a founding board member of the centrist Jewish Democratic Council of America, concurred: "The fight over Israel used to be about voters. It's more about donors now." ..."
"... For that reason, the U.S.-Cuban lobby has an obvious dual loyalty problem too. It's just that, given the Cuban lobby's priority is overthrowing the Cuban government – a desire shared in Washington – the issue is largely moot. ..."
"... Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – can be accused of dual loyalty too. They regard Israel's role in Biblical prophecy as far more important than the future of the U.S., or mankind for that matter. ..."
"... I'm often reminded of a scene in "The Brothers Karamotsov" where the lecherous old curmudgeon Karamotsov tells one of his sons about a former business associate – "I once played a dirty trick on that man, and I have hated him ever since." These are the terms of the relationship of AIPAC with the American people. ..."
"... I'm not sure I accept his notion of The Lobby's hold in the United States weakening in any way. Yes, there finally are a few people in Congress who speak truth for the first time ever. But look at the choke-hold Israel has on the county, despite those minor influences. Many of Trump's most senior appointments are people serving Israeli interests to a record degree – Bolton, Pompeo, Abrahams, Kushner, and others. ..."
"... And look at the things, not his to legally dispose of at all, that Trump has "given" Israel. It's shocking, but there are almost no voices in the United States saying so. ..."
"... And by all accounts, Trump's big "peace plan" could have been written by members of Netanyahu's staff. There is no pretense of working with two sides to solve a problem involving two sides. ..."
"... Gilens and Page in 2014 showed that the "ordinary citizen" in the USA had hardly any chance of getting legislation benefiting him or her, while the rich get many of the laws which help them. The laws are drafted by the lobbies-no surprise there. ..."
"... Israelis are themselves anti-semitic – toward the Palestinians, viewing them as inferior, speaking of them as "snakes," "vermin," (what on earth does this remind one of??) and treating them as lesser, unworthy beings. ..."
"... It is important, however, to recognize that the pro-Israel Lobby is not limited to what are conventionally described as "pro-Israel lobbyists". Significant elements of the pro-Israel Lobby thrive in plain sight and open publication, supported by generous attention from the media. In their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University addressed the "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction". ..."
"... Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority". ..."
"... Beyond the identified organizations (from AIPAC to J Street) and high-profile hyper-partisan individuals (from Adelson to Saban, from Graham to Lieberman, from Bolton to Pompeo, from Clinton to Trump), the pro-Israel Lobby "coalition" includes foreign policy think tanks, so-called "journalists", and purported "analysts" all vigorously promoted by media in the US and UK. ..."
Apr 29, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

UK Israel Lobby Adds Muscle as US Lobby Weakens April 25, 2019 • 38 Comments

British politics are being plunged into a stifling silence on the longest example of mass human rights abuses sanctioned by the West in modern history, writes Jonathan Cook.

By JonathanCook
Jonathan-Cook.net

For decades it was all but taboo to suggest that pro-Israel lobbies in the United States such as AIPAC used their money and influence to keep lawmakers firmly in check on Israel-related issues -- even if one had to be blind not to notice that that was exactly what they were up to. When back in February U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar pointed out the obvious – that U.S. lawmakers were routinely expected to submit to the lobby's dictates on Israel, a foreign country – her colleagues clamored to distance themselves from her, just as one might have expected were the pro-Israel lobby to wield the very power Omar claimed.

But surprisingly Omar did not – at least immediately – suffer the crushing fate of those who previously tried to raise this issue. Although she was pressured into apologizing , she was not battered into complete submission for her honesty.

She received support on social media, as well as a wavering, muted defense from Democratic grandee Nancy Pelosi, and even a relatively sympathetic hearing from a few prominent figures in the U.S. Jewish community.

The Benjamins Do Matter

Omar's comments have confronted – and started to expose – one of the most enduring absurdities in debates about U.S. politics. Traditionally it has been treated as anti-Semitic to argue that the pro-Israel lobby actually lobbies for its chosen cause – exactly as other major lobbies do, from the financial services industries to the health and gun lobbies – and that, as with other lobbies enjoying significant financial clout, it usually gets its way.

Omar found herself in the firing line in February when she noted that what mattered in U.S. politics was "It's all about the Benjamins" – an apparent reference to the 1997 Puff Daddy song of the same name in which Benjamins refer to $100 bills. She later clarified that AIPAC leverages funds over congressional and presidential candidates.

The claim that the pro-Israel lobby isn't really in the persuasion business can only be sustained on the preposterous basis that Israeli and U.S. interests are so in tune that AIPAC and other organizations serve as little more than cheerleaders for the two countries' "unbreakable bond." Presumably on this view, the enormous sums of money raised are needed only to fund the celebrations.

Making the irrefutable observation that the pro-Israel lobby does actually lobby on Israel's behalf, and very successfully, is typically denounced as anti-Semitism. Omar's comments were perceived as anti-Semitic on the grounds that she pointed to the canard that Jews wield outsized influence using money to sway policymaking.

Allegations of anti-Semitism against her deepened days later when she gave a talk in Washington, D.C., and questioned why it was that she could talk about the influence of the National Rifle Association and Big Pharma but not the pro-Israel lobby – or "the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

That pro-Israel lobbyists – as opposed to Jews generally – do have dual loyalty seems a peculiar thing to deny, given that the purpose of groups like AIPAC is to rally support for Israel in Congress.

Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a key backer of Republican candidates for the presidency, has never hidden his passion not only for Israel but specifically for the ultra-nationalist governments of Benjamin Netanyahu.

In fact, he is so committed to Netanyahu's survival that he spent nearly $200 million propping up an Israeli newspaper over its first seven years – all so he could assist the prime minister of a foreign country.

Similarly, Haim Saban, one of the main donors to Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, has made no secret of his commitment to Israel. He has said : "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

Saban honors U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at Brooking Institution's 2016 Saban Forum. (State Department via Wikimedia Commons)

Might Saban and Adelson's "Benjamins" have influenced the very pro-Israel – and very anti-Palestinian – positions of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates? You would have to be supremely naïve or dishonest to claim not.

'No Bernie-Like Approach'

This point really should be beyond doubt by now. This month The New York Times published an unprecedented essay in which author Nathan Thrall quoted political insiders and lobbyists making plain that, as one would expect, the pro-Israel lobby uses its money to pressure congressional candidates to toe the lobby's line on Israel.

Some of the lobby's power operates at the level of assumption about what Jewish donors expect in return for their money. According to the Times , some three-quarters of all donations over $500,000 to the major political action committee supporting Democratic nominees for the U.S. Senate race in 2018 were made by Jews.

Though many of those donors may not rate Israel as their main cause, a former Clinton campaign aide noted that the recipients of this largesse necessarily tailor their foreign policy positions so as not to antagonize such donors. As a result, candidates avoid even the mild criticism of Israel adopted by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Democratic party's challenger to Clinton in the 2016 presidential race and a primary contender for 2020.

"There's no major donor that I can think of who is looking for someone to take a Bernie-like approach," said the aide. Sanders raised his campaign funds from small donations rather these major funders, leaving him freer to speak openly about Israel.

Other insiders are more explicit still. Ben Rhodes, a former confidant of Barack Obama, says the lobby effectively tied Obama's hand's domestically on efforts to promote peace. "The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the donor class," he told Thrall, adding: "The donor class is profoundly to the right of where the activists are, and frankly, where the majority of the Jewish community is."

Obama: Hands tied by AIPAC.

Joel Rubin, a former political director at lobby group J Street and a founding board member of the centrist Jewish Democratic Council of America, concurred: "The fight over Israel used to be about voters. It's more about donors now."

All of these insiders are stating that the expectations of major donors align candidates' U.S. foreign policy positions with Israel's interests, not necessarily those of the U.S. It is hard not to interpret that as reformulation of "dual loyalty."

What's so significant about the Times article is that it signals, as did the muted furor over Omar's comments, that the pro-Israel lobby is weakening. No powerful lobby, including the Israel one, wants to be forced out of the shadows. It wants to remain in the darkness, where it can most comfortably exercise its influence without scrutiny or criticism.

The pro-Israel lobby's loyalty to Israel is no longer unmentionable. But it is also not unique.

As Mondoweiss recently noted, Hannah Arendt, the Jewish scholar and fugitive from Nazi Germany, pointed to the inevitability of the "double loyalty conflict" in her 1944 essay "Zionism Reconsidered," where she foreshadowed the rise of a pro-Israel lobby and its potential negative impacts on American Jews. It was, she wrote , "an unavoidable problem of every national movement of a people living within the boundaries of other states and unwilling to resign their civil and political rights therein."

For that reason, the U.S.-Cuban lobby has an obvious dual loyalty problem too. It's just that, given the Cuban lobby's priority is overthrowing the Cuban government – a desire shared in Washington – the issue is largely moot.

In Israel's case, however, there is a big and growing gap between image and reality. On the one hand, Washington professes a commitment to peace-making and a promise to act as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. And on the other, the reality is it has offered full-throated support for a series of ultra-nationalist Israeli governments determined to destroy any hope of peace and swallow up the last vestiges of a potential Palestinian state.

The Lord's Work

It's important to point out that advocates for Israel are not only Jews. While the pro-Israel lobby represents the views of a proportion of Jewish Americans, it is also significantly comprised of Christians, evangelicals in particular.

Millions of these Christians – including Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – can be accused of dual loyalty too. They regard Israel's role in Biblical prophecy as far more important than the future of the U.S., or mankind for that matter.

For many of these evangelicals, bringing about the end of the world by ensuring Jews return to their Biblical homeland – triggering a final reckoning at the Battle of Armageddon – is the fulfillment of God's will. And if it's a choice between support for Washington's largely secular elites and support for God, they know very definitely where they stand.

Again, the Times has started to shine a light on the strange role of Israel in the U.S. political constellation. Another recent article reminded readers that in 2015 Pompeo spoke of the end-times struggle phrophesied to take place in Israel, or what is often termed by evangelicals as "The Rapture." He said : "We will continue to fight these battles."

During his visit last month to Israel, he announced that the Trump administration's work was "to make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state, remains. I am confident that the Lord is at work here."

... ... ...

Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist based in Nazareth. He blogs at Jonathan Cook.net .


vinnieoh , April 27, 2019 at 10:57

I'm often reminded of a scene in "The Brothers Karamotsov" where the lecherous old curmudgeon Karamotsov tells one of his sons about a former business associate – "I once played a dirty trick on that man, and I have hated him ever since." These are the terms of the relationship of AIPAC with the American people.

But please let us all remember that all Jews are not racists, and neither are all Israelis. The same power relationships as hold sway here in the US – any dissenting voices, whether they are majority or not, are ignored, vilified, and harassed. Also, the stifling propaganda and fear-mongering in Israel is identical to that in the US, but on steroids.

I only have broadcast TV, not cable or satellite, so I don't know if those platforms are running the ads I'm seeing on broadcast. For many months now the "American Alliance of Christians and Jews" have been airing lengthy ads begging for money for the poor elderly forgotten Jewish Holocaust survivors in Europe. More recently they've been airing similarly lengthy ads begging for money for the poor beleaguered Jewish residents of Israel, "who desperately need our help" because the fine upstanding Israeli government has its hands full defending the realm against all of Israel's wicked enemies, and they will not or can not take care of their own poor.

These ads make me physically ill. Where is Sheldon Adelson and all his billions, or Saban or Lieberman, or Schumer and Mendez, or a whole long list of wealthy Jews that could alleviate this "suffering"? Where are all the US tax billions already given to Israel, oh wait, that was for arms and munitions to "Secure the Realm." What about the trillion (at least) and counting (again, of the US tax tithe) expended to pummel into failed states Israel's neighbors in that same effort? What about the several thousand US service personnel that have died for the cause of Israeli expansionism? Or the tens of thousands of wounded and disabled that the US public will be paying for, for decades? If a loved one returns from these wars for Zionist aggression, ETS's, and then takes their own life, their abused remains should likewise be laid at Netanyahu's and AIPAC's doorstep. Not that they would care; they'd probably just snicker and go through their pockets.

The "success" of those ads is probably not measured in how much pension or SS money they can fleece from aging Christian marks, but in whatever sympathy they might be able to grass-roots generate, should any more in the halls of Imperial power even slightly break ranks. AIPAC and the fanatical right in Israel have no morals, ethics, principles or humanity. For these they have substituted purpose: eliminate all those that would stand against them, in any capacity and on any front, by whatever means necessary, and to whatever end.

Should the propaganda fail to keep the fleas close to its mangy hide, as the tail wags the dog, expect more active measures to be deployed.

SRH , April 28, 2019 at 05:12

"all Jews are not racists"

In this case, I don't think I'm being a grammar pedant in pointing out that the position of 'not' in your sentence changes the meaning significantly. I suspect you meant, "not all Jews are racists".

vinnieoh , April 28, 2019 at 12:43

SRH: I regret that whole post, and spent a miserable evening reflecting on what I had said. I don't mean to say that I didn't honestly express my feelings, but rather if it was wise, or helpful, or responsible to go on such a rant. And to take a cheap shot, which absolutely reinforces a trope that is despicable and fundamental to "Jew hatred." Especially in light of another attack on another synagogue.

The article was about hard right Israeli machinations in UK and US politics and consent manufacturing. So, left out of this context is the fact that the US destruction of the greater ME is also in coordination with Saudi wishes. They wanted Sadam gone just as much as the Israelis, and are equally united in their desire to crush Iran. While Jewish-Israeli motivations are complicated, the Saudi's motivations are not. I'll just leave it at that. Been struggling of late, and should just have kept my fingers off the keyboard.

Monte George Jr. , April 28, 2019 at 17:19

vinnieoh – never a need to apologize for speaking the truth. More of that is needed, not less.

Alois Mueller , April 27, 2019 at 04:13

Who really controlles the USA:

From the mouth of Netanjahu in his "Invective speach in Finks Bar" 1990:

"If we are caught, we are only replaced by persons of the same kind. So do not be interested in what you are doing. America is a golden calf, and we will suck it, chop and sell it bit by bit until there is nothing left but the greatest welfare state in the world that we create and control. Why? Because that is the will of God and America is big enough to cope with the blow and we can do it again and again. This is what we do to the countries we hate. We are destroying them very slowly and let them suffer for refusing to be our slaves. "(Credit to the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States Department of Defense)

Jeff Harrison , April 26, 2019 at 12:57

Excellent piece Mr. Cook. A couple of observations. One, using the term Benjamins to refer to $100 bills is quite a bit older than you realize. Bing Crosby and Mildred Bailey were using it in the 30's. Two, of course the Israeli's are racists. The Jews are the descendants of a couple of tribes in the Middle East. As they have said many times – God's chosen people. Everybody else is a child of a lesser God.

SRH , April 28, 2019 at 05:16

Yes. Although, as I pointed out above, not all Israeli Jews are racist. The Old Testament gives explicit authority for the Children of Israel to regard the inhabitants of Canaan as lesser human beings because of their worshipping other gods and therefore to be killed to allow the Children to take over their land. That is, in essence, the basis for the Israeli government's claim to sole ownership of the land of Israel today. Is there another basis?

M Awan , April 28, 2019 at 19:18

At least the pioneers of Zionism didn't think so. These pioneers of Zionism were crystal clear they were going to colonise Palestine and converting it from an Arab country to a Jewish majority country. They also predicted that native Palestinians will resist to the end. Look at these historic quotes from the Iron Wall written by Za'ev Jabotinski in 1923:

"The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."

"Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators."

" Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised." – http://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf

"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority." – http://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf

Similarly, the father of Zionism Theodore Herzel wrote in his diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly " – The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl', vol. 1 (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), pp. 88, 90 hereafter Herzl diaries.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , April 26, 2019 at 12:14

Worth reading, as are most things Jonathan Cook writes.

But I'm not sure I accept his notion of The Lobby's hold in the United States weakening in any way. Yes, there finally are a few people in Congress who speak truth for the first time ever. But look at the choke-hold Israel has on the county, despite those minor influences. Many of Trump's most senior appointments are people serving Israeli interests to a record degree – Bolton, Pompeo, Abrahams, Kushner, and others.

And look at the things, not his to legally dispose of at all, that Trump has "given" Israel. It's shocking, but there are almost no voices in the United States saying so.

And by all accounts, Trump's big "peace plan" could have been written by members of Netanyahu's staff. There is no pretense of working with two sides to solve a problem involving two sides.

We have matters like Trump's "Syria withdrawal" reduced to dust under Israeli influence, for there is no other serious known interest keeping American military, illegally, in northwestern Syria.

Israel just wants instability for Syria and to deprive that state of the use of its own resources. It's just gangsterism, but America fully goes along.

And the steady drumbeat against law-abiding Iran is becoming deafening.

There is only one interest pushing this pointlessly destructive policy, Israel with its intense desire to dominate its region and benefit from all the favor of the United States in doing so.

America's own long-term interests all dictate that it should work to establish good relations with Iran, a major and peaceful state with many things to offer in trade and friendship, but America cannot do so under Israel's withering influence. America just keeps flagellating itself to exhibit its reverence towards one small and extremely belligerent state.

Israel is under absolutely no threat from Iran. It's just empty rhetoric, an excuse for itself promoting threats and belligerence.

Imagine a non-nuclear state attacking a nuclear state such as Israel, one with a sizable arsenal? One, moreover, doubly protected by America's nuclear arsenal. It's a darkly laughable idea, but it is never laughed at by anyone in Washington, it is only ritualistically honored and repeated.

Israel's destructive viewpoint prevails in almost all important matters. Even much of America's intense Russophobia reflects stoking by Israeli interests. Israel simply views Russia, without saying so publicly, as a big stumbling block to the kind of American international dominance Israel would be very happy seeing.

There is not much to be hopeful about that I see. Perhaps, if Israel keeps so grotesquely over-playing its hand, there will be a backlash in the United States. But that's only a "perhaps." Americans, on the whole, just go right along with things, much resembling a herd of cattle quietly grazing in a pasture while just over the distant hills, vicious armies clash and threaten their future.

Garrett Connelly , April 26, 2019 at 11:54

My eyes grew exhausted reading the small grey text used for comments. Regrettably, I was unable to read them all.

It seems to me the crux of the problem for Jews is evolution accelerating at an accelerating rate. It is difficult enough for all of us to keep up under the obfuscation of national elite but Jews seem doubly veiled as they attempt to make sense of the real world, where we are all cosmic powered biology manifest as human.

JoeB , April 26, 2019 at 10:49

Excellent article. Considering the reams of work on the subject matter, exposing the zionist/pro-israel intentions and machinations, the guilty parties still look you in the eye and tell you that you are crazy; such is the chutzpah, if you will, of these people and their malfeasance. The smear campaigns are still as strong as the bribery, er, donation campaigns. Yet, the morning veil of morning cloudiness of the concerned eye might be clearing. Props to Omar for bringing this to the forefront (for now). Personally, I have not yet dismissed her presence as one of controlled opposition; this is a very clever, sneaky, nefarious lot that we are dealing with.

mike k , April 26, 2019 at 07:51

All of this pro Israel conspiracy is totally obvious to anyone not wearing thick blinders to reality.

Camber Jo Bentwagon , April 25, 2019 at 23:53

Really interesting and informative article.

One thing I was reminded of reading through the Christian evangelical motivations for supporting Israel–they have the same goal as ISIS: Judgement Day and victory for their side over the other. And both only want Jews to exist as long as it means their nihilistic prophecies come true. At that point both would like all Jews to be killed or go to Hell, or wander the earth in pain after the Apocalypse.

For Israel, that at least assures survival for the moment. Neither ISIS nor Christians want Jews to be exterminated (or moved away from their current ideal place), at least not until their super sky heroes are ready for the final battle.

SRH , April 28, 2019 at 05:22

I'm an atheist who was brought up as an evangelical Christian in a church that preached about the Rapture and such like. It seems incredible to me now that I believed what you write, but I and many others in that church in northern England did (and probably they still do) in complete seriousness, as much as we believed in the reality of anything we could see and touch. These dangerously foolish delusions of God's judgement need to be shown for what they are.

rosemerry , April 26, 2019 at 17:35

As a non-American, I am disgusted by the whole "election" fantasy paid for by people with an axe to grind, with no democratic input at all. Benjamins, Sabin, Adelson, Koch Bros, MIC,fossil fuels lobby, NRA-how can any of this find a real leader?

Gilens and Page in 2014 showed that the "ordinary citizen" in the USA had hardly any chance of getting legislation benefiting him or her, while the rich get many of the laws which help them. The laws are drafted by the lobbies-no surprise there.

Tiu , April 27, 2019 at 07:01

I had to chuckle at the concept of "democratic input". With the exception of perhaps Iceland, all other so-called "democracies" are in fact kakistocracies, with the US being the biggest kakistocracy of the lot.

Jacob , April 25, 2019 at 19:50

One sided, biased propaganda. So according to the author, Israelis are racist and evil, and Palestinians are angels. While Palestinian terrorists organizations have killed Israeli civilians, including children, kidnapped Israeli planes, carried out attacks against Israeli national sports team, murdered rabbis and synagogues, etc.

But the worst thing, that killers of Jews are considered "heroes" among the Palestinians. They name streets after them, glorify them in their history books.
But the author chooses to fully blame and dehumanize one side, completely ignoring crimes of the other.

With that approach, Israelis will continue to vote right because they feel that the world is holding a prejudice against them and won't like them – and they are completely true

Nathan Mulcahy , April 26, 2019 at 03:23

The Israel is indeed a racist, apartheid state that illegally occupies native Palestinian land and continues to displace native people to create a greater Israel. That makes it a colonial state as well.

Native Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, are fighting against for their occupier and oppressed. I don't consider them to be angels – but just human beings.

If anybody thinks that I am an antisemite then it is his/her problem.

JW , April 26, 2019 at 05:30

One sided, biased propaganda. So according to the author, Palestinians are racist and evil, and Israelis are angels. While Zionist terrorists organizations have killed Palestinian civilians, including children, carried out attacks against Israeli Palestinian athletes, murdered imams and mosques, etc.
But the worst thing, that killers of Palestinians are considered "heroes" among the Jews. They name streets after them, glorify them in their history books.
But the author chooses to fully blame and dehumanize one side, completely ignoring crimes of the other.

Get a life.

Sam F , April 26, 2019 at 06:44

No, Jacob, those wrongs are inevitable responses to mass discrimination and wrongdoing by the zionists. Tribalists always pretend that the wrongs they deliberately provoke were unprovoked, the oldest lie in history. While there is always some tribalist wrongdoing in response to tribalist aggression, it does not excuse the aggression, and it is inevitable.

The answer is in seeking peace and justice for all, which is not within the capacity of radicalized factions. External peacemaking force is necessary. The zionists are such extremely selfish and racist tribal tyrants, conspiring to control US policy, that they have prevented the US and the UN from working for justice in the ME. They are the initial and primary causes of the problem, not the sole cause. They have destroyed democracy in the US, and should be recognized as enemies of their tribe, and enemies of humanity, like all tyrants. Working together without tribal loyalties, we can achieve justice for all.

Skip Scott , April 26, 2019 at 11:49

Great reply, Sam. The notion of separation of Church and State is one of our fundamental principals, as is equal justice under the Law. Both are anathema to the State of Israel as it exists today. To expect that some Palestinians will not respond in kind to the violence that is visited upon them daily by the IDF is unrealistic. Jacob seeks to blame the victim.

Sam F , April 27, 2019 at 16:14

Good points. We should consider amendments to the Constitution prohibiting most interactions with countries that do not implement those principles.

AnneR , April 26, 2019 at 09:47

Could you explain how a people – deliberately, violently thrown off their land and out of their homes by well armed forces in order for the religious compatriots of those armed forces could grab said lands and homes – should behave toward such an colonizing, ethnically cleansing invasion? By meekly bowing before their conquerors and permanently disappearing from view?

Could explain how a people, deprived of their rightful homes and lands by this invading religiously linked other people, should react to the military forces of the invaders (the real terrorists) when the ethnically cleansed people do NOT have an air force, an army, a navy because they have been prevented, at every turn from either establishing their own state (i.e. Palestine – all of it) from the British Mandate onward, or even a tiny statelet along side its former homeland "Israel"?

Could you explain the equivalence of the small, home-made rockets fired from Gaza (the world's largest prison) – barely more than fireworks – which have yet to kill more than a handful of people in toto are the equivalent of the bombs (including white phosphorus ones) dropped by the Israeli (terrorist) airforce, from heights that none of those home-made rockets could reach, in terror, death and injury and destruction tolls?

Perhaps you could explain the equivalence of stone-throwing by children to IDF snipers using high-powered rifles stood well away from any danger (from those stones) in terms of injuries and death tolls?

So – the Palestinians have (the Intifadas) used suicide bombings. Who in their position would not? And indeed international law is in fact on their side.

Palestinians have the right to return to their homes, their lands stolen brutally from them by the present residents of Palestine (called Israel). Palestinians have the right to be treated equally, in every way, with Israeli Jews.

Anti-semitism is, like racism more generally, an ugly tribal viewpoint, often leading to even uglier actions. Israelis are themselves anti-semitic – toward the Palestinians, viewing them as inferior, speaking of them as "snakes," "vermin," (what on earth does this remind one of??) and treating them as lesser, unworthy beings.

Dr. Ip , April 26, 2019 at 12:42

Sorry Jaakov, but you interpret incorrectly.

No one is saying bad things about Jews here, it's the politicians and their policies that are being shown to be unfair. If you can remember that when Israel began to be populated by exiles from Europe and other places around the world after the Holocaust, it was a socialist in its policies, like the Kibbutzim, which began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. Only later, as the politics went further and further toward the right, as politics have done also in the USA and now slowly in Europe as well, did things change drastically from socialism to anti-social. The wars did not help of course, but no nation anywhere near Israel can possibly be an existential threat to the country, especially since its nuclear arsenal is many times greater than that of Pakistan and India.

And now, to have a working relationship with the head-choppers from Saudi Arabia and to give shelter to Daesh is really not acceptable policy.

The most dedicated humanitarians in history have to a great extend been Jewish. The greatest philosophers (Baruch Spinoza is one my personal favorites) as well. Look up the names.

Don't let your fear and anger cloud your mind to the validity of the path toward peace and well-being for humanity.

rosemerry , April 26, 2019 at 17:39

Poor Jacob. All the usual "arguments" you have been fed, because here you do NOT have the overwhelming support of the MSM in every other place you look. Look up some of the figures of the killings by Palestinians compared with the Israeli murders if you have any interest in truth.

Tiu , April 27, 2019 at 07:07

No Jacob, the Israelis are racist and evil because of their collective actions and government policies, not because the author says so.

mark , April 27, 2019 at 17:36

The ratio of Zionist to Palestinian terror, of Zionist to Palestinian murders, is of the order of 1,000 to 1. IDF kiddie killers are currently gunning down hundreds of Palestinian kids in Gaza with British sniper rifles and dum dum bullets.

Killers of Arabs, like Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 37 worshippers in a mosque, are turned into national heroes and their graves into shrines, with people naming children after him. And lionising the settler thugs who kidnap and burn to death young Palestinian children, with gangs of Zionist filth taunting the bereaved families about the "barbecue." Or the Zionist families taking picnics to watch all the fun of the latest Warsaw Ghetto style pogrom in Gaza. Say what you like about the Nazis, but you didn't get German families having weekend picnics to watch the gassings at Auschwitz.

Bob , April 25, 2019 at 19:22

Though hand join in hand . The wicked shall not be unpunished. Bible says?

Sam F , April 25, 2019 at 19:10

Compliments to Mr. Cook, who has written very well on this. But note that:
1. No argument is made that the US Israel lobby is weakening;
2. Evangelical politicians do not have biblical beliefs or any other values: they are purely tribal opportunists seeking money and power.

The fact that "three-quarters of all donations over $500,000 to Democratic nominees were made by Jews" shows that zionism is not weakening. Very likely most of that was fed back directly or indirectly from US "aid" to Israel.

However humanity is divided into national/ethnic/religious tribes, the development of economic and social dependency upon the tribe makes its members fear to criticize tribal leaders. That is the opportunity sought by tyrants, who invent enemies of the tribe to demand power as false protectors, and to accuse their opponents of disloyalty. Zionism adds the opportunity for tyrants of all groups to profit as they demonize to gain power.

Abe , April 25, 2019 at 18:52

Jonathan Cook notes that "Lobbies of all kinds thrive in the dark, growing more powerful and less accountable when they are out of view and immune from scrutiny."

It is important, however, to recognize that the pro-Israel Lobby is not limited to what are conventionally described as "pro-Israel lobbyists". Significant elements of the pro-Israel Lobby thrive in plain sight and open publication, supported by generous attention from the media. In their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University addressed the "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction".

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority".

Beyond the identified organizations (from AIPAC to J Street) and high-profile hyper-partisan individuals (from Adelson to Saban, from Graham to Lieberman, from Bolton to Pompeo, from Clinton to Trump), the pro-Israel Lobby "coalition" includes foreign policy think tanks, so-called "journalists", and purported "analysts" all vigorously promoted by media in the US and UK.

Hasbara propaganda 'splainers' try to deflect attention from pro-Israel Lobby agency and obfuscate the question of cui bono by screaming about "anti-Semitism" (conventional Hasbara), posting fake anti-Semitic rants (inverted Hasbara), or griping about "mono-causality".

In the US, "Russia-gate" is a major deflection/obfuscation operation to re-direct attention from pro-Israel Lobby influence/Israeli interference in the 2016 elections.

Escalating US-Saudi-Israeli Axis aggression involves a complex interplay of sometimes contradictory political forces, including waning US economic and military dominance.

Nevertheless, the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, and its counterpart in the UK, continue to play a primary role in the perpetual drive to war in the Middle East.

Regardless of the degree to which certain lobby organizations have been "weakened" by the infrequent "nod to truth", the pro-Israel Lobby occupation of the Trump war cabinet, and its UK counterpart, must not remain "immune from scrutiny" if the next catastrophic war is to be averted.

There is no further need for "debate". The pernicious influence of the pro-Israel Lobby in the US and UK has been sufficiently verified.

What is immediately required is vigorous exposure of the pro-Israel Lobby by what remains of true independent critical journalism in the west. 'Cause we're sure not gonna to get any from the "First Draft" war propaganda coalition.

[Apr 29, 2019] Is Annexing the West Bank a 'Moral Right' by Paul Gottfried

Note an interesting statement of a pro-Isreally lobbyist: "Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected." ~ by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. If this not a descript on neofascist mentality I do not know what is. just replace Jewish with German.
You will get "German exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of German civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for German civilization is good for humanity at large. German civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected."
Notable quotes:
"... In his essay, Hill insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should faithfully keep his campaign promise to incorporate West Bank settlements. In fact, according to Hill, the Israeli leader has a "moral right to annex all of the West Bank for a plethora of reasons." ..."
"... First, the Israelis were too "altruistic" in dealing with the Palestinians whom they conquered in 1967. It would been better if the Israelis had regarded the Palestinians as "enemies of the state ..."
"... Second, he implies that Palestinian authority doesn't deserve any better ..."
"... "Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected." ..."
"... Third, Israel has "every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires." On top of that, the United States is morally obligated to pay "political and financial reparations" to Israel, supplying it with "more advanced military capabilities" so that it can maintain its "unrivaled military status in the Middle East." ..."
"... Finally, Hill solemnly arrives at his last point. The Palestinians have no moral authority "because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic principles of individual rights, and a free market economy." ..."
"... Hill's extravagant description of "Jewish civilization" in language that recalls the extreme, belligerent nationalists of an earlier age ..."
"... Finally, I'm wondering whether any government that Hill judges to be "better" than another one has a moral right to overthrow the offending regime and then expel its inhabitants. Or is this a one-time deal only for Israelis? By the way, "reparations" are the things that the Germans paid Nazi victims, not the support a nation gives to a weaker ally. Perhaps Hill is telling us more about what should be the servile U.S. relationship to Israel than he intends. ..."
"... This commentary has made me think of an unpleasant experience in my own life. In 1987 I lost the chance for a graduate professorship at a large university in Washington, D.C. after several noted neoconservatives called my prospective employer and insisted passionately that "I was not quite reliable on Israel." If Professor Hill has established the standard of who is "reliable on Israel," then perhaps my accusers were correct. ..."
Apr 29, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
published an opinion piece by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. As I read this commentary, I had to wonder whether it was some kind of spoof. It seems to have been written to poke fun at over-the-top Zionists; and this may indeed be the case -- or so one can hope.

In his essay, Hill insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should faithfully keep his campaign promise to incorporate West Bank settlements. In fact, according to Hill, the Israeli leader has a "moral right to annex all of the West Bank for a plethora of reasons."

This "plethora of reasons" comes down basically to four.

First, the Israelis were too "altruistic" in dealing with the Palestinians whom they conquered in 1967. It would been better if the Israelis had regarded the Palestinians as "enemies of the state : supporters of the Fatah (Palestinian Liberation Organization) Charter, which basically calls for the end of Jewry in the region." Jewish conquerors should have immediately annexed the land and made "the people there [who should have been expelled] the responsibility of their original homeland: Jordan."

Second, he implies that Palestinian authority doesn't deserve any better , in part because it fails to recognize the inherent inferiority of their people in relation to the Jewish masters of the West Bank: "Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected."

Third, Israel has "every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires." On top of that, the United States is morally obligated to pay "political and financial reparations" to Israel, supplying it with "more advanced military capabilities" so that it can maintain its "unrivaled military status in the Middle East."

Finally, Hill solemnly arrives at his last point. The Palestinians have no moral authority "because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic principles of individual rights, and a free market economy." Additionally, they vote for terrorist organizations like Hamas to represent them. In short, they are a "security threat to Israel because a core feature of their identity is a commitment to destroying Israel as a Jewish state." It is therefore immoral to accept "anti-Semitics devoted to the destruction of Israel into the domain of Jewish civilization."

Hill does make two serious points: one, that Israelis face an immense security problem and two, that the Palestinians on the West Bank (and let's not forget Gaza) are angry because of both the cramped conditions and military control/occupation they've had to endure for decades. Right and wrong can be found on both sides of this protracted conflict: Palestinians were defeated and expelled from what is now Israel, while Israelis are being threatened by violence from the descendants of those whom they defeated and their terrorist allies.

But Hill's extravagant description of "Jewish civilization" in language that recalls the extreme, belligerent nationalists of an earlier age does nothing to help his cause, nor for that matter, the credibility of The Federalist. And why exactly should I suppose that every Palestinian is a terrorist or theocratic fanatic? Understandably, desperate people vote for extremist parties. I too wish that West Bank Palestinians were more reasonable and more compromising but I can understand their frustration as an occupied population.

Finally, I'm wondering whether any government that Hill judges to be "better" than another one has a moral right to overthrow the offending regime and then expel its inhabitants. Or is this a one-time deal only for Israelis? By the way, "reparations" are the things that the Germans paid Nazi victims, not the support a nation gives to a weaker ally. Perhaps Hill is telling us more about what should be the servile U.S. relationship to Israel than he intends.

But the most childish piece of advice Hill offers, which the Israelis fortunately never took, is sending West Bank Palestinians to neighboring Jordan. Is Hill aware that Jordan has over two million Palestinians , some of whom have been there since 1948, and has taken in a total of 657,628 Syrian refugees as of early 2018 ? King Abdullah of Jordan has maintained generally friendly relations with both the United States and Israel, and the last thing he needs is the turmoil and political unrest that would result from sticking more irate Palestinians, who had been kicked out of their homes, into his country.

This commentary has made me think of an unpleasant experience in my own life. In 1987 I lost the chance for a graduate professorship at a large university in Washington, D.C. after several noted neoconservatives called my prospective employer and insisted passionately that "I was not quite reliable on Israel." If Professor Hill has established the standard of who is "reliable on Israel," then perhaps my accusers were correct.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .

See also

[Apr 28, 2019] The Real Men Go to Tehran delusion

Apr 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Apr 28, 2019 3:54:57 AM | link

Considering that this 'study' is an overblown version of the Real Men Go to Tehran delusion (which is STILL in the pondering phase) it's hard to ignore the trepidation revealed in an assessment divided into pseudo business-like categories of...

1. Likelihood of Success
2. Benefits
3. Costs & Risks

...when there are sufficient unresolved uncertainties to be fine-tuned to keep this plan bogged down in the pondering phase for even longer than the unconsummated Real Men Go To Iran nothing-burger.

[Apr 28, 2019] I found the photo of Fred Trump gifting New York real estate for a Torah study center particularly interesting as good Lutherans do that with such regularity.

Apr 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Madrone , Apr 28, 2019 10:22:00 AM | link

Wake up, the Trump (Drumpf) family are crypto Jews, Drumpf women have been marrying Jews for generations. Well worth your time to read Miles Mathis on the family history, I found the photo of Fred Trump gifting New York real estate for a Torah study center particularly interesting as good Lutherans do that with such regularity.

http://mileswmathis.com/trump.pdf

[Apr 28, 2019] Pompeo: Friends, let me go on record: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The Trump administration opposes it unequivocally and we will fight for it relentlessly," he made clear

Apr 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zachary Smith , Apr 28, 2019 1:21:07 PM | link

It may well be that Earnest read the New York Times.

Probably not. This character probably reads the Neocon York Times about as much as I do, which is not at all. The connection between the awful surge of "antisemitism" and violence by the rightwingnutters is already being made.

Dani Dayan, Consul General of Israel in New York, reached out to the Times to express his outrage regarding the cartoon. An Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post that Dayan in his conversations made it clear that the cartoon was unacceptable, and that the fact it appeared on the paper is an escalation of the latest trend of displaying antisemitic tropes in the American public sphere.

The horror of it all! It's time for Congress to get off its fat duff and pass those laws outlawing BDS in all shapes and forms! Time to crack down on forums like this one where criticism of Holy Israel is allowed to pollute the Internet Tubes. From our lard-ass End-Times Secretary of State:

"Friends, let me go on record: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The Trump administration opposes it unequivocally and we will fight for it relentlessly," he made clear.

Writing anything except glowing hugs-and-kisses about God's Favorite Thieves and Murderers ought to be illegal. This site owner would quickly get his act together if he was given the "Galileo Treatment" of being shown videos from the Cuban Concentration Camp with scenes of the evildoers there being waterboarded.

One more thing to consider:

The New York Times retraction, however, was not an apology. It also left many questions unanswered as to how such an obviously anti-Semitic cartoon, not even associated with the story on the page it appeared on, could have passed the gauntlet of editors.

All those editors have cushy nice-paying jobs. When it's time to keep their mouths shut, they keep them shut. My tight-fitting tinfoil hat causes me to suspect the publication of this obviously factual cartoon was a cold-blooded business decision. Its mere existence will give the Neocon York Times a long spell of 'deniability' that it is always in bed with the the pissant Apartheid state in every way imaginable. I'd imagine this flea-bite of momentary discomfort will be very useful in the next two or so years as it shills for Trump's Deal of the Century as well as any other horrors advanced by the Wag-The-Dog state.

[Apr 28, 2019] T>he latest "offer you can't refuse" conveyed by a gangster posing as diplomat, Consul Minimus Mike Pompeo, now essentially orders the whole planet to submit to the one and only arbiter of world trade: Washington by Pepe Escobar

The Trump administration once again has graphically demonstrated that "international law" and "national sovereignty" already belong to the Realm of the Walking Dead.
Notable quotes:
"... The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus. ..."
"... A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war. ..."
Apr 28, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca

As if a deluge of sanctions against a great deal of the planet was not enough, the latest "offer you can't refuse" conveyed by a gangster posing as diplomat, Consul Minimus Mike Pompeo , now essentially orders the whole planet to submit to the one and only arbiter of world trade: Washington.

First the Trump administration unilaterally smashed a multinational, UN-endorsed agreement, the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal. Now the waivers that magnanimously allowed eight nations to import oil from Iran without incurring imperial wrath in the form of sanctions will expire on May 2 and won't be renewed. The eight nations are a mix of Eurasian powers: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy and Greece.

Apart from the trademark toxic cocktail of hubris, illegality, arrogance/ignorance and geopolitical/geo – economic infantilism inbuilt in this foreign policy decision, the notion that Washington can decide who's allowed to be an energy provider to emerging superpower China does not even qualify as laughable. Much more alarming is the fact that imposing a total embargo of Iranian oil exports is no less than an act of war.

Ultimate Neocon Wet Dream

Those subscribing to the ultimate U.S, neocon and Zionist wet dream – regime change in Iran – may rejoice at this declaration of war. But as Professor Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran has elegantly argued,

"If the Trump regime miscalculates, the house can easily come crashing down on its head."

Reflecting the fact Tehran seems to have no illusions regarding the utter folly ahead, the Iranian leadership -- if provoked to a point of no return, Marandi additionally told me -- can get as far as "destroying everything on the other side of the Persian Gulf and chasing the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the U.S. escalates, Iran escalates. Now it depends on the U.S. how far things go."

This red alert from a sensible academic perfectly dovetails with what's happening with the structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- recently branded a "terrorist organization" by the United States. In perfect symmetry, Iran's Supreme National Security Council also branded the U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- and "all the forces connected to it" as a terrorist group .

The new IRGC commander-in-chief is Brigadier General Hossein Salami, 58. Since 2009 he was the deputy of previous commander Mohamamd al-Jafari , a soft spoken but tough as nails gentleman I met in Tehran two years ago. Salami, as well as Jafari, is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war; that is, he has actual combat experience. And Tehran sources assure me that he can be even tougher than Jafari.

In tandem, IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri has evoked the unthinkable in terms of what might develop out of the U.S. total embargo on Iran oil exports; Tehran could block the Strait of Hormuz.

Western Oblivion

Vast swathes of the ruling classes across the West seem to be oblivious to the reality that if Hormuz is shut down, the result will be an absolutely cataclysmic global economic depression.

The War on Iran is Already Underway

Warren Buffett, among other investors, has routinely qualified the 2.5 quadrillion derivatives market as a weapon of financial mass destruction. As it stands, these derivatives are used -- illegally -- to drain no less than a trillion U.S. dollars a year out of the market in manipulated profits.

Considering historical precedents, Washington may eventually be able to set up a Persian Gulf of Tonkin false flag. But what next?

If Tehran were totally cornered by Washington, with no way out, the de facto nuclear option of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would instantly cut off 25 percent of the global oil supply. Oil prices could rise to over $500 a barrel, to even $1000 a barrel. The 2.5 quadrillion of derivatives would start a chain reaction of destruction.

Unlike the shortage of credit during the 2008 financial crisis, the shortage of oil could not be made up by fiat instruments. Simply because the oil is not there . Not even Russia would be able to re-stabilize the market.

It's an open secret in private conversations at the Harvard Club – or at Pentagon war-games for that matter – that in case of a war on Iran, the U.S. Navy would not be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Russian SS-NX-26 Yakhont missiles -- with a top speed of Mach 2.9 -- are lining up the Iranian northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz. There's no way U . S . aircraft carriers can defend a barrage of Yakhont missiles.

Then there are the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles -- already exported to China and India -- flying ultra-low at 1,500 miles an hour with dodging capacity, and extremely mobile; they can be fired from a flatbed truck, and were designed to defeat the U . S . Aegis radar defense system.

What Will China Do?

The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus.

So there's no question the Russia-China strategic partnership will be watching Iran's back. It's no accident that the trio is among the top existential "threats" to the U.S., according to the Pentagon. Beijing knows how the U . S . Navy is able to cut it off from its energy sources. And that's why Beijing is strategically increasing imports of oil and natural gas from Russia; engineering the "escape from Malacca" also must take into account a hypothetical U . S . takeover of the Strait of Hormuz.

A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war.

Within the framework of the larger Eurasia break-up scenario, the Trump administration does profit from Wahhabi and Zionist psychopathic hatred of Shi'ites. The "maximum pressure" on Iran counts on Jared of Arabia Kushner's close WhatsApp pal Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) in Riyadh and MbS's mentor in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed , to replace the shortfall of Iranian oil in the market. Bu that's nonsense -- as quite a few wily Persian Gulf traders are adamant Riyadh won't "absorb Iran's market share" because the extra oil is not there.

Much of what lies ahead in the oil embargo saga depends on the reaction of assorted vassals and semi-vassals. Japan won't have the guts to go against Washington. Turkey will put up a fight. Italy, via Salvini, will lobby for a waiver. India is very complicated; New Delhi is investing in Iran's Chabahar port as the key hub of its own Silk Road, and closely cooperates with Tehran within the INSTC framework. Would a shameful betrayal be in the cards?

China, it goes without saying, will simply ignore Washington.

Iran will find ways to get the oil flowing because the demand won't simply vanish with a magic wave of an American hand. It's time for creative solutions. Why not, for instance, refuel ships in international waters, accepting gold, all sorts of cash, debit cards, bank transfers in rubles, yuan, rupees and rials -- and everything bookable on a website?

Now that's a way Iran can use its tanker fleet to make a killing. Some of the tankers could be parked in -- you got it -- the Strait of Hormuz, with an eye on the price at Jebel Ali in the UAE to make sure this is the real deal. Add to it a duty free for the ships crews. What's not to like? Ship owners will save fortunes on fuel bills, and crews will get all sorts of stuff at 90 percent discount in the duty free.

And let's see whether the EU has grown a spine -- and really turbo-charge their Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) alternative payment network conceived after the Trump administration ditched the JCPOA. Because more than breaking up Eurasia integration and implementing neocon regime change, this is about the ultimate anathema; Iran is being mercilessly punished because it has bypassed the U.S. dollar on energy trade.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Pepe Escobar , a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is " 2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .

[Apr 27, 2019] Trump Drops The Other Iran Oil Shoe

Notable quotes:
"... Bolton says that this is all designed to make Iran be a "normal country," as if Saudi Arabia were such. ..."
Apr 27, 2019 | angrybearblog.com

Indeed, this looks like a potentially much more dangerous situation. If these major nations obey Trump (I suspect some will not), Iran might be tempted to take more aggressive action, with blocking the Straits of Hormuz among the more serious. This would really spike the price of oil, and quite possibly trigger a war. This may be what the Trump people want, with their real policy apparently being "regime change." However, so far the only regime change seems to be rising influence of hardliners, with a new hardline commander for the now sanctioned Revolutionary Guards being appointed. He has been talking about missiles getting fired on Israel from Lebanon by Hezbollah. Is this what Netanyahu really wants?

I think those who think the Iranian regime will easily be overthrown are more deluded than those who advocated invading Iraq (and some of them are the same people, see John Bolton especially). This has the potential of really seriously distracting people from the Mueller Report, but not at all in a good way.

... ... ...

Another Addendum: In WaPo this morning they report that the other three nations are Greece, Italy, and Taiwan, and that they have already stopped buying Iranian oil under US pressure. Also, apparently Japan has been stockpiling oil from there and has stopped further purchases already in anticipation of just this move by the US. OTOH, both China and Turkey are talking about not obeying the US order. No word out of either India or South Korea so far.

Bolton says that this is all designed to make Iran be a "normal country," as if Saudi Arabia were such. As it is, indeed the hawkish new leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has spoken publicly of possibly blocking the Straits of Hormuz, as I suggested they may well be contemplating.

[Apr 26, 2019] Do those neocons in Trump administration see massive depression coming and ant to solve is with a new war?

Are they that suicidal?
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is preparing for war and I know the mood there. If it starts, it will start conventionally with strikes on US forces in Europe, especially naval assets in Med. Russia has a control of escalation there. US military knows this and already calculated the "weight" of the first salvo from Russian side on US Navy assets. ..."
"... Nothing would be gained for US interests in such a thing. It would merely be an example of the domination of the US by Zionist fantasies. ..."
"... IMO you are right in thinking that the present inhabitants of the leadership of the BORG are a sub-species of the classic Straussian ideology driven race. The Old Ones were driven by their madcap exotericism and were entertaining. These are merely imperialists. ..."
Apr 26, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

divadab , 25 April 2019 at 08:26 AM

What is gained for US interests to start a war that puts the entire middle east in flames? That causes oil prices to spike to over $200 a barrel? That kills probably hundreds of thousands and immiserates millions?

DO these guys see a massive depression coming and think the only way out is to go to war as in WW2? Is it population control? Surely there is a better way to get rid of surplus male population than total war - can't they figure out a way to game it so that warriors fight warriors and total populations are not destroyed?

This thing looks so wrong and counter-productive to me, stupid and evil and needing massive amounts of lies and propaganda to get people onboard. WHo benefits? I say no one but obviously I am wrong - the people who are prosecuting this thing seem to think that they and their sponsors will benefit mightily.....

turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 08:29 AM
Russia would have to choose between acceptance and the risk of utter destruction. The US neocons would have already chosen for us if they were able to persuade Trump.
Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> turcopolier ... , 25 April 2019 at 02:22 PM
Russia would have to choose between acceptance and the risk of utter destruction. The US neocons would have already chosen for us if they were able to persuade Trump.

Russia is preparing for war and I know the mood there. If it starts, it will start conventionally with strikes on US forces in Europe, especially naval assets in Med. Russia has a control of escalation there. US military knows this and already calculated the "weight" of the first salvo from Russian side on US Navy assets.

turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 02:22 PM
divadab

Nothing would be gained for US interests in such a thing. It would merely be an example of the domination of the US by Zionist fantasies.

turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 08:50 AM
W Publius

IMO you are right in thinking that the present inhabitants of the leadership of the BORG are a sub-species of the classic Straussian ideology driven race. The Old Ones were driven by their madcap exotericism and were entertaining. These are merely imperialists.

[Apr 26, 2019] Sic Semper Tyrannis Analysis is not advocacy. The Lebanese should understand that truth.

Apr 26, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Analysis is not advocacy."

How many times have I written that on SST?

Unless you want to live in fantasy you must have the ability to think outside the box created by what you want rather than what is or is likely to be.

The Israelis live in such a box. In their box the world is filled with gentile monsters who must be dominated and manipulated. The manipulation part of that illusion is reinforced in their minds by their incredible success in forming public opinion in the US.

The Lebanese live in a different box in which they, in their collective mind's eye, are far more important to the rest of the world than they really are. A Lebanese I knew well often told other Lebanese that they mistaken was in thinking that Bill and Hillary woke up every morning and asked each other " I wonder what is happening in Beirut today?" The truth is that Lebanon is only important to the Lebanese and that has always been true. It is particularly true now in the age of neo-neocon domination of US foreign policy. The cartoon like simplicity with which Bolton, Pompeo and Trump misunderstand realities on the ground in places like Lebanon is striking.

In service to Israeli ambitions for hegemony throughout the ME, these people have no interest whatever in the welfare of the Lebanese. In particular they are incapable of seeing Hizbullah as anything like an integral part of Lebanese society. No, they see these Lebanese Shia as nothing more than a threat to Israel. As I have pointed out, war against Hizbullah is already authorized under American law by their designation as a terrorist group and the AUMF against terrorism.

The Lebanese in Lebanon should understand that US Embassy Beirut has no policy influence in Washington. None! The true believer neo-neocons have no interest whatever in the opinions of State Department career bureaucrats who usually do not share their imperialist faith in the global destiny and mission of the US. Remember that truth when you are tempted to shower praise and attention on the inhabitants of Fort America in east Beirut. They are in exile among you.

Does any of this mean that I favor the aggressive and disrespectful bullying that emanates from Washington in the era of the neo-neocons? It does not, but I can recognize reality and this attitude toward Lebanon is real and must be recognized. The neo-neocons would not shrink from devastating southern Lebanon in order to wreck Hizbullah. pl

Posted at 07:39 PM in As The Borg Turns , government , Lebanon , Policy , The Military Art | Permalink | Comments (19)


John Merryman -> turcopolier ... , 26 April 2019 at 06:27 AM

Part of the problem with truth is that we live in an ideals based culture, in what amounts to a binary based reality. As some physicist, whom I've forgot put it; "The opposite of small truths are false. The opposite of large truths are also true.'
Take the premise of materialism, for example. It assumes there is some physical base state, yet the reality we experience is more a positive and negative tension, balance and friction of opposing forces.
Galaxies are energy radiating out, as form coalesces in. As biological organisms, we have the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems, processing the energy driving us on, along with a nervous system to process all the form and signal condensing out of this dynamic. Motor and steering.
Our primary social tension is between organic social energies pushing out, as civil and cultural forms coalesce in. Necessarily there are more emotional desires, than is possible, so the function of rationality is to preference some over others. Not every acorn gets to be an oak tree.
When our decision making process breaks down, it's anarchy, while when it overwhelms the organic impulses, it's tyranny.
So the truth we seek is more a balancing act, than any ideal state.
And in that, we can't iron out all the ups and downs, or it's its own flatline.
After a million years of going forth and multiplying, we are reaching the edges of the petri dish and need a more feedback oriented philosophy.
Bill H -> turcopolier ... , 26 April 2019 at 06:27 AM
I am reminded of "A Few Good Men" (I know, Marines, but still...) and the angry line "You can't handle the truth."

Certainly you, colonel, and the company here can handle the truth, but the public at large does not have the stomach for it.

ambrit (ex Britam) , 25 April 2019 at 10:20 PM
Sir;
But wouldn't "devastating southern Lebanon" result in a similar devastation of northern Israel? What about this do the, as you describe them, "neo-neocons" not understand? Has the magical thinking in the 'neo-neocon' community blinded the neo-neocons to the physical realities of the Hizbullah rocket forces stationed in Southern Lebanon?
At the least, I would expect the Israeli military to have a more realistic appreciation of the Hizbullah's potential. Are they pushing back against this warmongering in Tel Aviv and Washington? How much 'real' support does Netanayhu have in the 'working' Israeli armed forces?
Thanks for your indulgence.
turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 10:23 PM
ambrit

IMO targeting would be good enough that a lot of the Hizbullah missile/rocket capability could be destroyed in the firsr set of strikes. The question to be weighed by the Izzies is - how much?

Jack , 25 April 2019 at 10:25 PM
Sir

As you've pointed out if Trump in his service to Bibi, orders the bombing of South Lebanon, then that tract of land will be devastated. I also agree with your analysis that both Putin & Xi will not attempt to take down USAF bombers or USN vessels. At best they may provide Syria and Iran more advanced air defense systems.

My question is, do you believe that Trump will need politically to first manufacture a casus belli and then ramp up the associated media hysteria before he orders the devastation? George W. Bush felt he needed that to invade Iraq and the military build up took several months. If Trump has to manufacture the hysteria, would Syed Nasrallah recognize the writing on the wall and unleash all he's got preemptively on Israel knowing it won't be long before his goose is cooked? What lesson would Nasrallah have learned from behavior of past US President beholden to Israeli hegemony in the ME?

turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 10:25 PM
The actual answers to your questions are unknowable.
JamesT , 25 April 2019 at 10:54 PM
Colonel,

Would you care to share your view about what would happen if Iran were to attempt to block the Straight of Hormuz?

turcopolier , 25 April 2019 at 11:18 PM
James T

The US Navy would be ordered to clear the blockage. It would be a joint operation under CENTCOM.

Turcopolier said in reply to turcopolier ... , 26 April 2019 at 08:27 AM
BTW By my back of the envelope USAF has around 150 B-1, B=2 and B-52. That is enough. The age of the aircraft means nothing. The B-52s have been rebuilt many times and are "like new" with the latest electronics. They can fly all these aircraft all the way from CONUS for these strikes and that might be better because the campaign would consume ordnance like a river. There would of course be a lot of anti air defense strikes by US and Israeli fighters to suppress fire against the heavies but there probably would still be losses. There were 16 bombers lost in Linebacker 2. I had to go see the 7th AF CG at Tan Son Nhut AFB in the midst of that. He flew into a rage screaming and yelling in his office. He couldn't cope with the event of B-52s limping back to bases shot full of holes. I remember one case in which the crew bailed out over their home airfield in Thailand, but they did the job.
Bill Hatch , 26 April 2019 at 04:28 AM
I would never want to be on the receiving end of a B-52 carpet bombing or "Arc Light" as they were called in VN.

I was a helo pilot at Quang Tri, 13 miles south of the DMZ. In the fall of 1968 we conducted a battalion troop lift into the DMZ. The mission was to capture a NVA soldier in the DMZ so that Henry K would have a visual aid for the Paris talks.

Our LZ was to be prep'd by 3 Arc Lights. Each strike would consist a cell of 3 B-52's. We were standing on the tarmac at Quang Tri watching the 1st Arc Light. Even though it was 13 miles away, the ground trembled under our feet. We manned our aircraft & loaded our troops & launched toward the DMZ. North of Dong Ha we dropped to tree top level. I could hear the tree tops hitting the belly of the aircraft. We approached the LZ just after the 3d Arc Light. There was red dust & smoke in the air. The ground was a moonscape of 20' craters & uprooted, splintered trees. Occasional I'd catch a glimpse of NVA soldiers in a crater lying flat on their backs firing their AK's straight up into the air. Other aircrew reported seeing stunned NVA staggering about bleeding from their noses & ears. The only organized resistance that we had was NVA artillery from the north impacting in the LZ. The only damage to my aircraft was a broken landing light & twigs in the landing gear.

The B-52 is an old aircraft; but, in a benign environment it is an awesome weapon of destruction.

Joe100 said in reply to Bill Hatch... , 26 April 2019 at 09:43 AM
As I have posted previously, the Marine company I was assigned to as artillery FO had to move quickly (leaving our gear and only carrying ammunition and weapons) to get far enough away from an incoming Arc Lite strike. We were on flat ground (GoNoi island) not far from Danang. The Arc Lite strike was across the river from us and probably only about ten miles from the Danang air base. When the strike came in we were all flat on the ground and would very much like to have been much further away - it was pretty terrifying.

I recently read Jim Webb's book "I Heard my Country Calling", which has an extensive treatment of this event in the chapter covering his time in RVN - "Hell in a Very Small Place".

walrus , 26 April 2019 at 04:40 AM
Col. Lang, while I have to agree with your conclusions, we have not discussed the consequences of such actions on the part of the Neo-neocons.

My personal view is that the Neoconservatives may unleash a new wave of anti semitism. I am already noticing an increasing use of the term "jewish" to describe unethical business behavior even down here in Australia. This among educated middle class people it's a new development and it's liable to spread and be followed by behavior changes. I am sensitive to anti semitic behaviors for family reasons.

Fred -> walrus ... , 26 April 2019 at 08:46 AM
"a new wave of anti semitism."
If only people cared about Christians the same way.
"This among educated middle class people it's a new development and it's liable to spread and be followed by behavior changes"

Sorry to hear about the first ever bouts of anti-semitism in Australia. I sure hope the educated elite class of people get out in front of this. Not to include Australian neocons, or don't you have any of those?

ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to walrus ... , 26 April 2019 at 10:46 AM
I agree with you, Walrus. Although I think there's more contributing to it than just the Neocons. Specifically, there's the drip, drip, drip effect of the Israeli sociopathy toward the Palestinians, both official and unofficial, in spite of their extensive efforts suppressing the escape of such information. That seems to be having an effect on young USA Jewish people, many of whom, now that they are several generations past ancestors and relatives who were victims of the holocaust, are turning away from Zionist activism.
Christian J Chuba , 26 April 2019 at 10:46 AM
Truer words never spoken.

We can and would execute a ruthless bombing campaign for the reason you stated and to some extent even worse. Our MSM would make it sound like we were acting in self-defense or say whatever spin their handlers tell them to day. With no accountability we are capable of doing and believing anything.

Come to think of it, now that Wikileaks is out of the way that avenue is now gone to release any embarrassing info about our govt. We can drop thermobaric bombs or whatever, the floodgates are open. The Pentagon will say ... 5 civilians killed like they did in Raqqa.

blue peacock , 24 April 2019 at 12:49 PM
Since Bibi is in the catbird's seat, the most important question to ask is what does Bibi want? Is it annihilation of Iran, Lebanon, & Syria? If that is the case can the US military deliver without using nukes?
turcopolier -> blue peacock... , 24 April 2019 at 05:22 PM
Yes, easily unless Russia wants to go to war with us over this.
Norbert M Salamon -> turcopolier ... , 24 April 2019 at 06:52 PM
Sir:
It is possible that Russia would take a dim view, and attempt to stop this US adventure. At present Russia believes that Syria and Iran with a reluctant wavering Turkey is the safety defense area from the jihadist hordes against Russia's vulnerable south Muslim are.
turcopolier -> Norbert M Salamon... , 24 April 2019 at 07:34 PM
Once again, how would Russia stop this possible air campaign? By shooting down US aircraft? You think so? The US is a thermonuclear power. I think not.
The Twisted Genius -> turcopolier ... , 24 April 2019 at 08:39 PM
I agree that Russia will not stop a massive US air attack or shoot at US aircraft unless we started taking out Russian assets. I do believe Russia will use all surveillance and REC assets to give Lebanon and Syria as much early warning as possible and to muffle the effect of a US assault. I would not be surprised if Syria shot at US aircraft over Lebanon. As far as US forces hesitating about attacking Lebanon, they will not. Our Navy and Air Force will carry out these orders, if they come, immediately and with all the force they can muster.
English Outsider -> The Twisted Genius ... , 25 April 2019 at 06:22 AM
Could I ask about the situation within Syria as it concerns operations against the Jihadis there?

There seem to be two views on the increased pressure being exerted on Syria itself. 1, that these are merely spoiling tactics and will not affect the security situation much, 2, that it is the prelude to further military action against Syria. There do seem to be suggestions that further PR gas attacks are on the cards.

Might I also ask whether statements that Jihadis are using Al-Tanf as a secure base for operations against the SAA are accurate? If so, is this related to the increased pressure elsewhere?

You state " - unless we started taking out Russian assets." Presumably these are still performing, among their other functions, a tripwire function?

The Twisted Genius -> English Outsider ... , 25 April 2019 at 04:46 PM
EO,

The jihadis, including IS, are still there and have not given up. I've seen comments that they want to retake Palmyra. Some regional paper claimed the jihadis trained by the US at Tanf were planning to go for Bukamal to cut the highway. I think that is more of a wild rumor, but who knows. And then there's the Idlib jihadis. They still have to be dealt with. Sounds like the Russians are lending a strong aerospace hand with that lot.

I don't think the Russians want to be a tripwire. It's more like they are maintaining a cop on the corner status, hoping to dissuade a US attack on Lebanon or Syria. They're conducting naval exercises in the Med just as we're steaming two carrier groups into the same sea.

Eugene Owens said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 25 April 2019 at 01:49 PM
"As far as US forces hesitating about attacking Lebanon, they will not. Our Navy and Air Force will carry out these orders, if they come, immediately and with all the force they can muster."

Of course they will. Although before the course of action was decided on and orders passed, there would be some serious discussion on other, perhaps softer options. If not, their leadership would be derelict in their duty.

Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> The Twisted Genius ... , 25 April 2019 at 02:13 PM
I would not be surprised if Syria shot at US aircraft over Lebanon.

That is an unlikely scenario methinks. But then again...

ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to turcopolier ... , 24 April 2019 at 08:43 PM
I agree it's unlikely the Russians would attempt to counter a massive USAF raid on south Lebanon. However isn't it likely they have sufficient visibility from satellites and assets in Syria, etc., that they could prevent Hezbollah and Lebanon from being tactically surprised? If not, why?
Justin Glyn said in reply to ex-PFC Chuck... , 25 April 2019 at 02:05 AM
If I remember rightly, that is exactly the sort of help the USSR (as was) gave Viet Nam to prevent a Chinese victory in 1979....
Christian J Chuba -> ex-PFC Chuck... , 25 April 2019 at 08:05 AM
Replying to this thread in general. It looks like Russia sees that it is in their vital national interest to oppose externally imposed regime change anywhere in the world.

If they let the U.S. run amok, then it's only a matter of time before the sharp knives are again at (or inside) their door. The weaker countries see a need to assist each other to avoid being picked off one at a time.

Is it worth Russia going to war? No. Today's Russia would never do that without a security agreement. Giving military aid, I think so.

To people like Fareed Zakaria and other Neocons, Russia opposes regime change just to insult the U.S. In his view, we better take out a country they like to prove that we can. The idea that countries only consider how much they can get away with insulting us rather than their own survival needs sounds rather narcissistic but this is popular among Neocons.

[BTW I miss the disquis like feature as a non-noisy way to acknowledge someone's post but Col. I am fine with however you want to manage your site.]

Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> ex-PFC Chuck... , 25 April 2019 at 02:09 PM
However isn't it likely they have sufficient visibility from satellites and assets in Syria, etc., that they could prevent Hezbollah and Lebanon from being tactically surprised? If not, why?

Russia is not going to "defend" Lebanon. Syria, is a completely different issue here. It is a vastly different dynamics. Per CISR--Russia deploys currently enough assets in the area (well, globally, really) to be fully situationally aware. From Liana, to other space and airborne, and ground based systems. Iran, is altogether a different story here. Per Hezbollah, I am not sure Russia is that deeply involved with it, plus Iran is not exactly a convenient ally for Russia in Syria.

Cotlin said in reply to turcopolier ... , 25 April 2019 at 02:13 PM
Col. Lang,

Do you believe a war with Iran is going to happen soon? And can Iran withstand United States' air campaign? Can they hurt the US interest in the middle East?

O'Shawnessey said in reply to turcopolier ... , 26 April 2019 at 10:34 AM
Hmm. Seems like Shoigu and Co. flat-out defeated the FUKUS hybrid war on Syria without downing a single "coalition" plane, and now the FUKUS folks and Li'l Jeff at UN are pulling every dirty trick in the psychopath playbook to prevent the rebuilding of Syria.
Islanders 2019 -> blue peacock... , 25 April 2019 at 08:51 AM
I believe this is Trump's re-election strategy to ensure he win's a second term. A U.S. president always has sky-high poll numbers during a war or military action. Bush 41 was above 90% in the Gulf War in spite of the economic downturn. And a war against Israel's enemies would mean zero real criticism from major media and the other organs of control. The only criticism might be if Trump doesn't go as genocidal as possible in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. I'm sure at the same time as this U.S. attack many neocons (which now has every person speaking on major media) will implore Trump to confront Russia.

Related or not, I think we will see a nuclear war sometime in the next 10 years. The nuclear war I envision will be more like the movie 'The Day After' ( https://youtu.be/Iyy9n8r16hs) than anything else.

MP98 , 24 April 2019 at 12:55 PM
"In an open letter, more than 50 former senior U.S. government officials have dismissed these U.S. demands as leaving Iran the option of either capitulation or war."
You insiders in the imperial city still don't get it.
Those "former senior US government officials" are likely part and parcel of the continuing FAILURE of US foreign policy.
These "experts" have royally f***ed up - 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, Libya.
As for the JCPOA with Iran, these "negotiators" are the dimwits that car salesmen make their money from.
How many more failures from these pompous, self-important, swamp parasites can we survive?
JamesT , 24 April 2019 at 02:39 PM
In June 2010 the UN security council placed an embargo on the export of most major conventional weapons to Iran. My understanding is that this embargo is due to be lifted in 2020 (this was one of the things that Iran got as part of the JCPOA). I think Iran is going to play nice until then, and then stock up on all the advanced weaponry she can buy from China and Russia.

Maybe the Chinese will sell the Persians some DF-21Ds. That could get interesting.

Rocketrepreneur , 24 April 2019 at 03:21 PM
Mr Bolan,

I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, I fear that for many in the Trump administration, policies that make open conflict with Iran more likely may be seen as a feature, not a bug.

~Jon

Mad Max_22 , 24 April 2019 at 04:25 PM
One is given to wonder whether Trump would have selected the same failed war mongers for his Foreign Policy team that he has demonstrably done if the Hildabeast, her disappointed acolytes in the entrenched deep state, and the lunatic left in its political and media manifestations had not kneecapped him with "Russiagate" even before he took office. Was there any depth at all to his campaign rhetoric that might have survived the tsunami of bad faith accusations that crippled him? As the kids say, 'whatever.'
But if a regard for the value of diplomacy in the pursuit of peace, or for that matter, a mere historical awareness, has been playing a role in his conduct of FP, it's escaped my notice. We're living in dangerous times: who gives every appearance of being a FP lightweight and a cripple in the presidency; and debased lunatics arrayed against him in everything and anything he says or does. In the words of the immortal Casey Stengel: does anybody down there know how to play this game?
Jackrabbit -> Mad Max_22... , 24 April 2019 at 08:11 PM
Wonder no more.

Meet the Press, August 16, 2016 (condensed slightly for readability) :

CHUCK TODD:

Who do you talk to for military advice right now? ... is there a go-to for you?

DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah, probably there are two or three. I mean, I like Bolton. I think he's, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about... I think he's terrific.

saywhat said in reply to Jackrabbit ... , 24 April 2019 at 10:56 PM
From further down the transcript:

CHUCK TODD:

You wrote this in 2011 about Saudi Arabia. "It's the world's biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect them." What are U.S.-Saudi relations going to look like under a Trump administration?


I wonder where that Donald Trump guy disappeared to.

Jackrabbit -> Jackrabbit ... , 25 April 2019 at 11:49 AM
Correction: Date of the transcript is August 16, 2015

(it's part of the link, actually)

seydlitz89 , 24 April 2019 at 06:26 PM
Nice post from a strategic theory perspective. Well-reasoned argument using Schelling's concepts regarding suasion within a larger Clausewitzian model . . . applied to current US policy regarding Iran.
Eugene Owens said in reply to seydlitz89... , 25 April 2019 at 08:35 PM
Agreed. Bolan is a smart cookie. We need more like him.
Turcopolier said in reply to Eugene Owens... , 25 April 2019 at 10:19 PM
He was my student at West Point and was a star man.
walrus , 24 April 2019 at 06:27 PM
C. J. Nolan doesn't seem to understand the policy objective; war with Iran is a feature, not a bug.
jdledell , 24 April 2019 at 06:27 PM
Mad Max - Are you trying to say that it is the Democrats fault that Trump hired John Bolton and other neo-cons for his Foreign Policy team? Good Grief, Trump is the most powerful person on Earth and it is ridiculous to excuse his poor hiring practices on other people. Trump is either the Man, or he is not. Hiring John Bolton is 100% on Trump's shoulders - no one else.

[Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing." ..."
"... Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned. ..."
"... Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government. ..."
"... Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it. ..."
Apr 25, 2019 | ronpaulinstitute.org
The Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a final report on its findings has been issued. Although the investigation had a mandate to explore all aspects of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, from the start the focus was on the possibility that some members of the Trump campaign had colluded with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election to favor the GOP candidate. Even though that could not be demonstrated, many prominent Trump critics, to include Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School, are demanding that the investigation continue until Congress has discovered "the full facts of Russia's interference [to include] the ways in which that interference is continuing in anticipation of 2020, and the full story of how the president and his team welcomed, benefited from, repaid, and obstructed lawful investigation into that interference and the president's cooperation with it."

Tribe should perhaps read the report more carefully. While it does indeed confirm some Russian meddling, it does not demonstrate that anyone in the Trump circle benefited from it or cooperated with it. The objective currently being promoted by dedicated Trump critics like Tribe is to make a case to impeach the president based on the alleged enormity of the Russian activity, which is not borne out by the facts: the Russian role was intermittent, small scale and basically ineffective.

One interesting aspect of the Mueller inquiry and the ongoing Russophobia that it has generated is the essential hypocrisy of the Washington Establishment. It is generally agreed that whatever Russia actually did, it did not affect the outcome of the election. That the Kremlin was using intelligence resources to act against Hillary Clinton should surprise no one as she described Russian President Vladimir Putin as Hitler and also made clear that she would be taking a very hard line against Moscow.

The anti-Russia frenzy in Washington generated by the vengeful Democrats and an Establishment fearful of a loss of privilege and entitlement claimed a number of victims. Among them was Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has a court date and will very likely be sentenced tomorrow .

Regarding Butina, the United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having a Russian citizen take out a life membership in the organization with the intention of corrupting it and turning it into an instrument for subverting American democracy. Maria Butina has, by the way, a long and well documented history as an advocate for gun ownership and was a co-founder in Russia of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind. It is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active membership and agenda. Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.

Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in a federal prison, having been charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She was arrested on July 15, 2018. It is decidedly unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) , but she has not been granted bail because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and return home.

FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing."

Maria eventually pleaded guilty of not registering under FARA to mitigate any punishment, hoping that she would be allowed to return to Russia after a few months in prison on top of the nine months she has already served. She has reportedly fully cooperated the US authorities, turning over documents, answering questions and undergoing hours of interrogation by federal investigators before and after her guilty plea.

Maria Butina basically did nothing that damaged US security and it is difficult to see where her behavior was even criminal, but the prosecution is asking for 18 months in prison for her in addition to the time served. She would be, in fact, one of only a handful of individuals ever to be imprisoned over FARA, and they all come from countries that Washington considers to be unfriendly, to include Cuba, Saddam's Iraq and Russia. Normally the failure to comply with FARA is handled with a fine and compulsory registration.

Butina was essentially convicted of the crime of being Russian at the wrong time and in the wrong place and she is paying for it with prison. Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned.

Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government.

Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it.

As so often is the case, inquiries that begin by looking for foreign interference in American politics start by focusing on Washington's adversaries but then comes up with Israel. Noam Chomsky described it best "First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Netanyahu goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to -- calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president? And that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence."

Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior advisor to the president in spite of the fact that he used his nepotistically obtained access to openly promote the interests of a foreign government. Mueller knows all about it but recommended nothing, as if it didn't happen. The media is silent. Congress will do nothing. As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it "We in Congress stand by Israel. In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel." Indeed.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Apr 25, 2019] Bibi's best bet to solve his intractable Hezbollah problem is when his bitch Trump is in office

Apr 25, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock , 23 April 2019 at 04:24 PM

Col. Lang,

Bibi's best bet to solve his intractable Hezbollah problem is when his bitch Trump is in office. Nothing like getting for free the USAF to do the work his IAF can't do. Of course Trump can follow Dubya's footsteps and become the war president. Nothing like a neocon-inspired war to shore his support is what Bolton & Pompeo will advise and Adelson will be crooning too.

How do you think Hezbollah will react when the die is cast and the casus belli is manufactured? Would they preempt and launch all they have knowing they would have to go down when the tens of thousands of sorties of the USAF commence? Syed Nasrallah apparently has warned his commanders to expect an Israeli war this summer.

Would Putin & Xi sit it out & let Hezbollah go down in flames?

Unhinged Citizen said in reply to blue peacock... , 23 April 2019 at 09:38 PM
"Would Putin & Xi sit it out & let Hezbollah go down in flames?"

That is almost certain. What the Russians have demonstrated is there absolute weakness in the face of US economic dominance and military might. These Chinese have demonstrated their inability to show any sort of political backbone, but suck in as much world capital as they possibly can in silence.

turcopolier , 23 April 2019 at 09:38 PM
BP - If a massive heavy bomber strike is made on Hizbullah it may cripple Hizbullah's ability to lay down a lot of fire in Israel. This Hizbullahis must have figured this out. That creates a hair trigger possibility for a preemptive strike on Israel. This is a very dangerous situation. my crystal ball is cloudy. I have no idea what Putin and Xi might do. "Best in Show" is a great film depicting a wonderful breed.
Joe100 , 23 April 2019 at 09:38 PM
How likely is it that the US could surprise Hizbullah with a massive strategic bombing strike?
Would not Russia see this coming and probably warn Hizbullah?

And does anyone her have a sense of the extent of area that would need to be covered and the density of Hizbullah fortifications within this area? Would it be plausible to cover the full extent of the threat to Israel in one strike?

Also, I recently read an article by an air force officer assigned to the MACV combat operations center during the siege of Khe Sanh. He indicated that intelligence was received that the NVA were going to try to tunnel under the Marine defense lines. This officer vaguely remembered that a bunker-busting/deep penetration weapon for B-52s was somewhere "in the inventory". It turned out some were in stock in Okinawa, so were relatively immediately available to use at Khe Sanh. So if these weapons (or something similar) remain available, their impact could potentially be greater on Hizbullah fortifications than what Col. Lang observed on his BDA.

turcopolier , 23 April 2019 at 09:38 PM
joe100

The US is very good at OPSEC and IMO Hizbullah would have no warning at all until the bombs started to fall from way up in the sky. And unlike a lot of target system the Tabbouleh line cannot be moved without a lot of trouble. How big a target set? Essentially the width of Lebanon and three or four miles wide against what by now must be a fully developed picture of the arrray of targets. This will have been developed in full by now by DIA and the USAF targeting people. You people are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. And since Hizbullah is designated as a terrorist organization the AUMF would apply. The only thing protecting Hizbullah in Tabbouleh Line is fear of the reaction of the American people and that can be overcome by a supposed attack on Israel.

[Apr 24, 2019] Worst anti-Semitic hate crime at Winnipeg cafe was allegedly faked by owners, say police by Sam Thompson

Apr 24, 2019 | globalnews.ca

An incident at a Corydon Avenue cafe that was originally reported as one of Winnipeg's worst-ever hate crimes was apparently staged, said police.

Three owners of the BerMax Caffé were arrested Wednesday and charged with public mischief, which involves intent to mislead and causing an officer to investigate an incident based on false information.

The cafe was allegedly robbed, the interior trashed and the walls spray-painted with anti-Semitic graffiti on April 18, although investigators now say that was all staged by the owners.

READ MORE: Winnipeg cafe targeted with anti-Semitic graffiti

At the time, Winnipeg police Const. Rob Carver told media the attack was one of the "worst" hate crimes he had seen as a police officer.

Police chief Danny Smyth said Wednesday the investigation has been a significant waste of police resources.

"Over 25 officers have invested nearly 1,000 hours through a busy holiday weekend trying to bring this investigation to a close," he said.

"In the end, we found evidence of a crime. It just wasn't a hate crime."

The incident sparked a large outpouring of support from people in Winnipeg's Jewish community and the city at large, including an interfaith prayer vigil planned by a local church for Thursday night.

"There have been some new developments in the BerMax Caffé situation," said a spokesperson for Westworth United Church. "These are being reviewed, and an announcement on the status of the interfaith prayer vigil will follow."

Alexander, Oxana and Maxim Berent are all facing charges and have reportedly been released on a promise to appear.

READ MORE: Church plans vigil for Winnipeg Jewish community following cafe hate crime

"We are shocked and deeply disturbed by today's news," said the Winnipeg Jewish Federation in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

"It is deplorable that anyone would make false allegations of anti-Semitism, especially claims of such a serious nature, for any kind of gain," the organization continued.

"Filing false complaints of criminal acts of anti-Semitism (is) not only illegal, they undermine the important work necessary to counter anti-Semitism and hate in all forms."

A GoFundMe page had been set up to support the café after a previous incident last month. Robbie Kfir Mulder-Kiesman, who set up the fundraiser, said in a statement that fundraising efforts have been suspended until more information is available.

"We are aware of the announcements made and have been taken completely off guard by the information," said Mulder-Kiesman.

"We took on this effort with the best intentions and hope that further information comes to light that provides the much needed answers we need in this situation."

[Apr 24, 2019] Trump is a Zionist

Apr 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Apr 24, 2019 12:47:33 PM | link

@22 Ron Horn

You sir are delusional. Trump was dead set against taking down Iran and Venezuela from day one. Trump is a Zionist. I wish people would get that through their thick skulls.

There is no surprise here. Everything is rolling along on schedule according to plan. The Empire can now call the shots unilaterally. You have all allowed for this domination by trying to ridicule and shut down the discussion of Zionism's role in this outcome. We are not free! Millions of people around the world marched against the proposed invasion of Iraq and the Empire's vassals came running to help (I'm pointing especially to you, U.K., trying to take Corbyn down while welcoming the Orange Oaf for an official visit!). The WMD's were a hoax. Bolton admitted that regime change was always the goal, and same goes for Venezuela and Iran.

Trump is not a Zionist hostage suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Let me spell out the writing that has been on the wall from day one: TRUMP IS A ZIONIST. Trump is accelerating the ZEmpire's domination in every way imaginable. Trump die-hard supporters are Zionists of all stripes even if the more liberal ones try desperately to conceal that fact, and the rest are loyal donkeys with blinders on.

>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't expect Russia to come to Iran's rescue. a) Iran is a gas competitor. And b) Zionist Russian oligarchs are deep in Trump's corner.

Israel has been attacking Iran on Syrian soil with Putin's blessing.

I don't know what Putin's game is, but muti-polarity doesn't seem to be at the top of his list as it is with some of us here.

There is only one way to deal with ZUSA aggression: DETERRENCE.

Iran should stop being so prudish regarding nukes. Iran could have had a stockpile by now. Maybe North Korea can start doing business.

Peaceful means of resistance to Zionism do not work! Zionists are only satisfied with total domination and they are proving it.

We are not free. We are powerless. We have already been muzzled left an right and they are trying to legitimize restraint on our rights. We have no democracy. This has been happening while you were all sleeping.

Trump is an enforcer of Zionism and many of you are drunk uncle toms high on his neutralizing moonshine or stealth Zionists still peddling his Zionist bullshet as 4D chess.

Trump is a Zionist enforcer and is accelerating ZEmpire domination. They know the jig is up and time is of the essence. The goal is to make all resistance futile. Some of you here have been helping them achieve this goal, and now your 11th-hour shock and awe and armchair musings ring cheap and hollow.

You are chamberlains unable to call what is steering the Empire's domination by its name: ZIONISM.

How can you fight the enemy you refuse to acknowledge? So here we are, NEXT STOP: IRAN AND WAR.

ARRGH.

[Apr 24, 2019] Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable offenses are tools. We are all either fools or tools.

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

,

Wallbanger , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:15 pm GMT
What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The trillionaires are Zionists.

Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen. Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.

Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.

Trump is a tool.

Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.

Adrian E. , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:26 pm GMT
@Wallbanger Of course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a close friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and Kushner.

But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign policy goals.

I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon foreign policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two rather different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences are only superficial.

US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to having military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries that have or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such „full spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long way for explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons are Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But their goal of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads to conflicts and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating factors.

Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards other great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the US and the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with the Golan recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections (retrieving remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course, Russia and Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into account each other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong economic partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The general principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to have good relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia conflict, Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is probably one of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with Iran, are important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite relevant for Israel because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel remained neutral and has strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good relations with as many powerful nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller (albeit in many respects very strong) country in a difficult part of the world.

Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some significant influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and overall, these countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China). But they will never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN were there is just Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny micronations that depend on the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries at all cost to gain influence relative to other great powers that are less extremely pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive the US towards a costly „full spectrum dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and worthy of support from the perspective of the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign policy itself, due to risk management considerations, the priorities are different. The best-case scenario for them is that a) Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US can achieve and maintain „full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know that this best-case scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good relations between Israel and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia important.

I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he had some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted pro-Israeli policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting along" with relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum dominance" wherever possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole, it seems Trump wanted a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one of US neocons. If Israel can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli and international press does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet (which they do quite often).

This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.

I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that does not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the one, while for others, it is more the other).

The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has in the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going along with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and this dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may have been a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be enough if he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with Russia, as Israel has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according to the neocons are very different.

But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for many true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is).

There also do not seem to be strong indications about Israeli involvement in Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos, but it was not necessarily the Israeli government as a whole that was behind this (they may just have been needed because Israeli energy policy is one of the main specializations of Papadopoulos), and I think there are at least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement on the pro-Trump side.

Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some neocons passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has probably become a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel – partially for ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased military spending.

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Rurik

The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated white men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries for Zion.

i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff but

1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.

You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug on Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.

right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist but now is compromised and compliant.

too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier on him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.

(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him – the end result is the same)

Rurik , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:06 pm GMT
@notanon

1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and

the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was appalled at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said specifically said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.

And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.

But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.

So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"

if neocons and the media now start going easier on him

then we're toast

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.

If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.

If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange

others..)

then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.

The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump, is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.

But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.

But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump with a seething malevolence.

And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic over Trump.

a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch

https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/4dbf746ee84f4a07be81d3e41d1e79c5?width=650

is *not* president, I smile inside.

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Rurik yes

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not

double yes

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Rurik the other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed as walking the edge of disbelief.

this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's candidacy.

Germanicus , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:35 pm GMT
@Rurik

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.

I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they will simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.

Realist , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Rurik

But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.

It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.

the grand wazoo , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:30 pm GMT
To think that any indictments will come of this is naïve, and an understatement of the power of the deep state. The only thing that keeps Trump alive is his usefulness to Netanyahu, also known as Benji the NutnYahoo.

[Apr 24, 2019] Trump Is A Complete And Total Whore For Shelly Adelson And Jared Kushner

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

Charles Pewitt , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:42 pm GMT

Trump Is A Complete And Total Whore For Shelly Adelson And Jared Kushner

Shelly Adelson and Jared Kushner push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

Shelly Adelson and Jared Kushner put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

The DEEP STATE rats are just as evil as Adelson and Kushner.

The USA needs a George Washington or Andrew Jackson To Smash The Treasonous Rats

Tweet from 2015:

Art , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:55 pm GMT
@Rurik Putin is a statesman, whereas Pence and Obama and Trump are lickspittles to cretinous toads like Sheldon Adelson. What that must be like, eh?

It'd be one thing to have to genuflect to a giant of a man, a Caesar or a Bismarck perhaps, but to have to lick the hand of a man like Adelson, must be one hell of an ignominious degradation.

Rurik,

Hear hear – you are so right – how totally degrading – Adelson is a gambling gangster in China.

How low can we go – Jew gambling money from a rival country controls America.

Adelson's money has so far bought Israel, Jerusalem and the Golan – what is next the Third Temple, to be followed by an Iran war?

Do No Harm -- Art

p.s. Is Adelson crazy Kabbalah also?

[Apr 24, 2019] Pro-Israel America - Influencing American Election Outcomes

Apr 03, 2019 | viableopposition.blogspot.com
While many people have heard about America-Israel Public Affairs Committee better known as AIPAC, Israel's most influential lobbyist in Washington, a new pro-Israel lobbyist is currently being launched that is appealing to Main Street America rather than America's pro-Israel oligarchs.
According to Jewish Currents , senior figures affiliated with AIPAC are set to launch a new political group called Pro-Israel America or PIA, a political group that will deal with smaller-dollar political donations that are designated for pro-Israel candidates. Here is the lead page for the group's website:

Here is a video outlining the group's objectives:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XNFisuMsYk
Note the comment that " most Americans support a close relationship for our countries ."
Here is the group's mission statement:

Here are the group's core beliefs:
"1.) We have a moral and humanitarian imperative to strengthen the U.S.–Israel relationship. Israel is the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people, providing both a refuge from persecution and the sole opportunity for Jewish national self-determination.
2.) We have an economic and strategic imperative to bolster the alliance between America and Israel. America's close alliance with Israel, built over decades on the bedrock of shared values, provides significant benefits to both countries.
3.) The U.S.–Israel relationship should never be taken for granted. Electing pro-Israel candidates to the United States Congress plays an essential role in strengthening the dynamic bond between our countries.
4.) Israel is a force for good in the world, providing humanitarian aid globally and developing new technologies to heal the sick, feed the poor, and protect the environment, among many others.
5.) Israel is a functioning democracy, where diverse opinions compete actively in the marketplace of ideas. Our role is not to determine the outcome of such debates nor impose solutions on Israel, but rather to ensure Israel remains safe so its people can make the often-tough decisions about peace and security.
6.) Israelis, Palestinians and the countries of the region should negotiate directly with each other to find both short- and long-term solutions to conflict, recognizing each other as essential partners in a future peace." (my bold)
According to a document obtained by Jewish Currents, PIA is aiming to recruit 10,000 donors who will give $200 each with the goal of raising $2 million for pro-Israel candidates from both political parties during the 2020 Presidential election cycle. Currently, on its membership page, members have the option to donate $50, $100 or $200, a clear difference from the highly-funded AIPAC as shown here :
Here are the leaders of the newly minted pro-Israel organization:

Note that the group's Executive Director, Jeff Mendelson, spent more than ten years at AIPAC and management the group's outreach program which engaged non-Jewish people groups in pro-Israel activism, particularly evangelical Christians. Tony Davis is a former president of AIPAC. Michelle Lobel and her husband are substantial financial supporters of AIPAC as shown here and Emil Pitkin is the CEO of the political research firm GovPredict which has AIPAC as a client.
In case you are already contemplating who to vote for, let's look at which candidates Pro-Israel America supports for 2020. Here are the Senate candidates:

Here are the House candidates:

Let's close with this quote from PIA that clearly tells us what is at stake for PIA and Israel in the upcoming 2020 election:
" The 2020 elections will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Each of the 435 United States House of Representatives seats and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be up for election.
We know Congress is rapidly changing – more than 20 percent of current House members are new to Congress, and more than two-thirds of House and Senate members were elected after 2008.
Challenges to the U.S. – Israel relationship have grown , and will continue to grow, in the years to come. We must be poised to use every tool at our disposal to educate and engage members of Congress politically.

The 2020 U.S. elections have the potential to drastically change the political landscape and could swing the balance of support for a number of important issues. So much is at stake.
We need pro-Israel voices like yours to help protect our strong U.S.-Israel relationship. That's why Pro-Israel America makes it easy for members to support the election of pro-Israel candidates on both sides of the aisle. " (their bolds)
While the narrative since the 2016 election has been Russian meddling in America's political affairs, we can pretty clearly see that Israel is right up there when it comes to influencing America's political landscape in its own favour. Somehow that seems to be palatable to Washington's bought and paid for insiders. Pro-Israel America is just another player in the business-as-usual Congress.
Posted by A Political Junkie at 8:30 AM Labels: Israel , pro-Israel lobby , United States 2 comments:

  1. jrkrideau April 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM

    Of course, if any one were to suggest that better relationships with the Russian Federation were important, we would be hearing accusations of traitor at the very least.

    Let me try this.
    "The Russian Federation, as an emerging democracy, needs support and encouragement".

    "Russia's willingness and ability to cooperate with NATO needs to be supported by concerned members of Congress".

    "As a strong democratic player in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, we must support Russia's peacemaking attempts in Syria".

    The really unfortunate thing about the above statements is that they are, more or less, true. Or were, before being violently rejected by the USA.

    Reply Delete Replies Reply
  2. Anonymous April 11, 2019 at 2:09 AM

    Heard in passing:
    There are two political parties in America. There is the Adelson Zionist Republican Party and the Saban Zionist Democratic Party. "American" politics is a competition between two groups of indistinguishable Zionist stooges as to who can offer the most ludicrous, extravagant tribute to the Zionist Apartheid Regime in Israel. The US president is just a trained monkey rattling its tin cup for its AIPAC organ grinder. You can have an African american,a carrot top,and in the future you can probably have a female, or gay, or even a trannie. But whatever version is on offer, the trained monkey in question will carry on rattling its AIPAC tin cup just as loudly. A minimum baseline of $3.8 billion a year, $23,000 for every household in Israel. Plus all the F35s, Arrow missiles, Merkava tanks, and nuclear warheads Nitwityahoo demands, all completely free/ gratis/ buckshee, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

[Apr 24, 2019] I thought Adelson is the heir of Meyer Lansky?

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

Germanicus , says: April 24, 2019 at 12:27 am GMT

@Art

Hear hear – you are so right – how totally degrading – Adelson is a gambling gangster in China.

I thought Adelson is the heir of Meyer Lansky?

but to have to lick the hand of a man like Adelson, must be one hell of an ignominious degradation.

The thought of the leftist puppets kissing Soros butt is also not really appealing.

[Apr 24, 2019] Wallbanger

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

says: April 23, 2019 at 6:15 pm GMT 100 Words What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The trillionaires are Zionists.

Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen. Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.

Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.

Trump is a tool.

Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.


Adrian E. , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:26 pm GMT

@Wallbanger Of course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a close friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and Kushner.

But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign policy goals.

I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon foreign policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two rather different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences are only superficial.

US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to having military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries that have or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such „full spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long way for explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons are Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But their goal of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads to conflicts and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating factors.

Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards other great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the US and the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with the Golan recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections (retrieving remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course, Russia and Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into account each other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong economic partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The general principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to have good relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia conflict, Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is probably one of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with Iran, are important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite relevant for Israel because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel remained neutral and has strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good relations with as many powerful nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller (albeit in many respects very strong) country in a difficult part of the world.

Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some significant influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and overall, these countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China). But they will never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN were there is just Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny micronations that depend on the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries at all cost to gain influence relative to other great powers that are less extremely pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive the US towards a costly „full spectrum dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and worthy of support from the perspective of the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign policy itself, due to risk management considerations, the priorities are different. The best-case scenario for them is that a) Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US can achieve and maintain „full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know that this best-case scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good relations between Israel and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia important.

I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he had some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted pro-Israeli policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting along" with relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum dominance" wherever possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole, it seems Trump wanted a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one of US neocons. If Israel can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli and international press does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet (which they do quite often).

This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.

I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that does not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the one, while for others, it is more the other).

The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has in the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going along with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and this dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may have been a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be enough if he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with Russia, as Israel has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according to the neocons are very different.

But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for many true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is). There also do not seem to be strong indications about Israeli involvement in Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos, but it was not necessarily the Israeli government as a whole that was behind this (they may just have been needed because Israeli energy policy is one of the main specializations of Papadopoulos), and I think there are at least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement on the pro-Trump side. Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some neocons passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has probably become a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel – partially for ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased military spending.

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Rurik

The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated white men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries for Zion.

i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff but

1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.

You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug on Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.

right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist but now is compromised and compliant.

too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier on him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.

(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him – the end result is the same)

Rurik , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:06 pm GMT
@notanon

1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and

the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was appalled at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said specifically said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.

And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.

But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.

So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"

if neocons and the media now start going easier on him

then we're toast

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.

If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.

If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange

others..)

then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.

The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump, is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.

But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.

But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump with a seething malevolence.

And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic over Trump.

a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch

https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/4dbf746ee84f4a07be81d3e41d1e79c5?width=650

is *not* president, I smile inside.

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Rurik yes

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not

double yes

notanon , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Rurik the other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed as walking the edge of disbelief.

this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's candidacy.

Germanicus , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:35 pm GMT
@Rurik

it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.

I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they will simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.

Realist , says: April 23, 2019 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Rurik

But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.

It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.

[Apr 24, 2019] Charles Pewitt

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

says: April 23, 2019 at 9:42 pm GMT 100 Words Trump Is A Complete And Total Whore For Shelly Adelson And Jared Kushner

Shelly Adelson and Jared Kushner push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

Shelly Adelson and Jared Kushner put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

The DEEP STATE rats are just as evil as Adelson and Kushner.

The USA needs a George Washington or Andrew Jackson To Smash The Treasonous Rats

Tweet from 2015:

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Art , says: April 23, 2019 at 9:55 pm GMT

@Rurik Putin is a statesman, whereas Pence and Obama and Trump are lickspittles to cretinous toads like Sheldon Adelson. What that must be like, eh?

It'd be one thing to have to genuflect to a giant of a man, a Caesar or a Bismarck perhaps, but to have to lick the hand of a man like Adelson, must be one hell of an ignominious degradation.

Rurik,

Hear hear – you are so right – how totally degrading – Adelson is a gambling gangster in China.

How low can we go – Jew gambling money from a rival country controls America.

Adelson's money has so far bought Israel, Jerusalem and the Golan – what is next the Third Temple, to be followed by an Iran war?

Do No Harm -- Art

p.s. Is Adelson crazy Kabbalah also?

[Apr 23, 2019] Justin Elliott on Sheldon Adelson by Scott

Notable quotes:
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and LibertyStickers.com . ..."
"... To me, it is not so much the lies that major media organizations may broadcast, but the enormous amount of news of major importance that the networks censor that is doing the greatest harm. ..."
Oct 24, 2018 | scotthorton.org
Journalist Justin Elliott comes on the show to talk about casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has become one of President Trump's biggest donors. Although Trump derided him early in his campaign, the two have formed a close partnership with Adelson providing tens of millions in funding so long as Trump continues the correct policies with respect to Israel, Palestine, and Iran. Elliott and others have also speculated that Trump is trying to get Adelson approval to open a casino in Japan, helping him to expand his gambling empire in Asia.

Discussed on the show:

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica . He has produced stories for The New York Times and National Public Radio, and his reporting with NPR on the Red Cross' troubled post-earthquake reconstruction efforts in Haiti won a 2015 Investigative Reporters and Editors award. Follow him on Twitter @JustinElliott .

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and LibertyStickers.com .

Check out Scott's Patreon page.

William on October 26, 2018 at 5:46 pm

Whether Adelson or some other plutocrat, American politics is awash in money, and it this money is crippling our democracy. I don't think that I have heard this topic discussed on any news program, and I don't expect to. To me, it is not so much the lies that major media organizations may broadcast, but the enormous amount of news of major importance that the networks censor that is doing the greatest harm.

Americans never get to see what they need to know. Keeping the peasants ignorant is the current mass media program, and they are doing a great job of it.

[Apr 22, 2019] Jews vs Zionists

Apr 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

While it clear anti-Seminissm to hate Jews as the ethnic groups, it is quite different about Zionism -- Jewish nationalism with the elements of supremacist ideology that puts Israel as the central symbol of "jeweshnessh"

In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right or Islamic ("which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal," according to Spokoiny) are in fact one by nature: "there's just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly persona in different ideological garments." So it isn't just the Jews that should be reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren't diverse either, their oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of "different ideological garments."

In Spokoiny's universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews blindly, irrationally and for no reason.

But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing, Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism: Its History and Causes . There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called 'anti-Semites.' The alleged 'enemies of the Jews' are people who want the Jewish past to be subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed, Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted, immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called 'anti-Semites' actually follow the Zionist promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become 'people like all other people.' The so-called 'enemies of the Jews' are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions to subscribe to ethical standards.

Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one year in prison by a French court for "negationisme" (history revisionism).

In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral's call as a vile anti-Semitic message as it doesn't seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some Jews have joined Soral's movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots. They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.

"We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral)." Spokoiny writes, "We need to stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us." In other words, Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism, he or she must be either naïve or just stupid . What Jews need to do is to self-reflect, to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called 'haters,' Jews may want to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.


Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website April 19, 2019 at 2:18 pm GMT

The conclusion of Chapter 1 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak:

There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the non-Jews.

The second choice would require Jews to 'demote themselves' to mere humanity. There seems to be no hope of that.

Bloody Bill , says: April 19, 2019 at 4:10 pm GMT
Good article Atzmon.

Jews do seem to be incapable or completely unwilling to self-reflect on their behavior and its effects. Instead, they pathologize the goyim saying its somehow inherent.

Zionism is despised all over the political spectrum. So called anti-semitism is not just some far right nazi ideology. Leftists, muslims, blacks etc. are all seeing Jewish behavior as a real threat.

The hostility and destructive, subversive behavior to western culture and institutions is despised by the right. The left hates the racist and hostile murderous behavior to the Palestinians. Both hate the zio-con wars.

Jews are not in a good situation. However, most of them are completely unwilling to change their behavior. In fact, they seem to be pushing even harder and faster. It is not looking like there is going to be a good outcome for the Jews at the rate they're currently going.

Colin Wright , says: Website April 19, 2019 at 4:41 pm GMT
' what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters '

One wonders to what extent exactly this characterization is accurate. Even if it is true to some extent, can't the history of all peoples be characterized as a 'chain of disasters'?

Take the Jews of any particular region: the Ukraine, say. Okay, fine -- they suffered the pogroms associated with Khmelnitsky's uprising and the Holocaust. Some would add the pogroms of late Tsarist Russia, but here's an unpleasant fact: those weren't all that big a deal

Meantime, what about the gentiles? Well, first off, I don't think anyone did well out of Khmelnitsky's uprising: gentiles were being slaughtered in job lots as well. Then there were the artificial famines of Stalin's regime, which were inflicted primarily -- exclusively? -- on the Christian peasantry. The Nazis weren't nice to Ukrainian gentiles either. There was the holocaust of the Mongol invasions.

Etc. Things are tough all over. We could engage in the same compare and contrast for Spanish Jews and gentiles, French Jews and gentiles, German Jews and gentiles, and so on. Some evils were inflicted mostly on the Jews, some mainly on the gentiles, some indifferently on both.

Even if one could establish that Jews have come in for more than their fair share of abuse, it's obviously a wild distortion of the past to see Jews alone as victims. The Thirty Years War was catastrophic for German gentiles as well as German Jews. 75% of the German gentile civilians trapped in Konigsberg when it fell to the Russians wound up being murdered, starved to death, or otherwise done in. Was it better to be a Jew or a gentile then?

Jews don't have a monopoly on victimhood, and to assume otherwise is to indulge in a pernicious fantasy. We wind up agreeing that Jews are uniquely entitled to misbehave, because they alone have been abused. Neither end of that proposition is valid.

Edward Huguenin , says: April 19, 2019 at 7:56 pm GMT
"Anti-semite" has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the Zionist Israeli government is declared to be anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be useless. Indeed, to be declared "anti-semite" by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a person of high moral conscience.

[Apr 22, 2019] Who said anything anti-Semitic?

Apr 22, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to JohnH... , April 21, 2019 at 09:42 AM

"Who said anything anti-Semitic?..."


[There is an assumption among the financialized left that any mention of George Soros or the Rothschild family is based in anti-Semitism regardless of the facts of any such statement. In part it is because so much anti-Semitism exists and is gratuitously directed at the rich in general, but particularly the rich that are well known for their ruthless securities trading techniques, principally market moving short-sales. The other part of course is that there is so much loyalty gratuitously directed towards rich patrons of mainstream liberalism that it needs to self-justify behind accusations of reactionary bias. Perhaps liberals learned guilty until proven innocent from Jim Crow. In any case, accusations of anti-Semitism or racism are a powerful antidote to criticism wherever that they can be applied.

My solution to this conundrum is just to give up. I am doing fine on my own and the rest of these people are just not worth the effort, particularly given that any attempt to open and honest discussion is just so much pissing into the wind.

I got weeds to pull and bulbs to plant. Happy Easter.]

RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to RC (Ron) Weakley... , April 21, 2019 at 09:44 AM
OTOH, I guess that the Rockefeller family patrons of both neoconservatism and neoliberalism are fair game.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to RC (Ron) Weakley... , April 21, 2019 at 09:46 AM
...unless that would be considered anti-Semitism by association since the Rockefeller family and Rothschild family are now business partners in global finance.
JohnH -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , April 21, 2019 at 09:46 AM
Should any criticism of Bernie Sanders be taken as anti-semitic? What about criticism of anyone groomed or promoted by Bernie?

[Apr 21, 2019] As a journalist, I find it quite amazing that there's no question raised with Pelosi, with Schumer, with any of the leading Democrats. What is going on? You attack Trump for everything. How come you don't attack him for giving Netanyahu a blank check to do what he wants?

Apr 21, 2019 | www.truthdig.com

So, you have a very odd circumstance where we have a lot of discussion about Russia's influence here. They have got nothing. They have sanctions, nothing. As a journalist, I find it quite amazing that there's no question raised with Pelosi, with Schumer, with any of the leading Democrats. What is going on? You attack Trump for everything. How come you don't attack him for giving Netanyahu a blank check to do what he wants? It must be frustrating to an observer like yourself, no?

[Apr 19, 2019] On the existence of the coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction

Notable quotes:
"... In their 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University address the "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" and "its negative effect on American interests". ..."
"... although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority". They note that "not every American with a favorable attitude to Israel is part of the lobby", and that although "the bulk of the lobby is comprised of Jewish Americans", there are many American Jews who are not part of the lobby, and the lobby also includes Christian Zionists. ..."
"... To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy" they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters." To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low." To the complaint that they "'catalog Israel's moral flaws,' while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states," they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it. To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree, but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions." To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups and the diplomatic establishment,'" they argue that these are no match for the pro-Israel lobby. To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that the United States would favor the Palestinians instead of Israel, and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran if that were so. They accuse various critics of smearing them by linking them to racists, and dispute various claims by Alan Dershowitz and others that their facts and references or quotations are mistaken. ..."
"... The framing of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy assigns primary emphasis and agency to Israel, its representatives and the Israeli Lobby whilst assigning lesser emphasis and agency to The United States of America, thereby obfuscating levels of co-operation, mutual interests and strategic partnerships amongst the parties, and in some regards why the door of The United States of America is regularly left ajar to The Israeli Lobby, the state of Israel and some of its representatives. ..."
Apr 18, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , April 18, 2019 at 13:29

All the post-9/11 US savagery (from Afghanistan to "shock and awe" in Iraq, from Libya and Syria to the Iran sanctions) was directly managed by a pro-Israel Lobby manufactured "consensus" in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, US Senate and Congress, mainstream media, and numerous pro-Israel foreign policy policy think tanks.

In their 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University address the "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" and "its negative effect on American interests".

Both Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority". They note that "not every American with a favorable attitude to Israel is part of the lobby", and that although "the bulk of the lobby is comprised of Jewish Americans", there are many American Jews who are not part of the lobby, and the lobby also includes Christian Zionists.

In response to criticism of the 2006 publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's original essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", Mearsheimer said, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby." He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are philo-semites and strongly support the existence of Israel."

In a letter to the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics:

To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy" they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters." To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low." To the complaint that they "'catalog Israel's moral flaws,' while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states," they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it. To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree, but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions." To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups and the diplomatic establishment,'" they argue that these are no match for the pro-Israel lobby. To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that the United States would favor the Palestinians instead of Israel, and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran if that were so. They accuse various critics of smearing them by linking them to racists, and dispute various claims by Alan Dershowitz and others that their facts and references or quotations are mistaken.

In the 2007 book, Mearsheimer and Walt note that the vast majority of charges leveled against the original 2006 article were unfounded, but some critiques raised issues of interpretation and emphasis, which they addressed in the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

In a February 2019 article in Foreign Policy, Walt discussed Omar's Twitter criticisms of the conduct of Israel's government and its U.S. supporters:

"here's the kicker: [ ] being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby's activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel's actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.

"How do I know? Let's just say I have some experience with this phenomenon."

OlyaPola , April 19, 2019 at 05:23

“To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark “pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low.”

Mono-causality is a tool of deflection/obfuscation given that mono-causality can never exist in any interaction.

However instead of using that notion in reply to assertion of reliance on mono-causality, the authors chose to “point out that support of Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low.”

The framing of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy assigns primary emphasis and agency to Israel, its representatives and the Israeli Lobby whilst assigning lesser emphasis and agency to The United States of America, thereby obfuscating levels of co-operation, mutual interests and strategic partnerships amongst the parties, and in some regards why the door of The United States of America is regularly left ajar to The Israeli Lobby, the state of Israel and some of its representatives.

Another tool of deflection/obfuscation is providing an answer that others can conflate with the answer.

The Okhrana offered an answer to conflate by production of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which still enjoys a half-life, whilst some others offered an answer of “Corruption of our democratic system through contributions/bribes”, both of which like ” The framing of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy assigns primary emphasis and agency to Israel, its representatives and the Israeli Lobby whilst assigning lesser emphasis and agency to The United States of America, thereby obfuscating levels of co-operation, mutual interests and strategic partnerships amongst the parties, and in some regards why the door of The United States of America is regularly left ajar to The Israeli Lobby, the state of Israel and some of its representatives. ”

This then poses some interesting questions including but not restricted to “For what purposes did the authors, editors and publishers choose to frame, write and publish the original and subsequently amended version of “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy ?”

Perhaps a useful entry point would be through considering the purposes of Mr. Mearscheimer’s activities in evangelising detente with Russia in the 1960/70’s?

This was a component part of the reasons why in respect of “American” propaganda Mr. Putin quipped “They are now blaming the Jews”.

[Apr 19, 2019] On the existence of the oalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction

Apr 19, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , April 18, 2019 at 13:29

All the post-9/11 US savagery (from Afghanistan to "shock and awe" in Iraq, from Libya and Syria to the Iran sanctions) was directly managed by a pro-Israel Lobby manufactured "consensus" in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, US Senate and Congress, mainstream media, and numerous pro-Israel foreign policy policy think tanks.

In their 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University address the "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" and "its negative effect on American interests".

Both Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority". They note that "not every American with a favorable attitude to Israel is part of the lobby", and that although "the bulk of the lobby is comprised of Jewish Americans", there are many American Jews who are not part of the lobby, and the lobby also includes Christian Zionists.

In response to criticism of the 2006 publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's original essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", Mearsheimer said, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby." He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are philo-semites and strongly support the existence of Israel."

In a letter to the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics:

To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy" they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters." To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low." To the complaint that they "'catalog Israel's moral flaws,' while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states," they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it. To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree, but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions." To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups and the diplomatic establishment,'" they argue that these are no match for the pro-Israel lobby. To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that the United States would favor the Palestinians instead of Israel, and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran if that were so. They accuse various critics of smearing them by linking them to racists, and dispute various claims by Alan Dershowitz and others that their facts and references or quotations are mistaken.

In the 2007 book, Mearsheimer and Walt note that the vast majority of charges leveled against the original 2006 article were unfounded, but some critiques raised issues of interpretation and emphasis, which they addressed in the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

In a February 2019 article in Foreign Policy, Walt discussed Omar's Twitter criticisms of the conduct of Israel's government and its U.S. supporters:

"here's the kicker: [ ] being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby's activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel's actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.

"How do I know? Let's just say I have some experience with this phenomenon."

OlyaPola , April 19, 2019 at 05:23

“To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark “pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low.”

Mono-causality is a tool of deflection/obfuscation given that mono-causality can never exist in any interaction.

However instead of using that notion in reply to assertion of reliance on mono-causality, the authors chose to “point out that support of Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low.”

The framing of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy assigns primary emphasis and agency to Israel, its representatives and the Israeli Lobby whilst assigning lesser emphasis and agency to The United States of America, thereby obfuscating levels of co-operation, mutual interests and strategic partnerships amongst the parties, and in some regards why the door of The United States of America is regularly left ajar to The Israeli Lobby, the state of Israel and some of its representatives.

Another tool of deflection/obfuscation is providing an answer that others can conflate with the answer.

The Okhrana offered an answer to conflate by production of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which still enjoys a half-life, whilst some others offered an answer of “Corruption of our democratic system through contributions/bribes”, both of which like ” The framing of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy assigns primary emphasis and agency to Israel, its representatives and the Israeli Lobby whilst assigning lesser emphasis and agency to The United States of America, thereby obfuscating levels of co-operation, mutual interests and strategic partnerships amongst the parties, and in some regards why the door of The United States of America is regularly left ajar to The Israeli Lobby, the state of Israel and some of its representatives. ”

This then poses some interesting questions including but not restricted to “For what purposes did the authors, editors and publishers choose to frame, write and publish the original and subsequently amended version of “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy ?”

Perhaps a useful entry point would be through considering the purposes of Mr. Mearscheimer’s activities in evangelising detente with Russia in the 1960/70’s?

This was a component part of the reasons why in respect of “American” propaganda Mr. Putin quipped “They are now blaming the Jews”.

[Apr 19, 2019] The connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state.

Notable quotes:
"... Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state. ..."
"... Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That country is, of course, Israel." ..."
Apr 19, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , April 18, 2019 at 23:23

Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby

Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an impressive exercise in burying the lede.

Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state.

Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That country is, of course, Israel."

[Apr 17, 2019] Al-Sisi is evidently not impressed with Trump

Notable quotes:
"... This is a humiliation for the US in that it demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl ..."
Apr 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

It surprises me that Egypt has rather brazenly walked away from the Boltonesque fantasy of an "Arab NATO." I would have thought that the paychecks Egypt receives every year from the American taxpayer and the Saudis would have kept Sisi in line, but apparently the prospect of other sources of funding affected the decision to defy the Amiirkaan.

With the exception of Jordan's small but competent armed forces, Egypt is the only country among the members that possesses significant military power, The armed forces of the other countries are mere playthings for princes. Egypt's withdrawal from this alliance makes the farcical nature of the plan quite clear.

This is a humiliation for the US in that it demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl

https://southfront.org/egypt-pulled-out-of-u-s-efforts-to-form-arab-nato-to-combat-iran-reports/

[Apr 16, 2019] MAKE YEMEN SHITHOLE AGAIN!: I voted for Trump and I got a copy of Hillary instead

Apr 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

†FreeThought†

What happened to "Nationalism, not globalism will be our credo"...? I voted for Trump and I got Trumpstein instead.

Haboob

Reality is a bitch.

Deep Snorkeler , 8 minutes ago link

Victory in Yemen! Victory in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else! Our $trillon military, led by genius generals, will bring home slaves and loot to replenish our bankrupt treasury. We shall crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.

ClickNLook, 44 minutes ago

MAKE YEMEN SHITHOLE AGAIN!

warsev

I guess we now know fully where President Trump stands on reining in executive warmongering.

[Apr 16, 2019] Look on the bright side, Trump's overt pandering to Israel has disgusted the Europeans so much that Macron is at the lowest point in his popularity as Rothschild's puppet, and there is rising support for the AfD in Germany.

Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

Thinker , says: April 16, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT

Look on the bright side, Trump's overt pandering to Israel has disgusted the Europeans so much that Macron is at the lowest point in his popularity as Rothschild's puppet, and there is rising support for the AfD in Germany.

The NYT reported that 40% of Germans now think it's right to blame Jews for Israel's policy in the Mideast, German youth couldn't care less about the holocaust, and Merkel is pivoting to Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/opinion/germany-nazis.html

It is now (America + Israel) vs. (the rest of the world led by Russia, China, Iran, Syria, with increasing pivot from Germany and India)

Even the rest of the Five Eyes a.k.a. America's lap dogs are casting a wary eye towards this unholy alliance, and avoid outright support for Israel. Netanyahu has let his new found power, i.e. America's muscles, gone to his head. He's digging a grave for himself, turning Israel more and more into a pariah state with each passing day.

I'm guessing chess is not Trump's strong suit, nor any of the Israel Firsters (incl. Pence & Pompeo) hanging around him. They're all letting their new found power go to their collective heads. Things are going to backfire on them sooner or later.

[Apr 16, 2019] "Trump panders to his base at the Republican Jewish Coalition." but the problem is that the Republican Jewish Coalition was never his base.

Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

Thinker , says: April 16, 2019 at 1:51 pm GMT

@wayfarer "Trump panders to his base at the Republican Jewish Coalition."

The trouble is, the Republican Jewish Coalition was never his base. These people were the biggest Trump haters until he got elected. Now they're just holding their noses to buy power through him.

Meanwhile, the real Trump's base could care less about Israel, and are frankly disgusted with his foreign policy and complete failure on immigration.

[Apr 16, 2019] Trump probably should get one step further at the Republican Coalition

Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

Mark Bruzonsky , says: Website April 16, 2019 at 4:39 am GMT

"Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights."

He should and probably will recognize USA as the colony of Isreal and the Jews, and get it over with.

[Apr 16, 2019] Trump Dances to Israel's Tune by Philip Giraldi

Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

So newly reelected Israeli monster-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted , with a grin, that America's President Donald J. Trump followed through on his proposal to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group. Bibi was smiling because the timing of the move, one day before the Israeli election, strongly suggests it was done to assist him against what had become a very strong opposition challenge. That Trump likely colluded with Netanyahu to blatantly interfere in the election has apparently bothered no one in Israel or in the tame American media.

The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute Israel for war crimes, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, removing the word "occupation" from the State Department's assessments of human rights infringements on the West Bank, eliminating relief funding for Palestinian refugees, leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council because it was too critical of Israel, and looking the other way as Israel declared itself a state only for Jews. Washington also ignored the bombing of hospitals, schools and water treatment infrastructure in Gaza while Israeli army snipers were shooting unarmed demonstrators demanding their freedom.

The labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is particularly disturbing as it means that the United States military by virtue of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) now has a mandate to attack the IRGC wherever it appears, including in Syria or even in the waterway the Straits of Hormuz, where the guard has regular patrols in small boats. It is a de facto declaration of war and it comes on top of a number of deliberate provocations directed against Iran starting with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) one year ago, which led to the unilateral imposition of harsh sanctions directed against the Iranian economy to bring about a popular uprising as well as regularly repeated false claims that Iran is the leading "state sponsor of terrorism." Next month, the U.S. will begin enforcing a unilaterally declared worldwide sanction on any and all Iranian oil sales.

Netanyahu pledged to annex Israeli settlements on the largely Palestinian West Bank if elected, which is undoubtedly a move cleared in advance with the Trump team of foreign policy sociopaths as it de facto puts an end to any delusional speculation over a possible two-state negotiated solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will also lead to a massive upsurge in violence as the Palestinians object, which is neither a concern for the White House or Netanyahu, as they are assuming that it can be suppressed by overwhelming force directed against an almost completely unarmed civilian population.

And Trump will no doubt expect Bibi to return the favor when he is running for reelection in 2020 by encouraging American Jews who care about Israel to support the Republicans. Trump is focused on his own electability and is absolutely shameless about his betrayal of actual American interests in the Middle East, possibly because he has no inkling of the actual damage that he is doing. His speech last week before the casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson-hosted Jewish Republican Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas was a disgusting pander to a group that includes many key players who have little or no concern for what happens to the United States as long as Israel flourishes. The only good news that came out of the meeting was that Adelson himself appears to be "gravely ill."

Trump at times appeared to be speaking to what he thought was a group of Israelis, referring to "your prime minister" when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu and several times describing Israel as "yours," suggesting that deep down he understands that many American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. At another point, Trump declared that "The Democrats have even allowed the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party and their country," apparently part of a White House plan to keep playing that card to turn American Jews and their political donations in a Republican direction before elections in 2020.

Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He described how "he'd been speaking to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman and his Israel adviser, Jason Greenblatt, over the phone about an unrelated issue when he suddenly brought up the Golan Heights." Trump shared how "I said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie.' After the advisers filled him in, Trump said he asked Friedman: 'David, what do you think about me recognizing Israel and the Golan Heights?' Friedman, apparently surprised by the suggestion, reacted like a 'wonderful, beautiful baby,' Trump said, and asked if he would 'really do that.' 'Yeah, I think I'm doing it right now. Let's write something up,' Trump said he responded, prompting applause and cheers from his audience in Las Vegas. 'We make fast decisions and we make good decisions.'"

Putting the Trump story about the Golan Heights in some kind of context is not really that difficult. He wanted an answer to please Netanyahu and he went to three Orthodox Jews who support the illegal Israeli settlements and have also individually contributed financially to their growth so he was expecting the response that he got. That he was establishing a precedent by his moves on Jerusalem and the Golan apparently did not occur to him as his administration prides itself on having a foreign policy vision that extends no longer than the beginning of next week, which is why he hired Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. And then there is always the doleful Stephen Miller lurking in the background as well as the three musketeers of Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman for really serious questions relating to why acceding to the wishes of parasite state Israel should continue to be the apparent number one priority of the government of the United States.

Donald Trump neither poses nor answers the question why he feels compelled to fulfill all of the campaign pledges he made to the Jewish community, which by and large did not vote for him, while failing to carry out the promises made to those who actually did support him . The absurd Jewish Republican Coalition narrative about how Trump gave Israel the Golan Heights should have resulted in a flood of opprobrium in the U.S. media about his profound ignorance and fundamental hypocrisy, but there was largely silence.

The nonsense going on in Las Vegas in front of a lot of fat cats who regard the United States as little more than a cash cow that they control as well as in the White House itself unfortunately has real world consequences. America is being led by the nose by a well-entrenched and powerful group of Israeli loyalists and this will not end well. The U.S. doesn't even have a Middle Eastern foreign policy anymore – it has a "to do" list handed by Netanyahu to whomever is president. The fact that the current man in charge in Washington is either so ignorant or so deluded as to allow the process to escalate until the U.S. is drawn into yet more catastrophic wars is beyond regrettable. U.S. foreign policy should not depend on the perceptions of Kushner and company. It should be based on real, tangible American interests, not those of Israel. Someone should explain that to the president.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

Anon [163] Disclaimer , says: April 16, 2019 at 2:59 am GMT

The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute Israel for war crimes

It reminds me of the following agreements concluded during the Bush era:

US Bilateral Exemption Agreements

"The Bush Administration is actively opposed to the International Criminal Court. Its insistence on placing all Americans above international law risks undermining the ICC in its earliest and most fragile years. Currently, the State Department is pushing individual countries to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, exempting all Americans (and even some non-nationals) from accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes . These proposed agreements, in the form requested by the US government, are illegal under the Rome Statute and are not required by US law.

– see http://www.iccnow.org/html/aiusimpunity200208.pdf

and

http://www.iccnow.org/html/ciccart98memo20020823.pdf .

· The European Union has concluded that "Entering into US agreements – as presently drafted would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements."

To bring the US proposal back within the legal scope of Article 98(2), the EU would require four modifications:

· No impunity: A guarantee that the US would investigate and potentially prosecute the accused in its domestic courts.

· No reciprocity: Nationals of ICC States Parties must be excluded from coverage.

· No universal scope: These agreements can only cover persons officially sent on government business by a State.

· Ratification: The agreement must be approved according to the constitutional procedures of each individual state.

US Bilateral Exemption Agreements

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/FS-WFA-Art98Impunity.pdf

Mark Bruzonsky , says: Website April 16, 2019 at 4:21 am GMT
Does any election matter? Does who is elected matter at all ? Is it election or selection by TPTB?

The monster has total control of the West and beyond for ages, and it will not end well.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/netanyahu-trump-putin-love-story-190408095633979.html

http://againstourbetterjudgment.com/

About the book

Soon after WWII, U.S. statesman Dean Acheson warned that creating Israel on land already inhabited by Palestinians would "imperil" both American and all Western interests in the region. Despite warnings such as this one, President Truman supported establishing a Jewish state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians.

Few Americans today are aware that U.S. support enabled the creation of modern Israel. Even fewer know that U.S. politicians pushed this policy over the forceful objections of top diplomatic and military experts.

As this work demonstrates, these politicians were bombarded by a massive pro-Israel lobbying effort that ranged from well-funded and very public Zionist organizations to an "elitist secret society" whose members included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Against Our Better Judgment brings together meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of our day.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/c8jfE1XjgaM?feature=oembed

Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky. Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials. In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations. He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mark+Bruzonsky

[Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

Highly recommended!
Apr 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Return of the Just April 14, 2019 at 10:46 am

You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams being hired to direct our foreign policy.

The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.

It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.

Ken Zaretzke , says: April 14, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet who buys that nonsense.”

McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling. He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John Kerry.

And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies, it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.

Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.

Joe Dokes , says: April 14, 2019 at 11:55 pm
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
Andrew Stergiou , says: April 15, 2019 at 5:11 am
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push their weight to have their way.

If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?

Peter Smith , says: April 15, 2019 at 5:13 am
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first, and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.

Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked to hold their viking-won inheritance.

At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.

We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract our attention while corruption is rampant at home.

Fayez Abedaziz , says: April 12, 2019 at 12:25 am
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
kingdomofgodflag.info , says: April 12, 2019 at 8:19 am
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it. Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.

America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed, including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian Pacifism.

Mark Thomason , says: April 12, 2019 at 10:43 am
“has gone un-investigated, unheard of, or unpunished.”

The one guy who did tell us has just been arrested for doing exactly that.

The arrest is cheered by those who fantasize about Russiagate, but it is expressly FOR telling us about these things.

Stephen J. , says: April 12, 2019 at 10:51 am
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link below.

“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting NATO ‘Allies’”?

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/04/are-christians-slaughtered-in-middle.html

the the , says: April 12, 2019 at 11:53 am
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big give away to what’s going on.
the the , says: April 12, 2019 at 11:57 am
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11, reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed to do.

Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.

Kouros , says: April 12, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
JohnT , says: April 12, 2019 at 2:03 pm
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally a family affair.
Ken Zaretzke , says: April 12, 2019 at 2:10 pm
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.

We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.

[Apr 16, 2019] Trump is a weak and easily controlled puppet, and his puppet masters are Bibi and Javanka.s"

Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

Johnny Walker Read , says: April 16, 2019 at 3:17 pm GMT

Trump is a weak and easily controlled puppet, and his puppet masters are Bibi and Javanka.
http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/why-trumps-maga-agenda-is-failing-a-review-of-kushner-inc/
DESERT FOX , says: April 16, 2019 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read In my opinion Kushner is mossad !

[Apr 15, 2019] Jared Kushner dodges questions about security clearance in rare interview - YouTube

Apr 02, 2019 | www.youtube.com

House Oversight Committee members will decide Tuesday whether to subpoena senior Trump administration officials over a whistleblower's claim. The issue is top-level security clearances, including those for the president's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who are both presidential advisers. Paula Reid reports.


Rocket Man , 1 week ago

The issuance of security clearances is an executive agency function controlled by executive order and entirely within the discretion of the president. Trump isn't violating anything if he overrides a lower level determination on a security clearance since the entire function of issuing a security clearance stems from his own constitutional authority. The whole idea around security clearances is that the president has people in executive agencies that he can trust. He can trust his own daughter and son-in-law, even if some woman in the clearance department thinks otherwise.

Douglas Barton , 1 week ago

I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. Mark Twain

Ken Wells , 1 week ago

I think we should hire Muller to investigate this for two years.

[Apr 15, 2019] Donald Trump meet his golden boy Jared Kushner - YouTube

Dec 11, 2016 | www.youtube.com

Jared Kushner is the in-law that Trump calls "his son," he's has a similar back story to the President elect. But who is the man touted for a big role in the new administration? Subscribe to us and get more videos from Channel 4 News Subscribe for more: bit.ly/LtASif.

JSOMERSET994 JSOMERSET994 , 2 years ago

Israeli operative... going to be set up and destroyed...

[Apr 15, 2019] Is Jared Kushner next to leave Trump White House - YouTube

Mar 04, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jared Kushner has allegedly been peddling his Trump White House credentials to influence foreign policy in an attempt to save his sinking real estate business.

Former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste tells CBC The Weekly's Wendy Mesley the Trump administration seems to lack any 'normative behaviour.'


Leopoldo Buenaventura , 1 year ago

The entire family is incredibly incompetent and corrupted....

maxglide , 1 year ago

Kushner DOES look like a possessed Ken doll!

Carolyn Smith , 1 year ago

Corruption, Incompetence, Ignorance of American Democrary, Pay-For-Play.

News that matter , 1 year ago (edited)

He's a joke. A degenerate. A crook. He needs to investigated and brought up on charges. I want that smirk wiped off his face.

[Apr 14, 2019] Pro-Israeli groups defining the US foreign policy: 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 the world we mean business

Highly recommended!
US neocons motto as expressed by Ledeen, who was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende : "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 the world we mean business". ..."
The US foreign policy is defined by interests of neoliberals and neocons, or to be exact by interests of multinational corporations, who are not necessary led by Jews ;-). The whole discussion of the US foreign policy via the lens of Jew/non-Jew dichotomy is far from the best approach to this problem.
While it is true that a large number of neocons end even some "economic nationalists" like Steve Bannon identify with Israel. But the real allegiance of neocons is not to Israel. It is to many from American MIC. In this sense, neither chickenhawk Michael Ledeen (a second rate figure at best, without much political influence), no chickenhawk Bill Kristol (third rate figure, with little or no political influence at all), but Senator McCain and Dick Cheney are proper examples of really dangerous neocons.
Yes, neocons has a large, sometimes decisive influence on the US foreign policy. But this is because they are neoliberals with the gun, political prostitutes serving MIC interests, not so much because some of them are "Israel-firsters" (this term is not without problems, although it denotes Jewish nationalists pretty well, see an interesting discussion in The Volokh Conspiracy )
Notable quotes:
"... Netanyahu is making an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home & safe haven ..."
"... I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young and dewy-fresh: "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 the world we mean business". ..."
"... This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud. ..."
"... Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s. ..."
"... Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. ..."
"... Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout. ..."
"... The Jewish individuals named by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed and which promoted. ..."
"... I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism. ..."
"... You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan. ..."
"... Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down. ..."
"... A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an article in the MSM. ..."
"... So now US troops are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them. ..."
"... Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN. Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel. ..."
"... There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable). The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it.. ..."
"... Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.) military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"? ..."
"... I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad? ..."
"... Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it). ..."
"... Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba). ..."
"... How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"? ..."
"... "The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while taking it good and hard? ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars by Philip Giraldi September 19, 2017 - The Unz Review

Dump Trump , September 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

@Brabantian Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing positive links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel:

US alt-right leader, Richard Spencer, appeared on Israeli TV last month to call himself a "white Zionist"
The above from an interesting article by British activist and Nazareth, Palestine resident Jonathan Cook , speaking of how Israel's Netanyahu is making an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home & safe haven ... and hence the 'progressive' Jews should abandon any support for boycott of Israel or for Palestinian rights:
The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly called on all Jews to come to Israel, claiming it as the only safe haven from an immutable global anti-semitism. And yet, Mr Netanyahu is also introducing a political test before he opens the door.

Jews supporting a boycott of Israel are already barred. Now, liberal Jews and critics of the occupation like Mr Soros are increasingly not welcome either. Israel is rapidly redefining the extent of the sanctuary it offers – for Jewish supremacists only.

For Mr Netanyahu may believe he has much to gain by abandoning liberal Jews to their fate, as the alt-right asserts its power in western capitals.

The "white Zionists" are committed to making life ever harder for minorities in the West in a bid to be rid of them. Sooner or later, on Mr Netanyahu's logic, liberal Jews will face a reckoning. They will have to accept that Israel's ultra-nationalists were right all along, and that Israel is their only sanctuary.

Guided by this cynical convergence of interests, Jewish and white supremacists are counting on a revival of anti-Semitism that will benefit them both.

Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing positive links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel

Steve Bannon and his supposed alt-right rag Breitbart are incredibly pro-Israel. I supposed it has something to do with its founder Andrew Breitbart being a Jew. Every time Trump or Nikki Haley says something nasty about Iran, you'll get plenty of Breitbart commenters echoing their sentiment egging them on, you can tell by their inane comments many have no idea why they should hate Iran, other than Breitbart told them to.

They've fully bought into the Breitbart narrative that Iran is evil and must be destroyed. The Trump fan boys/girls who continue to blindly support him despite all his betrayals are every bit as stupid as the libtards they claim to hate.

jamsok , September 19, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh "And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht..."

I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young and dewy-fresh: "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 the world we mean business".

This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud.

Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s.

matt , September 19, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

@Randal

I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including Trump himself.
Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.

In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.

What gives?

Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.
Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.

That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The Jewish individuals named by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed and which promoted.

"What gives" is that I think lunatic screeds about "America's Jews" (like Noam Chomsky?) manipulating foreign policy do damage to the anti-war cause. I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism.

Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just Jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.

That's slightly better than the 1-dimensional Joo-paranoia, but it doesn't begin to describe the problem.

You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan.

matt , September 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

I am glad you think Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Yet it doesn't square with your earlier statement which reads " I'm glad they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them ". There are no scenarios in which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?

Before you decide to label as sociopath, anyone who proposes a worldview grounded in reality, you might think long and hard about the multitude of paths this world can take under the scenario of a wholesale withdrawal of U.S. presence in the Gulf. Most one hears on this forum, including your own, reduce to precious nothing over virtue signaling.

Like it or not the world is never going to assume the shape of a collection of nations equal in power, interests and endowments. Hoping for that is to live in a state of delusion.

U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran . Far from it; yet facilitating her allies' aspirations to join the American vision isn't one we are about to walk away from. That is not chest beating. It is eminently in evidence from the number of nations wishing to join the Western economic and cultural model. I am keenly aware of the lunatics on this forum who believe they'd be perfectly happy to embrace other cultures, I can only invite them to make haste.

Spare me the rest of your sanctimony.

"I'm glad they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them". There are no scenarios in which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?

In the case of a defensive war with United States, there sure would be. At that point Iran would not have much hope but to inflict as much damage as possible on the aggressor. Although Iran does not nearly have the ability to fully reciprocate the harm the US can inflict on it, it hopefully has the capability to inflict enough damage so that an offensive war against it would be intolerable to the US. That's how deterrence works.

U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran.

If that's true, and I sincerely hope it is, it's because Iran has sufficient deterrent capacity, which includes not only the anti-ship missiles in the Gulf, but also Hezbollah's arsenal of ~130,000 short, medium and long-range rockets capable of reaching every square inch of Israeli territory.

Believe me, I'm a realist. You don't have to lecture me on the reality of aggressive rogue nations.

anonymous , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Nope. As far as I know, he was being perfectly serious.

And that is exactly the way the power elite think - although they are usually much more cautious about speaking their mind in public.

Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down.

Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or maimed – not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir.

True words sir!

The evil empire sustains itself primarily through this attitude of its people. It does not matter how the Jews connive to shape it. Only thing that matters is that they buy into it without exercising their conscience.

Americans, remember, such glory has a cost. You will find soon enough that a cancerous soul is too high a price to be "Top Nation," for essentially a blink in cosmic time.

Dump Trump , September 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an article in the MSM.

The late Samuel Huntington said in his amazing book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order that Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting for supremacy in the Islamic world. Syria is a proxy war between the two countries. Now Israel has become BFF with Saudi Arabia because they too want a piece of Syria, for the oil reserve in the Golan Heights. So now US troops are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them.

Make no mistake Jews and Arabs run this country. That is why Trump went to Israel and SA for his first foreign trip, he knows who America's daddy is, even if most Americans are still in the dark.

His entire administration is crawling with Israel loving Jews, starting with his son-in-law the most loyal son of Israel. Even Steve Bannon and Breitbart are crazy gung ho pro-Israel. Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN. Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel.

When was the last time Iran conducted a jihad against the west? All the Muslim terrorists now attacking the west are Sunnis, funded by Saudi Arabia. The only time Iran had direct armed conflict with the US was when they kicked us out of Tehran, for trying to steal their oil. All their beef is with Israel, not with the US. Why are we taking up Israel's cause? Trump is a moron of the first order and has no understanding of what really goes on in the mideast. He surrounds himself with pro-Israel neocons and Jews and is easily manipulated. He's stupid and dangerous. I voted for him because he presented himself as someone completely different, someone anti-war and anti-immigration, now he's a neocon globalist libtard, the worst of all worlds. Someone needs to primary him out in 2020.

matt , September 19, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

@iffen as sociopaths like you

Speaking of unhinged I'd say the sentiment that America has the right to threaten and/or attack other countries to maintain its "economic interests" is sociopathic. What would you call it? And I didn't say that he personally was in charge of US/Israeli/Saudi policy towards Iran, if that's what you thought I meant. That would be unhinged. I just said that sociopaths like him are.

Randal , September 19, 2017 at 6:12 pm GMT

@KBRO [In comments, allcaps is shouting. Stop shouting or your comments will be trashed.]

RE:
BUSH-CHENEY-CLINTON-TRUMP--MCMASTER--KELLY---AND THE LOT OF THEM ALL AIN'T JEWS:

WELL PUT. GIRALDI IS A MIXED BAG, WRITES SOME GOOD STUFF, BUT IT MISIDENTIFIES THE PROBLEM--THE ENEMY-- BY LABELING IT AS "THE JEWS". THE NEO-CONS--AND NEO-LIBERALS--WHO DRIVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD COME IN MANY FLAVORS.
I'M AN ANTI-ZIONIST, AND IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST.

IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST

There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable). The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it..

Giraldi is discussing the latter and not the former, and doing a service to the American nation by his taboo-busting.

Brooklyn Dave , September 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT

I wonder where Mr. Giraldi would put David Horowitz on the list? Although Horowitz is not a public policy maker, but rather an author and blogger, but definitely is a known Jewish voice. I respect Horowitz tremendously because of his background as an ex-Communist and his dead-on criticism of the American Left, both historically and currently. Although rather knee-jerk in his defense of Israel, I would not doubt his loyalty to this country one iota.

I do not know if David Horowitz is a dual Israeli-American citizen, but he is not a legislator nor a government policy maker, so as far as I am concerned, the issue is moot. If one questions the loyalty to America, of Jews or any other group for that matter, the issue of holding dual citizenship while holding certain government offices should be something of concern. Once out of public office or service, then they can resume their dual citizenship. It makes the issue of loyalty less questionable.

wayfarer , September 19, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

@bjondo Regarding jew and war:

Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.) military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"?

reckon his serving in other ways was/is lying and pushing for wars for his real country israel. Truth hurts, America.

Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed during the Vietnam War, 270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent or less than a half of one-percent.

Guess they were too busy partying in college, while pursuing their law degrees.

During the Vietnam war the U.S. selective service system gave deferments to those attending college, which delayed their eligibility for conscription.

"Among partners of the top law firms in New York, I estimate that at least 25% are Jews."

source: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4726694_Going_to_College_to_Avoid_the_Draft_The_Unintended_Legacy_of_the_Vietnam_War [accessed Sep 19, 2017].

source: http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2014/6/5/is-lack-of-diversity-at-big-law-firms-a-crisis

Randal , September 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@matt I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. It's not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".

I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including Trump himself.

Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.

In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.

What gives?

Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.

Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.

That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The jewish individuals named by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed and which promoted.

anonymous , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@matt I'm strongly against any war with Iran, but this comes of as an unhinged and bigoted rant. Not nearly everyone who is pushing for war with Iran is Jewish, and this narrative perpetuates the myth, beloved by alt-right types and paleocons, of a well-intentioned but naive Trump administration that was hijacked by Jewish neocons. In reality, despite differences within the administration, Iran was always something they could all agree on. H.R. McMaster and James Mattis are well known Iran hawks, and neither are Jewish. Nikki Haley isn't Jewish, nor is Rex Tillerson. Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn wouldn't have stopped Trump from going to war if they hadn't been forced out of the administration, as both, especially the latter, were absolute lunatics when it came to Iran. On that subject, they were worse than neocons. And of course there's Trump himself, whose bloodlust regarding Iran has always been on full display from the beginning, if you were paying attention. Hostility toward Iran might in fact be the most consistent theme of the Trump administration and of Trump himself, who has been known to vacillate on virtually every issue, except this one.

If you supported Trump because you thought he might be some sort of isolationist dove, you have only yourself to blame. Evil Jewish neocons didn't force you to ignore the massive evidence that was always right in front of your face. The fact that there are so many who profess to the Christian faith, who are as evil as those Joo neocons, such as those you mentioned, simply cannot be denied. Even if hypothetically speaking the Joos were to vanish overnight, the wars of aggression by the Evil Empire will continue unabated.

The Evil Empire and its Evil b!tch both share the same satanic vision of world domination. Two evil nations, made for each other, in a match made in Hell.

Btw, the orange scumbag was hilariously evil at the UN.

Both N.Korea and Iran should simply call this bastard's bluff, by literally giving him the finger. I say, let the chips fall where they may. Let's see how the American, Japanese, S.Korean, Israeli & "Royal" pussies like the consequences.

To you N.Koreans, its been written that you will target the thousands of American Terrorists stationed in the south. I am counting on that, so don't you miss chaps.

matt , September 19, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Anonymous

They should. If Raimondo starts blaming the Jews, he can avoid taking responsibility for his idiotic and embarrassing cheerleading for the current warmonger-in-chief.
I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad?

And started plans for attacking Iran? Who? Hillary? Hahahaha. Ted Cruz? Hahahaha. Etc.

Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it).

Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba).

matt , September 19, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT

@Randal

If an article titled "America's Jews are Behind America's Wars" isn't unhinged and bigoted, I'd like you to tell me what is.
How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"?

Or is it not the statement of the facts that you are outraged by, but merely the proposed solutions? If so, then what solutions to the problem identified by Giraldi and by Haaretz would you propose?

If Trump's insane rhetoric on Iran and push for war isn't an example of bloodlust, why don't you tell me what it is?
Good examples might be the desperate attempts to prevent the deal with Iran that hopefully will prove to have cauterised the longstanding efforts to use the spurious nuclear weapons issue to push the US towards confrontation and war with Iran:

KEY JEWISH DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS SAY THEY WILL VOTE AGAINST IRAN DEAL

Or when Israel's primary agents of political influence in the US went "all out" to try to get the US to attack Syria and hand yet another country to (even more) jihadist-ridden chaos:

AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

But hey, I suppose for you those are just more examples of "unhingedness" and "bigotedness".

It must be strange living in the world you inhabit, so far removed from basic reality by a desperate need to avoid being seen as any kind of badwhite. I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. It's not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".

matt , September 19, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Sam Shama They can certainly try, and, I suppose you'd require the U.S. to stay her hand as a matter of fair principle while watching said bases destroyed. Nice idea, but I'd stick to reality. U.S. has vast interests, including economic ones; those which benefit every U.S. citizen, and, to be practical, all her allies. Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Its anti-ship missiles are for deterrence, which Iran has plenty of need for, as sociopaths like you populate the American, Israeli, and Saudi governments and are itching to attack.

matt , September 19, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

@WJ Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. ( one , two , three , four , five ).

Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the 9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite pleased with his progress, as they should be.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.

Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about).

After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically, a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title="" https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ; https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.

I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had good relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to American special forces.

US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic" gesture.

Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.

And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act, Trump might be thinking about ending the Iran deal in October.

Heather Heyer's Ghost , September 19, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

@Thomm Jews are white. Ashkenazi Jews, and those are the ones we are mainly dealing with, are an endogamous caste of bankers, progressive journalists, lawyers, and social scientists (including, now, education), that have migrated all over Europe, but never identifying as European, with exceptions that prove the rule.

As a tribe, once can read Kevin MacDonald's work to see how they work in remarkable ethnic cohesion–not necessarily as an "organized conspiracy" (though that certainly happens), but as an ethnic drive.

Being neither European as such, nor Christian, and although their skin is white, they are not White.

Stan d Mute , September 19, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

Dual loyalty is an avoided and career-ending subject for a couple reasons. One must never, ever, criticize Jews (a third rail at complete odds with) and one may not criticize immigrants' behavior.

The obvious problem is Treason. Just how much Treason is the result of so-called "dual loyalty"? And isn't Treason subject to some rather serious legal sanctions?

...

just an internet commenter , September 19, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

I just want to point out, being a (fake) "news" consumer, I hear about Israel all the time, all while not hearing a lot of follow-up detail about Israel and its interests. Isn't that a clever sleight of hand? According to the pro-Israel (by extension jews) propaganda I'm required to care about, despite it having nothing to do with my life, my family's life, my neighbors' lives, and my community's lives Israel is that big of a deal. Actually, I hear more about Israel in the media than I hear about my home state of Michigan. Michigan is probably a lot more important to the US economy, US security, US tourism industry, Midwestern industrial technology industry, US engineering industry, and the Midwestern Farming economy, than Israel is. Then there are the people who live here, who are Americans. Israel first, then Americans? Okay, got it.

If the public were exposed to as much emotionally captivating propaganda about Michigan as they were about Israel, I'd posit the public would see a far better investment in Michigan than they would in Israel. That includes an emotional investment.

I don't know what can be politely said or how it would shape up, but Midwesterners desperately need to understand the Israel (by extension jewish) problem. They're bleeding us and getting away with it, all while getting away with incessantly calling us racists and anti-semites. Because again, caring about Michigan and its people first is just morally irreprehensible. Israel first, then Israel second, etc Got it bigot? That sleight of hand, it's just always there. I don't fully grasp how this large scale agit-prop psychology works. I do understand jewish solidarity. I'll hand it to jews, they have the strongest ethnic/religious/cultural solidarity I've ever seen. If Midwesterners realized the value of this level of solidarity, they wouldn't enlist their sons in the military to serve jewish interests overseas.

Anonymous , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT

From Money Manipulation And Social Order (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1944) by Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., Professor of Philosophy and Church History, Holy Ghost Missionary College, Dublin:

When the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, created in 1913 by Mr. Paul Warburg, a German Jew belonging to the Banking Firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had been a few years in existence, in 1916 to be precise, President Woodrow Wilson thus summed up the situation in U.S.A.: "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. . .

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world!no longer a Government by conviction and the free vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." From the similar testimonies quoted by Christopher Hollis in The Two Nations, let us take one. "Behind the ostensible government," ran Roosevelt's policy, " sits enthroned an invisible government owning no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."

https://archive.org/details/FaheyDenisMoneyManipulationAndSocialOrder

Corvinus , September 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

@Che Guava

Bullshit.

Anyone who reads knows that Israel (and its agents, where not dual citizens, the Jewish ones effectively all are, and the goyim dupes and toadies, who are not, 'cept sometimes with marriage) have been the tail that wags the US dog for many years, starting over a century ago, in finance, commerce, and law in NYC, in a small way the scope is ever wider and the effects more and more blatant.

The USA is a colony of Israel, everybody is knowing it, but some lie and deny.

From my reading of history, I would placing the tipping point from 'excessive power' to 'colonial masters' at the 1967 war of Israel and its neighbours.

Others may dating it to the end of the Third Reich, with all sorts of Jewish DPs and US Jews who had never seen combat running around in US military and MP uniforms to persecuting and killing Germans, under the command of Eisenhauer, the Morgenthau plan, etc.

Others may picking a different time.

It is funny that you are posting as Anonymous on this, can only mean that you are a more subtle pro-Israel troll with your usual u-name. "So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews."

Certainly SOME Israelis and American Jews are involved in developing policy designed to generate hostility to the point of potential war.

But Dick Cheney and Erik Prince, among other prominent non-Jews, bear mentioning.

Regardless, the Jew fixation here is duly noted. Boo! Goes the Joo!

"The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while taking it good and hard?

[Apr 14, 2019] Can Israel survive for another 60 years by Christopher Hitchens

Notable quotes:
"... th birthday ..."
"... tikkun olam ..."
"... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ..."
May 07, 2017 | www.slate.com

It's somehow absurd and trivial to use the word Israel and the expression 60 th birthday in the same sentence or the same breath. (What is this, some candle-bedecked ceremony in Miami?) The questions before us are somewhat more antique, and also a little more pressingly and urgently modern, than that. Has Zionism made Jews more safe or less safe? Has it cured the age-old problem of anti-Semitism or not? Is it part of the tikkun olam -the mandate for the healing and repair of the human world-or is it another rent and tear in the fabric? Jewish people are on all sides of this argument, as always. There are Hasidic rabbis who declare the Jewish state to be a blasphemy, but only because there can be no such state until the arrival of the Messiah (who may yet tarry). There are Jewish leftists who feel shame that a settler state was erected on the ruins of so many Palestinian villages. There are also Jews who collaborate with extreme-conservative Christians in an effort to bring on the day of Armageddon, when all these other questions will necessarily become moot. And, of course, there are Jews who simply continue to live in, or to support from a distance, a nerve-racked and high-tech little state that absorbs a lot of violence and cruelty and that has also shown itself very capable of inflicting the same.

I find that no other question so much reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald and his aphorism about the necessity of living with flat-out contradiction . Do I sometimes wish that Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann had never persuaded either the Jews or the gentiles to create a quasi-utopian farmer-and-worker state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Yes. Do I wish that the Israeli air force could find and destroy all the arsenals of Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Yes. Do I think it ridiculous that Viennese and Russian and German scholars and doctors should have vibrated to the mad rhythms of ancient so-called prophecies rather than helping to secularize and reform their own societies? Definitely. Do I feel horror and disgust at the thought that a whole new generation of Arab Palestinians is being born into the dispossession and/or occupation already suffered by their grandparents and even great-grandparents? Absolutely, I do. The questions of principle and the matters of brute realism have a tendency (especially for one who does not think that heaven plays any part in the game) to converge. Without God on your side, what the hell are you doing in the greater Jerusalem area in the first place? Israel may not be the rogue state that so many people say it is-including so many people who will excuse the crimes of Syria and Iran-but what if it runs the much worse risk of being a failed state? Here I must stop asking questions and simply and honestly answer one. In many visits to the so-called Holy Land, I have never quite been able to imagine that a Jewish state in Palestine will still be in existence a hundred years from now. A state for Jews, possibly. But a Jewish state Israeli propaganda for a long time obscured this crucial distinction. If all that was wanted was a belt of Jewish territory on the coast and plains, such as that which was occupied by the yishuv in pre-state days, the international community could easily have agreed to place it within the defense perimeter of "the West" or the United Nations or, later, NATO. Aha, say the Zionists, the bad old days are gone when we were so naive as to rely on gentiles to defend us. Very well. But also mark the sequel. Israel is now incredibly dependent upon non-Jews for its own defense and, moreover, rules over millions of other non-Jews who loathe and detest it from the bottom of their hearts. How long do you think the first set of non-Jews will go on defending Israel from the second lot and from their very wealthy and numerous kinsmen? In other words, Zionism has only replaced and repositioned the question of anti-Semitism. For me, the Israeli family is not the alternative to the diaspora. It is part of the diaspora. To speak roughly, there are three groups of 6 million Jews. The first 6 million live in what the Zionist movement used to call Palestine. The second 6 million live in the United States. The third 6 million are distributed mainly among Russia, France, Britain, and Argentina. Only the first group lives daily in range of missiles that can be (and are) launched by people who hate Jews. Well, irony is supposed to be a Jewish specialty. That last point, however, brings me to my own closing observation. It is a moral idiot who thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The history of civilization demonstrates something rather different: Judaeophobia is an unfailing prognosis of barbarism and collapse, and the states and movements that promulgate it are doomed to suicide as well as homicide, as was demonstrated by Catholic Spain as well as Nazi Germany. Today's Iranian "Islamic republic" is a nightmare for its own citizens as well as a pestilential nuisance and menace to its neighbors. And the most depressing and wretched spectacle of the past decade, for all those who care about democracy and secularism, has been the degeneration of Palestinian Arab nationalism into the theocratic and thanatocratic hell of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, where the Web site of Gaza's ruling faction blazons an endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion . This obscenity is not to be explained away by glib terms like despair or occupation , as other religious fools like Jimmy Carter-who managed to meet the Hamas gangsters without mentioning their racist manifesto-would have you believe. (Is Muslim-on-Muslim massacre in Darfur or Iraq or Pakistan or Lebanon to be justified by conditions in Gaza?) Instead, this crux forces non-Zionists like me to ask whether, in spite of everything, Israel should be defended as if it were a part of the democratic West. This is a question to which Israelis themselves have not yet returned a completely convincing answer, and if they truly desire a 60 th , let alone a 70 th , birthday celebration, they had better lose no time in coming up with one.

[Apr 14, 2019] When and How Was the Jewish People Invented: Controversial Bestseller Shakes the Foundation of the Israeli State by Joshua Holland

Notable quotes:
"... Central to the ideology of Zionism is the tale -- familiar to all Jewish families -- of exile, oppression, redemption and return. Booted from their kingdom, the "Jewish people" -- sons and daughters of ancient Judea -- wandered the earth, rootless, where they faced cruel suppression from all corners -- from being forced to toil in slavery under the Egyptians, to the Spanish massacres of the 14th century and Russian pogroms of the 19th, through to the horrors of the Third Reich. ..."
"... This view of history animates all Zionists, but none more so than the influential but reactionary minority -- in the United States as well as Israel -- who believe that God bestowed a "Greater Israel" -- one that encompasses the modern state as well as the Occupied Territories -- on the Jewish people, and who resist any effort to create a Palestinian state on biblical grounds. ..."
"... This narrative has huge significance in terms of Israel's national identity. If Judaism is a religion, rather than "a people" descended from a dispersed nation, then it brings into question the central justification for the state of Israel remaining a "Jewish state." ..."
May 07, 2017 | www.alternet.org
What if the entire tale of the Jewish Diaspora is historically wrong? By Joshua Holland / AlterNet January 27, 2009 Print COMMENT NOW!

What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?

And what if most modern Israelis aren't descended from the ancient Israelites at all, but are actually a mix of Europeans, North Africans and others who didn't "return" to the scrap of land we now call Israel and establish a new state following the attempt to exterminate them during World War II, but came in and forcefully displaced people whose ancestors had lived there for millennia?

What if the entire tale of the Jewish Diaspora -- the story recounted at Passover tables by Jews around the world every year detailing the ancient Jews' exile from Judea, the years spent wandering through the desert, their escape from the Pharaoh's clutches -- is all wrong?

That's the explosive thesis of When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? , a book by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand (or Sand) that sent shockwaves across Israeli society when it was published last year. After 19 weeks on the Israeli best-seller list, the book is being translated into a dozen languages and will be published in the United States this year by Verso.

Its thesis has ramifications that go far beyond some antediluvian academic debate. Few modern conflicts are as attached to ancient history as that decades-long cycle of bloodletting between Israelis and Palestinians. Each group lays claim to the same scrap of land -- holy in all three of the world's major Abrahamic religions -- based on long-standing ties to that chunk of earth and national identities formed over long periods of time. There's probably no other place on Earth where the present is as intimately tied to the ancient.

Central to the ideology of Zionism is the tale -- familiar to all Jewish families -- of exile, oppression, redemption and return. Booted from their kingdom, the "Jewish people" -- sons and daughters of ancient Judea -- wandered the earth, rootless, where they faced cruel suppression from all corners -- from being forced to toil in slavery under the Egyptians, to the Spanish massacres of the 14th century and Russian pogroms of the 19th, through to the horrors of the Third Reich.

This view of history animates all Zionists, but none more so than the influential but reactionary minority -- in the United States as well as Israel -- who believe that God bestowed a "Greater Israel" -- one that encompasses the modern state as well as the Occupied Territories -- on the Jewish people, and who resist any effort to create a Palestinian state on biblical grounds.

Inventing a People?

Zand's central argument is that the Romans didn't expel whole nations from their territories. Zand estimates that perhaps 10,000 ancient Judeans were vanquished during the Roman wars, and the remaining inhabitants of ancient Judea remained, converting to Islam and assimilating with their conquerors when Arabs subjugated the area. They became the progenitors of today's Palestinian Arabs, many of whom now live as refugees who were exiled from their homeland during the 20th century.

As Israeli journalist Tom Segev summarized, in a review of the book in Ha'aretz :

There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened -- hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua.

But this begs the question: if the ancient people of Judea weren't expelled en masse, then how did it come to pass that Jewish people are scattered across the world? According to Zand, who offers detailed histories of several groups within what is conventionally known as the Jewish Diaspora, some were Jews who emigrated of their own volition, and many more were later converts to Judaism. Contrary to popular belief, Zand argues that Judaism was an evangelical religion that acti