I was looking at the “What does Hezbollah really want (from Israel)?” thread, and in googling ran across this article "What Does Israel Want? - It isn’t just Lebanon…"
which seems to lay out the case that the war in Iraq is a sub-set of the larger US Neo-con and Israeli goals for the Middle East.
Is this assumption just paranoid conspiracy ranting or is there something to it?
.
It reeks of conspiracy theory bullshit. Plus, the first paragraph lets you know where he’s coming from.
To begin with, the following sentence is from the first paragraph in your link:
Which is nothing less than stupid. Look, you may believe Israel is unreliable, full of warmongers, and The Real Cause for Everything that is Bad. But like it or not, Israel’s capital is Jerusalem. He could have said “Only a fool… would count on Jerusalem”. If not caring to mention Jerusalem, he could have gone with “count on Israel”. But saying “count on Tel-Aviv” is similar to saying “Only a fool, or a masochist, would count on Manhattan to keep its agreements” when talking about US policy.
Which, IMHO, means one of two things: either he’s an ignorant idiot – in which case his views are not worth the bits they are stored in; or, he’s ignoring fact and clouding reality as he sees fit to match his (distorted) worldview – in which case his views are worth even less.
Reading the article, reveals also these all-around truths:
[ul]Israel and US-neo-cons are conspiring together[/ul]
[ul]Israel ignores everything foreign forces (US included) tell her[/ul]
[ul]Only the USA can tell Israel what to do[/ul]
'nough said.
I love the “nihilism with a purpose” part. Whoever said you can’t have the best of both worlds?!
I just like the author’s picture, giving a Clint Eastwood glance over his shoulder with an unlit ciggy in his mouth.
[sub]what a maroon.
You mean pretentious git?
Oh, yeah…[/sub]
I don’t think so. Most countries don’t recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (embassies are situated in Tel-Aviv) Similarily, a number of people refuse to aknowledge it, and deliberatly won’t refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It’s not a proof of ignorance, at the contrary. And it’s not “clouding reality”, either, but rather clearly stating their opinion about the issue of the status of Jerusalem. It’s relatively common.
Sure. So say “don’t trust Israel”. Decisions are not made in Tel-Aviv.
I suppose ‘relatively common’ depends on what circles one runs in. From what I hear, there are still folks who think that the earth is flat. I’m sure that in the circles these folks run in, its a ‘relatively common’ acknowledged world outlook as well.
Perhaps in Europe and in the circles you run in people like to deny that Israel has made Jerusalem its capital. If you repeat the mantra enough, I’m sure, Euro wishes will become reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same folks among who this is ‘relatively common’ ALSO deny Israel’s legitimacy as a nation. From what I recall on my own visits, this seems to be a ‘relatively common’ stance as well amoung our good Euro buddies…
As to the OP…smells like someone with an agenda and an axe to grind to me. Granted I only skimmed the article, but it seemed all the cylinders were firing, all the code phrases in place, etc etc.
-XT
There is no serious dispute that the Neo-Cons have close ties to Likud and that a primary part of the American Neo-Con agenda has always been the use of the US military to benefit the security of Israel. So yes, without a close examination of each paragraph’s merits, there is something to the OP’s link, albeit overstated.
Just to add to the credibility of the author, On Sep. 11 he published another of his masterpieces:
Now, Justin Raimondo is not a conspiracy theory fan. He even makes fun of them. OTOH, he seems to me (and I admit I may be reading too much between the lines) to be a meta-conspiracy theorist:
Am I totally wrong is reading that as “the evil Bush regime has set up it’s own nut conspiracy theory to avert attention from the real conspiracy” ?
Cite?
The United States embassy is in Tel Aviv, although they do have a consulate in Jerusalem. Although U.S. presidents have repeatedly referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the U.S. position remains slightly equivocal and frankly clairobscur is 100% correct ( and didn’t deserve being scolded 
). To quote from the Jewish Library as of 2005:
U.S. Policy
Only two countries have embassies in Jerusalem — Costa Rica and El Salvador. Of the 184 nations with which America has diplomatic relations, Israel is the only one where the United States does not recognize the capital or have its embassy located in that city. The U.S. embassy, like most others, is in Tel Aviv, 40 miles from Jerusalem. The United States maintains a consulate in east Jerusalem that deals with Palestinians in the territories and works independently of the embassy, reporting directly to Washington. While Congress has voted to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, successive Presidents, the final arbiters of the nation’s foreign policy, have refused to do so.
A few days ago both Costa Rica and El Salvador mentioned they were moving their embassies to Tel Aviv:
The disagreement was not about what foreign nations acknowledge as the capital of Israel, but where Israeli political decisions were made. Is it correct or not that the political decisions of Israel are mainly made in Jerusalem?
Absolutely corecct and I would personally refer to Jerusalem as the capital. It is where the government is based and that’s reality. However clarobscur is quite correct that nearly every country, including yours and mine, does a diplomatic two-step when it comes to the topic. Even George W. Bush, of all people, has equivocated slightly on this one. From 2002:
*He insisted that US policy towards the status of Jerusalem - claimed by both Israel and the Palestinians had not changed.
The US says the status of Jerusalem has to be decided as part of a permanent solution between the Palestinians and Israel.*
This despite the bill he signed. If you want to say that that 2002 bill changed things for the U.S. - perhaps. But the embassy is STILL in Tel Aviv today and this bill was 2002, not, say, 1960 ;).
Yes, that’s exactly the point – the writer is going to great pains to announce to all and sundry their opinion on the Status of Jerusalem. Might this not make you think that said writer might not be, quite, the most objective and even-handed of people when coming to analyze the ME situation and US-Israel relations?
So, like Puzzler said – we have here either an idiot (doubtful) or someone with a clear anti-Israeli agenda. Which is a legitimate stance even if I don’t like it much :(, but you’d probably do well to look at the article at best as an op-ed (rather than a factual) piece, and more likely as a skewed and factless screed
Uh-oh. When you’ve got Sevastopol telling you that you’ve gone too far with this stuff, it’s time to give serious thought to the possibility that you’re completely over the edge. 
The European attitude toward Israel has always been a bit of a sore point with me. I have to admit I let my annoyance get the better of me. You are right…he didn’t deserve that, and appearently he was correct. I actually was not aware of the US’s split policy on this and assumed that we acknowledged the capital that Israel itself proclaims. I can see why it might be a touchy subject and why the US (and the Europeans) have dithered on it.
Anyway, apologies to clairobscur. It was late and I was wrong.
-XT
Nope, it was about the motives of the author, when he refered to Tel-Aviv as the Israeli capital.
Yes, I do. So what?
First, IIRC, Franklin passed information to Israel. Not quite the same as “the use of the US military to benefit the security of Israel”.
Second, how do you derive " a primary part of the American Neo-Con agenda" from this specific incident?