American neocons in government spying (or manipulation U.S. policy) for Israel?!

[JohnFowles]

@PaulFitzRoy

When people use the term “anti-American,” are they referring to opposition to the existence of America, or are they referring to opposition of US policies? Generally the latter, and not the former (unless we’re referring to 18th-century England.) Likewise with Israel: anti-Israel is generally taken to mean anti-Israeli policies, and that’s what I’m using it to mean here.

You got a point. But in the case of Israel there is another position held by some according to which the state of Israel is illegitimate (official position of the PLO until some years ago, and still of Hamas i believe).

But such is not the position of the typical writer of the Nation. He is instead anti Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but acknowledges the legitimacy of the state of Israel, recognized within it’s current borders.

Therefore to avoid sloppy thinking on the subject it might be a good thing to make a distinction between anti-Israel and anti-Occupation.

@PaulFitzroy

Focusing incessantly on Israeli policies, however, while ignoring other issues of more brutal human rights oppression (such as the Muslim massacres in the Sudan, or the oppression of women in the Arab Muslim world, or Russia’s policy in Chechnya, or warlords hacking people to death in Sub-Saharan Africa,) sometimes strikes me as blatantly against the state of Israel itself and not simply against their policies. And I find that many publications seem to ignore Muslim-on-Muslim violence and Muslim-on-Infidel violence in favor of "U.S./Israel Imperialist-on-poor-oppressed-people-violence. That kind of bias in terms of what writings and articles you select strikes me as a little more than simply disagreeing with Israel’s policy. Real advocates of human rights would spend more time chastising the Arab world than Israel (and I’m not saying Israel is blameless as far as human rights go, but you see more condemnation of it from these people than of Arabs or Muslims.)

Yeah, there’s some validity in that argument too. But I think there are many reasons why the middle east conflict gets more attention than those things that you mention. You should keep in mind that the post WWII nation of Israel is an industrialized (semi-)western democracy, and that is not true for any of your examples. Such western, democratic states has sprung from, amongst other things, a foundation of values of anti-repression, egality and freedom. We hold, and should hold, such nations to higher standards. That is - we should hold ourselves to the standards we say we believe in.

Apartheit South Africa was a tangent when it was still was around, in the respect that it combined western culture and democracy with heavy repression of some groups in that society. [I feel I must emphasize the difference that Apartheit SA was also based on a racist ideology, while Israel is not]. Anyway, you may recall that South Africa also got quite a bit of attention from the same crowd, that continue to be hung up on Israel. Neither lives up to what we expect from a western democracy.

Israel furthermore enjoys a special protege status with the United States of America, which is the worlds remaining superpower, and at times it’s self-proclaimed moral leader. There is a widespread perception (justified or not) that the power of the US has kept Israel from being held accountable for it’s missteps.

@PaulFitzroy

I’ll say something else: You used the word “anti-Semite” in your post five times. Nobody else even brought up the word in this whole thread, least of all me. You dragged that terminology into the conversation.

What sent me down that road was actually your post:

@You

As usual, those damn sneaky Jews - uh, I mean Neo-cons, up to their old tricks again. When we will we ever learn?

And jayjays reply:

@JayJay

Haven’t we put this self-indulgent bullshit to rest yet? Geez…there are a lot of Jewish neoconservatives. This does NOT mean that “neocon” is code for “Jew”. It’s very clever, the way that the Right tries to hook criticism of this Administration to the anti-semitism train, but it won’t leave the station. Give it a rest.

And then the mention of and link to Your thread where you suggest that “neo-con” is actually a codeword for “jew” (presumably by closet anti-semites?).

And also manhattan’s claim that the Nation is a magazine just as hateful as Stormfront (the Nazi magazine you know, Nazis as in the quintessential anti-semites). Nice mannie.

Yeah, yeah, what was I thinking?

[Sevastopol]

@manhattan

…as hateful a publication as can be imagined and whose site should be treated on this board exactly as …

…Frontpagemag?

[BrainGlutton]

@PaulFitzroy

Focusing incessantly on Israeli policies, however, while ignoring other issues of more brutal human rights oppression (such as the Muslim massacres in the Sudan, or the oppression of women in the Arab Muslim world, or Russia’s policy in Chechnya, or warlords hacking people to death in Sub-Saharan Africa,) sometimes strikes me as blatantly against the state of Israel itself and not simply against their policies. And I find that many publications seem to ignore Muslim-on-Muslim violence and Muslim-on-Infidel violence in favor of "U.S./Israel Imperialist-on-poor-oppressed-people-violence. That kind of bias in terms of what writings and articles you select strikes me as a little more than simply disagreeing with Israel’s policy. Real advocates of human rights would spend more time chastising the Arab world than Israel (and I’m not saying Israel is blameless as far as human rights go, but you see more condemnation of it from these people than of Arabs or Muslims.)

I’m not clear on where you’re perceiving this bias, Paul. If you go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and peruse the Current Events section of the magazine rack, you will find that the left-of-center publications – The Nation, In These Times, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Z Magazine – often do publish articles decrying the massacres in Sudan, the suppression of women in Islamic countries, Russia’s violence against the Chechens, etc. You will also find these things criticized in many right-wing and centrist magazines. To find a publication that always blames Israel for its sins and ignores everybody else’s, you would have to look to the extreme right-wing fringe mags, the kind that glorify the militia movement and refer to the U.S. government as ZOG.

[Kimstu]

PF: It is a common method of anti-Israel-leaning media to publish reports by Jews, especailly Israeli Jews, in condemnation of Israel, as doing so is saying, “look, even Jews don’t approve of Israel’s policies.” You shouldn’t be surprised by this at all. This allows people to make statements like the one you made above, and allows them do disavow themselves of claimed “anti-Israel bias.”

Look, Paul, it’s one thing to say that a certain left-wing publication may have some “anti-Israel bias”, even if it publishes the writings of Israeli Jews. If you had read my post more carefully, you would have noticed that I said explicitly that I didn’t consider it unreasonable for manhattan to think that The Nation has some anti-Israel bias. (I happen to disagree, but The Nation is undeniably very critical of Israeli policy, and one could make a case for such bias on their part without outrageous distortion.)

What I said was appalling—and what is, in fact, absolutely fucking appalling—was manny’s comparing The Nation to a fucking vicious venomous shitstain like STORMFRONT. Do not try to change the subject by pretending that he was just calling it “anti-Israel-leaning”. He explicitly compared a reputable (though admittedly not infallible or universally beloved) periodical to some of the most loathsome, racist, scurrilous purveyors of hate and ignorance in the entire media universe, and he does not deserve a pass on that.

[PatriotX]

@manhattan

Are they also reporting that “It’s not a routine spy case. According to sources familiar with the investigation, the FBI is looking at a group of neoconservatives who have occupied senior posts at the White House, the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney’s office. It’s not that they are supporters of Israel–no crime there–but that some of them might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon’s Likud Party.”? That it’s a sweeping probe which includes some of the most senior policymakers in our government and goes back to Sharon personally? That hasn’t been my impression of the coverage.

**FBI espionage probe goes beyond Israeli allegations, sources say**
[INDENT] By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - An FBI probe into the handling of highly classified material by Pentagon civilians is broader than previously reported, and goes well beyond allegations that a single mid-level analyst gave a top-secret Iran policy document to Israel, three sources familiar with the investigation said Saturday.
The probe, which has been going on for more than two years, also has focused on other civilians in the Secretary of Defense’s office… [/INDENT]

** FBI probes DOD office**
[INDENT]By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
Two of the people interviewed are Bill Luti, former chief of OSP, and Harold Rhode of the Near East/South Asia office…
Luti also presided over the NESA office that worked closely with OSP “with sometimes an interchangeable staff,” according to one congressional memo described the OSP “as a loose group of acolytes and hired hands” for Cheney, and (Cheney’s chief of staff) I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Feith – all “performing a mixture of intelligence, planning and other unspecified operational duties in support of preordained policy.”
Rhode and Luti and other OSP officials have been frequently mentioned in FBI interviews, “chiefly the nature and extent of his contacts with Israel,” according to federal law enforcement officials.
At least three former CIA officials told UPI that in 1998 Rhode had his clearances suspended, based on allegations he had given classified information to Israel.
…the Pentagon…downgraded [Michael] Ledeen’s security clearances… in the mid-1980s, after an earlier boss, Noel Koch, the Principal Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, had urged the FBI to begin a probe of Ledeen… for passing classified materials to a foreign country, believed to be Israel.
…Ledeen “was carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel,”…
…March 1983, Feith, then a Middle East analyst on the National Security Council, was fired by Judge William Clark…because Feith “had been the object of an inquiry into whether he had provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington” and that the FBI "had opened an inquiry. [/INDENT]

** Exclusive: DIA targets DOD unit**
[INDENT]By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said in a recent “Meet the Press” broadcast that the Senate Select Committee was looking into possible “[secret] intelligence operations” conducted by the unit without congressional oversight, which is against the law, according to a well-placed congressional staffer.
Former DIA chief of Mideast operations, Pat Lang, agreed: "That unit had meetings with senior White House officials without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them. That is not legal.
The officials briefed included White House staffers Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney…
Congressional documents noted that Luti switched to the Pentagon from Cheney’s staff.
Kwiatkowski said Luti was a “name-dropper,” who often referred to deadlines and assignments coming from “Scooter,” a nickname for Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff.
[/indent]

[PaulFitzroy]

BrainGlutton, I find the biggest offenders in that area to be MotherJones (which you mentioned) and Adbusters (which you didn’t. I think it’s a fine magazine besides its constant criticism of Israel.) I think that, for example, criticising Israel for its assassination of Shiek Yassin, a terrorist leader, is beyond the bounds of “against Israel’s policy” and more along the lines of “against Israel.”

If Osama Bin Laden was scooting down the sidewalk in a wheelchair and an American helicopter launched a missile his way and blew him to hell, I doubt many people would criticise that on “moral grounds.” He is after all a wanted terrorist responsible for the deaths of innocent Americans. Likewise in Israel’s case, Yassin was the leader of one of the biggest Arab terror groups in Israel.

Another bias: magazines referring to Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah as “resistance fighters,” “gunmen,” or “movements” rather than “terrorists.”

[PaulFitzroy]

To find a publication that always blames Israel for its sins and ignores everybody else’s, you would have to look to the extreme right-wing fringe mags, the kind that glorify the militia movement and refer to the U.S. government as ZOG.

I don’t know if Soldier of Fortune would be considered an extreme right-wing fringe magazine (I’m sure some would,) but I frequently read it and don’t come across much anti-Israel bias. I see reports from time to time about Israeli weapons and tactics because many gun-nuts admire the power of Israel’s military.

From Forward.com:

Firing Line: Best known as a journal for weapons fetishists and real and would-be mercenary soldiers, Soldier of Fortune magazine is also home to a surprising pro-Israel slant of a decidedly right-wing cast. David Stone’s dispatch about the Al-Aqsa uprising in the February issue, “Jerusalem Diary: First-hand Account of Life in Indian Territory,” reads like a press release for Americans for a Safe Israel written by, well, a correspondent for Soldier of Fortune. In between detailed descriptions of his Springfield Armory Government Model .45, Sig Model 226 9mm and Leupold 4.5-14x tactical scope, Mr. Stone describes the daily life of a Jerusalem family man and uniformed police sniper. He writes of the eerie quiet that falls over his neighborhood at night, in contrast to the “nightly live fire exercises” he heard coming from nearby Arab villages before the uprising. He takes part in patrols with the neighborhood Civil Guard. He comes upon the scene of a bombing at the Mahane Yehuda marketplace where his wife (unharmed) works as a social worker. And he complains of being unable to practice with his newest weapon, an ArmaLite AR (10)-T rifle. Amid his macho weaponry talk, Mr. Stone displays a distinctly Jewish sense of vulnerability. “We are under siege,” Mr. Stone writes. “Anywhere you come within sight of Palestinians you are likely to come under fire. They make no attempt at concealing the tens of thousands of weapons they have acquired in violation of the Oslo accords. Wherever Israelis are found, they are attacked and killed.”

[PatriotX]

@PaulFitzroy

This article is worth a read.

One should wonder why Mr. Mowbray fails to provide the reader with a link to the actual article under discussion. Here’s the article itself so that we may evaluate Mr. Mowbray’s assessment of the content for ourselves: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Mr. Mowbray states,
“He describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as “key allies,” but not as “neocons.” What’s the difference between members of a supposedly ideological movement and their allies? After all, to agree with someone’s ideology–and in the case of Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, that’s almost all the time in the foreign policy realm–would seem to make someone not just an ally but an actual subscriber to that ideology.”

One need look no further than the history of the word. If Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld were not liberals who converted to conservatism, then they would not be neocons as per the stricter definition of the term. However, as noted here there’re competing uses of the word:
“There’re the neocons who’re those that the persasion’s named for, and there’re the more recent converts to this peculiar persuasion.”
And as the “‘godfather’ of all those neocons” wrote who and what is and is not neoconservative is somewhat fuzzy:
" A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a “movement,” as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect."
earlier discussion of some more of Mr. Mowbray’s shoddy work here: Neocon =Jews??
even earlier discussion: **Claiming the word “Neocon” is antisemitic is just another Republican lie.**

@PaulFitzroy

This too. This essay is also worth a look.

These links didn’t work for me.
This whole things is sort of a hijack of this thread which is about the FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information. As I noted earlier, there’s a perfectly serviceable thread for discussing the Neocon=Jew canard.

@PaulFitzroy

What’s really worth y’all’s time is this Google Search I’ve done for your convenience with the words “Neocon Jew.” You will find dozens of people making my argument, and you will find just as many people making your argument. The point is, it is a topic of debate, and I’m not a lone nut with a conspiracy theory.

Just because you’re not “lone nut” doesn’t advance your case any.

[jjimm]

@PaulFitzroy

If Osama Bin Laden was scooting down the sidewalk in a wheelchair and an American helicopter launched a missile his way and blew him to hell, I doubt many people would criticise that on “moral grounds.”

Incidentally, if, in the unlikely event that he were scooting down the sidewalk in Times Square, or Bloomington even, how many innocent US civilian deaths would be a tolerable collateral damage rate in order to nail the bastard?

[BrainGlutton]

@PaulFitzroy

BrainGlutton, I find the biggest offenders in that area to be MotherJones (which you mentioned) and Adbusters (which you didn’t. I think it’s a fine magazine besides its constant criticism of Israel.) I think that, for example, criticising Israel for its assassination of Shiek Yassin, a terrorist leader, is beyond the bounds of “against Israel’s policy” and more along the lines of “against Israel.”

We debated that question in this forum not long ago. Are you suggesting every Doper (including myself) who took the position that the assassination was wrong is not merely “against Israel’s policy,” but “against Israel”?

@PaulFitzroy

Another bias: magazines referring to Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah as “resistance fighters,” “gunmen,” or “movements” rather than “terrorists.”

So what? All those labels can be justly applied – to Hamas, etc., and to David Ben-Gurion back in the '40s. He was a resistance fighter, and he was a terrorist.

[BrainGlutton]

@PaulFitzroy

I don’t know if Soldier of Fortune would be considered an extreme right-wing fringe magazine (I’m sure some would,) but I frequently read it and don’t come across much anti-Israel bias.

I wasn’t thinking of SOF – I was thinking of another, rather cheaply printed zine, forget its title but under the banner it says “That Freedom Shall Not Perish” – that I’ve occasionally seen on the newsstands, and that does have a lot of articles about evil Jewish conspiracies, etc., as well as about American militiamen, actual and wannabe.

[DSeid]

Well SimonX at least is trying to stay to this subject. But Simon, none of those cites alleges anything like that these elements of Bush’s administration “might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon’s Likud Party.” It a long stretch to go from rumors that Feith and Rhode and others under Cheney’s wing are being investigated but that no charges have been made and if made may be charges of mishandling documents only, to an allegation that Sharon has inflitrated top levels of our government with spies whose mission was influence American policy into a war with Iraq.

My thoughts on the neocon code have been made before. It is not a code but people do seem to make an awful lot of the fact that a few neocons are Jewish, as if their Jewishness sufficient to question their patriotism. I think they are wrong-headed, but they honestly believe in their demented visions of a Greater American Empire for America’s sake. No foreign influence needed.

[BrainGlutton]

@DSeid

It a long stretch to go from rumors that Feith and Rhode and others under Cheney’s wing are being investigated but that no charges have been made and if made may be charges of mishandling documents only, to an allegation that Sharon has inflitrated top levels of our government with spies whose mission was influence American policy into a war with Iraq.

Actually, no, DSeid. Under the circumstances, it really is not a very long stretch at all.

[DSeid]

Brian,

Maybe in the land of another conspirator on every grassy knoll it aint a stretch, especially for those in tin foil harts, but to say that ABC, Reuter’s, and so on, are all saying the same sorts of things as The Nation and Al Jazera is more than a stretch. It isn’t true. To report on rumors of an investigation that Cheney’s underlings maybe acting beyond legal constraints and passing information onto various parties in an effort to influence events, is not the same as saying that Sharon has masterminding a broad infiltration of the top levels of US policy making to get the US into a war that hardly serves Israel’s best interest.

[BrainGlutton]

@DSeid

[Maybe in the land of another conspirator on every grassy knoll it aint a stretch, especially for those in tin foil harts, but to say that ABC, Reuter’s, and so on, are all saying the same sorts of things as The Nation and Al Jazera is more than a stretch. It isn’t true.

My point is, what the other sources are saying isn’t inconsistent with what The Nation is saying; and when The Nation reports that actual manipulation of the Bush Administration by the Sharon Administration is the FBI’s working theory of the investigation, according to “sources close to the investigation” (a perfectly routine and acceptable mode of source-protecting attribution in all forms of journalism), I see no particular reason to doubt that report, so far as it goes. (No comment on al-Jazeera, because I know little of its reputation.) Especially since publications as reputable and mainstream as the Boston Globe and London Financial Times report that the White House is trying to get the FBI to scuttle the investigation; I mean, they’ve obviously got something to hid.

[jshore]

As a liberal Jew and Nation reader, I find that there are too many outrageous statements in this thread to comment on each one of them so I will confine my comments to this one…

@PaulFitzroy

I think that, for example, criticising Israel for its assassination of Shiek Yassin, a terrorist leader, is beyond the bounds of “against Israel’s policy” and more along the lines of “against Israel.”

Now, let’s read a news report on this:

After initial hesitation, the administration openly criticized Israel on Monday for assassinating Sheik Ahmed Yassin, a founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, despite attempts by Israel to draw a parallel to the U.S. war against the al-Qaida terror network.

“We are deeply troubled by this morning’s incident in Gaza,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told The Associated Press after not directly criticizing Israel in his regular daily briefing earlier.

…

Debra DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now, which describes itself as a Jewish Zionist organization, said, “We fear that the assassination of Sheik Yassin will escalate the current conflict to new levels of violence and lead to the strengthening of Palestinian hard-liners.”

So, let me get this straight: Is the Bush Administration “against Israel,” is “Americans for Peace Now” (an American affiliate of an Israeli organization) “against Israel”? Are you totally unwilling to make any distinction between being against the Likkud Party leadership of Israel and being against Israel?

And, by the way, I will add one more point on the who “neocon = Jew” silliness that I said in that thread: Neocon = necon. And if anyone wanted to equate necon with Jew, all one has to do is remind them that if the Presidential election in 2000 had gone the way Jews had voted, we wouldn’t have to worry about these crazy neocons being in power because we wouldn’t have George Bush as our President and the whole freakin’ world including Israel would be a damn sight better off IMHO!

[jshore]

@jshore

Now, let’s read a news report on this:

I meant to supply the link here.

[BrainGlutton]

@jshore

And if anyone wanted to equate necon with Jew, all one has to do is remind them that if the Presidential election in 2000 had gone the way Jews had voted . . .

What, you mean, for Pat Buchanan?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

And come to think of it, a President Buchanan wouldn’t have taken us to war in the Middle East. At least, not to judge by his writings.

[PatriotX]

@DSeid

Well SimonX at least is trying to stay to this subject. But Simon, none of those cites alleges anything like that these elements of Bush’s administration “might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon’s Likud Party.” It a long stretch to go from rumors that Feith and Rhode and others under Cheney’s wing are being investigated but that no charges have been made and if made may be charges of mishandling documents only, to an allegation that Sharon has inflitrated top levels of our government with spies whose mission was influence American policy into a war with Iraq.

True, true. But when one considers that the initial reports used the phrase “Israeli mole” and the well known connections to the Likud party that some of these figures have and the reports in the Financial Times and elsewhere that Ashcroft has “put the brakes” on the investigation, it doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to guess that the two year investigation (of which Mr. Franklin was only a recent addition) was into more or less something similar to what the article in the OP says “might” be the case.
Mind you, I’m not willing ot vouch for all of these conclusions, but people are beginning to talk.

@DSeid

My thoughts on the neocon code have been made before. It is not a code but people do seem to make an awful lot of the fact that a few neocons are Jewish, as if their Jewishness sufficient to question their patriotism.

Obviously these would be some pretty skewed people who’d make such an assertion.

@DSeid

I think they are wrong-headed, but they honestly believe in their demented visions of a Greater American Empire for America’s sake. No foreign influence needed.

Agreed. It is possible that like-minded men agreed to cooperate with one another, though.

I suspect that Team Bush were suckers for what reinforced there prejudices as the Curveball debacle revealed.

Oliver North publicly expressed suspicions that Mr. Ghorbanifar, who Ledeen, Franklin et al met with, was linked to “at least one” Israeli intelligence service. Mr. Ghorbanifar is also linked to Iranian intel services like Mr. Aras Karim Habib/ Aras Habib Karim (the INC guy in charge of the Pentagon’s Intelligence Collection Program that supplied some of what Powell described as “deliberately misleading” intelligence to the White House- mobile bio-weapons labs etc).

So, it seem that there’re some fishy things afoot. What they are exactly has yet to be established.

[PaulFitzroy]

Debra DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now, which describes itself as a Jewish Zionist organization, said, “We fear that the assassination of Sheik Yassin will escalate the current conflict to new levels of violence and lead to the strengthening of Palestinian hard-liners.”

What a crock. Peace Now is not a Zionist organization. I have personal experience with Peace Now because my father, when he used to lean much further to the left than he does now (one of his college papers began “as a socialist, I believe that…”) actually used to work with Peace Now, in some capacity (distributing their literature or something. Can’t quite remember.) The group is committed to the idea that Israel shouldn’t strike back no matter what terrorism is thrown its way. This is insane. Israel is at war with Arab terrorism, and it’s striking back in the only way it can. Hamas and Hezbollah and Fatah don’t have generals and divisions and bases.