Israel Lobby

Joe Walsh and the 9/11 cover-up: Jewish power on display

/484 Comments/in , , /by

Congressman Joe Walsh has a sure-fire way to end the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: Palestinians move to Jordan, and those who don’t move reconcile themselves to permanent second-class status. As Robert Wright notes,

 Offhand, I don’t recall a member of Congress in my lifetime saying anything so grotesquely at odds with American ideals about ethnic relations and for that matter basic human rights. Will the Anti-Defamation League denounce Walsh? Will the American Jewish Committee? Will AIPAC have anything to say about the congressman whose strongly pro-Israel views its newsletter approvingly highlighted? If not, why not? (“Congressman endorses ethnic cleansing, apartheid for Palestinians“; The Atlantic)

Walsh’s proposal contravenes the entire zeitgeist of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the West. It dovetails nicely with Newt Gingrich’s statement during the Republican primaries that the Palestinians already have a state: Jordan. Except that Gingrich apparently would like the Palestinians to be expelled.

The mere fact that Walsh could propose such a thing is a telling sign of Jewish power. There is no other group in the entire world whose permanent subordination could be advocated by a US politician.

But there will be no outrage by Jewish activist organizations, even though they are a major support for utopian multiculturalism in the US and even though they routinely act as arbiter on statements related to Israel by US politicians. The Jabotinskyists are in charge in Israel, and, given Israeli demographic trends favoring the religious and secular ethnonationalists, there is no going back. The Israel Lobby will support whatever Israel does. Read more

Peter Beinart on American Jews and Israel

/90 Comments/in , , /by

I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was. Peter Beinart, who has become a leading voice of the liberal critique of Israel, had this to say in describing Jews who support AIPAC:

There is nothing wrong with the people themselves. Most AIPAC people are not ideological. They don’t see themselves as right wing. They’re mostly moderate Democrats. They just want to do something for Israel. They want to feel connected to Israel. They go to their synagogue dinner, they go to the Federation dinner, and they go to the AIPAC dinner. (Haaretz, “Is archliberal Peter Beinart good for the Jews?“)

A recurrent theme at TOO is that Diaspora Jews are engaged in hypocrisy—supporting apartheid Israel bent on ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians, with a Jews-only immigration policy, while supporting America as  a proposition nation with no ethnic identity, massive non-White immigration, and vilifying any manifestations of ethnic/racial identity by Whites. My image of AIPAC supporters was that they are conscious gung-ho supporters of settlers, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid—the technical term is ‘neocon’. But Beinart seems  to be saying that American Jews simply have a blind spot. The hypocrisy fails to register with them. They are good liberals who will vote for Obama and just want to support Israel; they don’t pay much attention to what Israel does, or their attitudes are shaped by the AIPAC propaganda machine. In a rather gentle way, Beinart is trying to get them to see their hypocrisy, probably to no avail. Read more

Obama at AIPAC

/412 Comments/in /by

Obama is clearly dragging his heels on Iran. What the NYTimes called Obama’s “defensive speech” at AIPAC today reiterated US commitment to diplomacy and sanctions, while at the same time emphasizing his record of strong support for Israel. But it’s not going to be enough to please his masters. The Lobby wants the US to go to war and they don’t seem to want to wait even until after the election to get it. Obama, doubtless thinking of the disastrous effects on the economy and therefore his chances in the election, would at least prefer to wait. Perhaps I’m naive, but I believe him when he says he doesn’t want to preside over yet more dead and wounded Americans returning from the Middle East.

In any case, there is little reason to think that Obama can withstand the pressure. Remember last year, when he offended the Lobby by talking about the 1967 borders: It quickly became apparent that the US could not pressure Israel on the settlements or anything else:

Tensions have been high between Obama and Netanyahu for over two years, but Israel hasn’t changed its behavior at all, indeed announcing 1500 more housing units in East Jerusalem timed to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit. … By 2012, it will likely be obvious that Obama’s remarks haven’t really changed things for Israel, with the result that Jews will continue to focus on their domestic agenda of supporting White dispossession via funding and supporting the Democratic Party as the party of ethnic grievance and multiculturalism, maybe with a slight decline from the ~80% of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008. It is possible that defection of some Jews (combined with somewhat less enthusiasm by Jewish donors and Jews in the media) could influence the 2012 election in close states like Florida and thereby have a major effect on the outcome. See “Obama Offends the Lobby,” 5/21/2011)

As the Guardian noted, the response was tepid:

The audience didn’t love the speech. The president was met with respectful applause. But many Aipac delegates and supporters must now be hoping that Netanyahu can get more out of Obama when they meet at the White House tomorrow.

This of course is a grand opening for the Republicans, foreshadowed by sparring between Liz Cheney representing the Republicans and Jane Harmon defending the Obama Administration. In his speech, Obama mentioned the expected pro-war comments by Republican presidential candidates who will be speaking in the coming days. The usual competition for the approval of the Israel Lobby. Read more

Alan Dershowitz: Policing Jewish Opponents of a War with Iran

/123 Comments/in , , /by

Israel Firster and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz addresses soldiers wounded fighting in Iraq.

Jews have always policed their own—a basic element of any successful group and a central idea behind the cultural group selection model of Judaism. A good example is the drama playing out now on the attempt to police Jews who are critical of Israel’s desire for a war with Iran. Media Matters, the leftist news organization whose main goal has been to attack Fox News, has hired MJ Rosenberg, the former AIPAC operative who is now a prominent critic of Israel, to beef up its foreign policy coverage. Rosenberg commits the sin of using the phrase “Israel Firster” to refer to people like Alan Dershowitz and the Israel Lobby generally. (Rosenberg did not invent this label. As discussed here, the phrase had been used long before by Wilmot Robertson, David Duke, and the Vanguard News Network.) As Rosenberg has noted, saying that AIPAC has dual loyalty is giving them credit for one more loyalty than they actually have.

Rosenberg’s argument bears quoting:

Right now, there is only one interest group in the United States that absolutely opposes any diplomacy to avoid war with Iran and which insists that the United States expressly state (as it has) that war with Iran is definitely “on the table.”

In fact, that interest group, AIPAC, actually got Congress to pass a bill, which President Obama signed, that bans any diplomacy with Iran without express approval of four Congressional committees in advance — as if AIPAC will ever let that happen.

Just read this AIPAC-drafted language that is now law:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.-No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

(d) WAIVER.-The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

Frankly, this makes me sick. Banning diplomacy almost guarantees war with Iran, a war that must not be fought.

I oppose war with Iran unless Iran attacks the United States directly. Period.

I do not want America to be dragged into a war that Netanyahu provokes and which the United States would then be dragged into. I favor diplomacy, unconditional diplomacy, with all issues on the table.

Another very ominous sign is that the Congressional forces advocating war have now settled on a weaker criterion for war—that Iran simply possess “the scientific knowledge and industrial means to build a nuclear bomb,” not necessarily actually build one or even intend to build one (LATimes: “Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance“). As Philip Giraldi, writing at Council for the National Interest, notes: “There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they chose to do so, making Iran far from unique but for its persistence as a thorn in the side of Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States.” The LATimes article notes that 38 senators also signed a resolution that the Obama administration not pursue containment of Iran, a policy that leaves a military strike the only realistic option. The pressure on Obama is intense, especialy with all the Republican candidates except Ron Paul eager to flog him for not doing enough for

Read more

The Obama Administration on the Defensive on Israel; Republicans to the Rescue

/60 Comments/in /by

The ADL must feel like they are playing Whac-A-Mole these days. Every time they look around, there’s another “anti-Semite” or, what amounts to the same thing from their point of view,  a critic of Israel to whack over the head.  Just recently three Obama administration officials got off the reservation on Israel, leading to a JTA article headlined “Remarks on Israel by three U.S. officials spark furor. First up was US ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, a major (Jewish) Obama fundraiser, who

caused an uproar when he suggested on Dec. 1 that hostility among European Arabs and Muslims toward Jews was rooted in anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and should be distinguished from traditional forms of anti-Semitism.

You see, in the Never-Never land of the ADL, Muslim hostility toward Jews has nothing to do with actual Jewish behavior toward Muslims in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. It’s a corollary of the general Jewish stance that anti-Semitism never has anything to do with the behavior of Jews but only with various psychopathologies and delusions of non-Jews. Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney called on the Obama administration to dismiss Gutman for these remarks, and the ADL was predictably outraged. Read more

Obama, Sarkozy and the Israel Lobby’s push for a war with Iran

/144 Comments/in /by

It all started when French President Nicholas Sarkozy was overheard telling Obama, “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.” At that point, in the ADL’s ideal world, Obama would have rushed to the defense of the Israeli leader, insisting on all the wonderful qualities that all Israelis are known to have–honesty, integrity, etc.  Instead, Obama replied,  “You’re sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day.”

The ADL is not pleased. Abe Foxman released a statement:

“We are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decidedly un-Presidential exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama. President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader. In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama Administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be. What is sad is that we now have to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France – two singularly important players in the peace process.”

Of course, what Foxman really means is that he has to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France – two singularly important players in the campaign for war against Iran.

The tension between Obama and Netanyahu is nothing new, coming to a peak in May when Obama talked about the 1967 borders and Netanyahu got his ~30 standing ovations in Congress. Since then, the consensus is that Netanyahu won and Obama lost: The construction of settlements continues unabated, Palestine is not in the UN (although it got into UNESCO with the help of France; the Palestinians have pledged not to apply for any more), and Israel and the Israel Lobby  in the U.S. are gearing up to promote a war against Iran.  There were murmurings that Jews would not contribute to Obama, but, unless this recent flap has legs, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Read more

The Jewish Donors Behind the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

/100 Comments/in , /by

In case there are still doubts about the Jewish nature of neoconservatism, a recent article “Documents Shed Light On Those Underwriting The Foundation For Defense Of Democracies”  by Eli Clifton at Think Progress should clear things up. The FDD supports all the past and future wars in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. It supports “the Bush administration’s militant “war on terror” and policies espoused by Israel’s right wing Likud party.” Yet the FDD statement of purpose completely omits any mention of Israel. Touring their website would lead one to believe that there is no connection at all to Israel or anything Jewish.

All of the identifiable donors to The Foundation for Defense of Democracies are Jews, including a host of well-known Jewish activists like Edgar M. Bronfman ($1,050,000)  and Michael Steinhardt ($850,000) who co-founded the Birthright Israel program that brings Jewish young people to Israel for a dose of Jewish patriotism. Haim Saban, who is a pro-Israel fanatic but usually supports left-wing causes in the Diaspora, donated $10,000. I’m shocked that a liberal like Saban would contribute to an organization that is so prominent in Republican circles. Read more