# Is this a serious agenda by US Neo-cons & Israel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194 "2006-09-10T19:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Puzzler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@Puzzler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puzzler)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/21 "2006-09-11T15:14:47Z")
[QUOTE=clairobscur] Nope, it was about the motives of the author, when he refered to Tel-Aviv as the Israeli capital. [/QUOTE] Depends what disagreement you refer to. I was pointing out that Tel-Aviv is not Israel’s capitol, Jerusalem is. So, when referring to Israel decision-making, one can honestly speak of either “Jerusalem’s policy” or “Israel’s policy”. “Tel-Aviv’s policy” can, at best, refer to the Tel-Aviv municipally opinion, that carries no more weight WRT Israel official policy than, say, Atlanta’s does on the USA. The fact that the world does not recognize Jerusalem’s stance as capitol does not shift the seat of power to other cities. But I do agree with you that we can learn a lot about the author’s motive from this reference. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/22 "2006-09-11T15:48:57Z")
The article linked in the OP is over-the-top. On the other hand, I think it is wrong to dismiss the influence of Israel on American foreign policy. Current US policy was conceived in conservative think tanks, chief among them the [Project for the New American Century (PNAC)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). Browsing through [its website](http://www.newamericancentury.org/) should convince you pretty quickly of its strong support for Israel. Among PNAC’s contributors in the late 1990s were a number of conservative supporters of Israel, including [Richard Perle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle) (who would later become chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, which advises the Department of Defense) and [Paul Wolfowitz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz) (who would later become Deputy Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush). Going back a little further, Perle had also been the author of a 1996 policy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, entitled [A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Break), one of the chief tenets of which was that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power. Also among the contributors to that paper were [Douglas Feith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith), who would become Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under George Bush, and [David Wurmser](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wurmser), who would become the Middle East Advisor to Dick Cheney. Interestingly, Wurmser, Feith and Wolfowitz have been questioned by FBI counterintelligence investigators about whether classified information had been passed to Ahmad Chalabi and/or the [American Israel Public Affairs Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee) (a pro-Israel lobbying group which has been linked to espionage on behalf of Israel). Now does all of this add up to a “conspiracy” or the presence of Israeli agents in the US government? Not necessarily. But what is very clear is that the Bush administration has included a lot of people with uncomfortably close ties to Israel. It is not necessary that Perle, Wolfowitz and the others be actual agents for Israel. It is enough cause for concern that they have very close personal ties to Israel. And _that_ is enough to cause me to wonder whether their concern for Israel might cloud their judgment about what is best for the US, or that they might actually conflate in their own minds the interests of Israel and the interests of the US. That is the danger in my view. So when I see (as I did after 9/11) conservatives talking about taking out Saddam Hussein, and then Syria, and then Iran, I begin to wonder. That list looks suspiciously like a list of Israel’s enemies. I certainly see where the US taking them out would benefit Israel. But it seems to me that the US conducting such attacks would only engender more terrorism against the US in the long-term, and would **not** serve US interests. In particular I see an attack against Iran as unnecessarily stirring up a Persian/Shiite hornets’ nest, when up to now only Sunni Arabs have carried out attacks on US soil. So you don’t have tyo buy into conspiracy theories to recognize that what is good for Israel is not always good for the US. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/23 "2006-09-11T16:05:53Z")
For what it’s worth, if all the embassies are in Tel Aviv, it’s probably a good reason for any specific embassy to be in Tel Aviv, and not Jerusalem. There are ‘things to be done’ on Embassy Row, and generally, if something is to be done between diplomats, it’s pretty handy to have them all in one place. This says nothing about the Op, but inertia is a perfectly good reason not to move an embassy. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/24 "2006-09-11T16:35:44Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Current US policy was conceived in conservative think tanks, chief among them the [Project for the New American Century (PNAC)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). [/quote] What evidence do you have for this allegation? Seems to me that a more credible statement would be that some aspects of policy proposals made by certain PNAC members are similar to views held by figures in the Bush Administration (I would have similar difficulty if someone claimed that “Democratic Party policy was conceived by [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) and [dailykos.com](http://dailykos.com)”). > [@](#): > > Now does all of this add up to a “conspiracy” or the presence of Israeli agents in the US government? Not necessarily. All that’s necessary for conspiracy theory to triumph over rational thought is for it to be postulated and then coyly withdrawn under the heading of “It could happen!”. I’d rather get my news from a source a bit more credible than Judy Tenuta. > [@](#): > > So when I see (as I did after 9/11) conservatives talking about taking out Saddam Hussein, and then Syria, and then Iran, I begin to wonder. I wonder too - which conservatives (and in particular, which members of the Administration) called for “taking out Saddam Hussein, and then Syria, and then Iran”? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/25 "2006-09-11T19:03:19Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] What evidence do you have for this allegation? [/quote] The fact that some 16 members of PNAC wound up in key positions in the administration, including Perle, Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, and Richard Armitage. The fact that US foreign policy in fact seems to be tracking PNAC policy suggestions as outlined in the 2000 report entitled [Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) (warning: PDF). > [@](#): > > All that’s necessary for conspiracy theory to triumph over rational thought is for it to be postulated and then coyly withdrawn under the heading of “It could happen!”. Using the phrase “conspiracy theory” seems to me a calculated attempt to discredit an argument akin to an ad hominem attack. I notice you don’t challenge the facts I listed which give cause for concern. It is no conspiracy theory to state that Israel actively lobbies the US government. (See the [American Israel Public Affairs Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee) mentioned above.) Whether Israel goes beyond lobbying is something for which there is some circumstantial evidence but no hard proof. It would be naive, in my opinion, to dismiss the possibility out of hand. I would say the situation bears close watching. But whether or not Israel is exerting a more direct influence on foreign policy, it is valid to be concerned that individuals who have close ties to Israel may (with the best intentions) wrongly conflate Israel’s interests with our own. _That_ is my primary concern. I am equally concerned that others who were a part of PNAC seem to have selfish reasons for desiring a new age of US militarism. For example there’s Cheney, who at the time of his involvement with PNAC was head of Halliburton (a company which seems to have done all right for itself with its no-bid contracts in Iraq). And looking at the list of members, I also see Thomas Donnelly, Director of Communications for Lockheed. Hmm. Can’t imagine why _he_ would like to see a more militaristic US. As I said in another thread, my concern is that a convergence of special interests not necessarily consonant with the interests of the American people is leading us down a disastrous path in foreign policy. We’ve already seen the first rotten fruits of this policy in Iraq. > [@](#): > > [W]hich conservatives (and in particular, which members of the Administration) called for “taking out Saddam Hussein, and then Syria, and then Iran”? It was a thing you heard on the blogosphere. Particularly in the triumphal days of “Mission Accomplished” you would regularly see conservatives talking about moving on to Syria to take out Assad and then taking on Iran. The administration rattled sabres at Syria and Iran quite a lot in those days. Sorry I didn’t bookmark every such reference for you, but I expect readers of this thread will remember it. And now the administration does in fact seem to be laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran. Incidentally, the 2000 PNAC report linked above specifically mentions Iraq, Syria and Iran as “threats” to unnamed “US allies,” and advocates that the US should attempt to “control” these threats. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/26 "2006-09-11T19:49:31Z")
So America used to have good relations with Iran until the Jews treacherously conspired to make us enemies? Y’know, it’s true that the US used to have good relations with Iran. Then along came 1978… How exactly is it proof of a Jewish conspiracy that the Bush administration hates Iran, and vice-versa? Remember Khomeni? Remember the Shah? Iran has been public enemy number one since 1978, and it wasn’t the Jews that tricked us into it. Please. And since when did we have good relations with Syria? With Assad Sr? Or Assad Jr? Or Iraq? Did we have good relations with Iraq until the Jews tricked us into ordering Saddam to invade Kuwait, so we could attack him? Yeah, the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of the US. And the enemies of Britain tend to be the enemies of the US, the enemies of Canada tend to be the enemies of the US, the enemies of Denmark, the enemies of France, the enemies of Germany, the enemies of Belgium… ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/27 "2006-09-11T20:07:29Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] …Jews treacherously conspired… …Jewish conspiracy… …the Jews tricked us… [/quote] [Straw man](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) and implied [_ad hominem_](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). Pathetic. It’s a straw man argument inasmuch as nobody said anything about a “Jewish conspiracy.” There are plenty of Jews who oppose current US foreign policy. There are plenty of Jews who see the folly of the US bulling its way through the Middle East. Hell, Jon Stewart voices his opposition nightly on my television. Why are you conflating “Israel” with “Jews?” Let me guess. You wish to make an _ad hominem_ attack by implicitly calling me an anti-Semite. You hope that this will derail the debate. **Jackmannii** , weren’t you saying the other day that no one around here uses that sad tactic? Behold! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/28 "2006-09-11T20:37:13Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Using the phrase “conspiracy theory” seems to me a calculated attempt to discredit an argument akin to an ad hominem attack. [/quote] You yourself raised the possibility of some sort of conspiracy, in your last post: > [@spoke-](#): > > Now does all of this add up to a “conspiracy” or the presence of Israeli agents in the US government? **Not necessarily.** (bolding added). And much of your language in your previous posts dances around the idea of some sort of subterranean plot: > [@](#): > > uncomfortably close ties to Israel…It is not necessary that Perle, Wolfowitz and the others be actual agents for Israel…That is the danger…I begin to wonder. That list looks suspiciously like a list of Israel’s enemies…It would be naive, in my opinion, to dismiss the possibility out of hand. I would say the situation bears close watching…But whether or not Israel is exerting a more direct influence on foreign policy… Sounds a helluva lot like Lyndon LaRouche, doesn’t it? Next we’ll hear you talking sagely about “agents of influence”. And by the way: > [@spoke-](#): > > Interestingly, Wurmser, Feith and Wolfowitz have been questioned by FBI counterintelligence investigators… I can understand (but not excuse) concluding that someone is guilty because they have been charged with a crime. What’s even less excusable is spreading innuendo that people are guilty of something because they were _questioned_ by authorities. And _you’re_ complaining about an ad hominem attack. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I notice you don’t challenge the facts I listed which give cause for concern. You notice wrong. You still haven’t documented any of your claims. > [@](#): > > It is no conspiracy theory to state that Israel actively lobbies the US government. Since when has this been in dispute? As for PNAC, what of it if some ideas espoused in its position papers have had influence in this Administration? Doesn’t it make more sense to critique those ideas rather than huff and puff about “conceived in conservative think tanks”? There are all sorts of think tanks and foundations churning out policy proposals from right and left-wing viewpoints. Again, you seem to be unduly interested in stoking vague fears based on a specter of shadowy outside organizations. Re my challenge to you to demonstrate what conservatives after 9/11 wanted to “take out” Saddam, then Syria, then Iran, we get this crushing rejoinder from you: > [@spoke-](#): > > It was a thing you heard on the blogosphere. Oooooh. Yes, if you make hyperbolic claims about who unnamed “conservatives” want to “take out”, I expect you to document them, and not substitute speculations about what we “in fact” “seem” to be contemplating, in your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/29 "2006-09-11T20:54:44Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] **Jackmannii** , weren’t you saying the other day that no one around here uses that sad tactic? Behold! [/QUOTE] No, I said no such thing. What I challenged was the assertion that “you can’t criticize Israel without being accused of being an anti-Semite”. Taking issue with a specific rebuttal that you feel unfairly characterizes your position and casts unwarranted innuendos is another matter. It’s a good idea in my opinion to stick to discussing claims in the context in which they’ve been presented, and in that sense **Lemur866** ’s comments are problematic. Possibly he was confused by this remark of yours: > [@spoke-](#): > > It is not necessary that Perle, Wolfowitz and the others be actual agents for Israel. It is enough cause for concern that they have very close personal ties to Israel. Um, O.K, we’ll assume you were talking about something other than their religion. [Others](http://www.rense.com/general35/eax.htm) (blogosphere fans note) get into specifics right off the bat. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/30 "2006-09-11T21:36:44Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] Yes, if you make hyperbolic claims about who unnamed “conservatives” want to “take out”, I expect you to document them, and not substitute speculations about what we “in fact” “seem” to be contemplating, in your opinion. [/QUOTE] It’s a bit tiresome tracking down what was said 2-3 years ago, but here’s an example of the saber-rattling toward Syria: > [@](#): > > With American forces in Baghdad, Perle continued his rhetorical assault on Syria. He told Graham Turner, whose three-part article, ‘An American Odyssey’, appeared in the Daily Telegraph in June: ‘Somehow, we’ve got to isolate Assad and make him realise that there’s very little benefit in playing host to these people’ - i.e. Hizbollah and Palestinian groups. His neoconservative comrade at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen, was more explicit in conversation with Turner: ‘Iraq is not what it’s all about. We have been at war for twenty years with a terror network supported by Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia . . . Now, like it or not, we’re in a regional war, and we can’t opt out of it. We have to bring down these regimes and produce free governments in all these countries . . . Undermining the governments of other countries? No big deal.’ [Cite](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n14/glas01_.html) Pardon me if I don’t spend three hours googling to find you more. As I said, I’m sure readers of this thread will remember all the saber-rattling directed at both Syria and Iran in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. And once more, I am not alleging a “conspiracy.” It does not require a conspiracy. It may be as simple as three or four guys in the administration who have conflated in their minds the interests of Israel with those of the US. At the same time, we should not be so naive as to think that more direct Israeli influence is out of the realm of possibility. I have to ask: do you think it’s appropriate for Perle to go from writing policy papers for the Israeli government to taking part in US policy decisions? Do you see no potential conflict of interest there? > [@](#): > > Um, O.K, we’ll assume you were talking about something other than their religion. Good assumption. As I am now writing for about the fifth time, Perle was writing policy papers for the Israeli government of Netanyahu. It has fuck-all to do with his religion. Can you stop trying to smear me now and debate the issues? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/31 "2006-09-11T22:18:36Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] And once more, I am not alleging a “conspiracy.” It does not require a conspiracy. It may be as simple as three or four guys in the administration who have conflated in their minds the interests of Israel with those of the US. At the same time, we should not be so naive as to think that more direct Israeli influence is out of the realm of possibility. [/QUOTE] And why would you allege those people conflate the interests of Israel with the interests of the US? Jews. Jews, all of them. They’re Jewish, they wanna kick Iranian and Syrian and Iraqi butt, so they’re Israeli agents. Funny how no one accuses Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell or Karl Rove of conflating Israeli and US interests. And for the record, I honestly don’t believe you’re anti-Jewish. But this line of attack is raised by those who ARE, and you’re repeating it. You’re kind of…conflating the interests of anti-Semites with the interests of sane US foreign policy. And make no mistake…the “dual loyalty” charge is a classic anti-Semitic smear. Just like John Kennedy would always put the Pope before the American people, so too any Jew will put Israel before America. Being anti-Syria and anti-Iraq has been the policy of every American adminstration since the two countries were taken over by the Baathists, and being anti-Iran has been the foreign policy of every American adminstration since our buddy the Shah was kicked out and Iran was taken over by the Ayatollahs. Was Jimmy Carter confused by shadowy figures with dual loyalties? Was Reagan? Was Bush Sr? Was Clinton? How exactly did our policies change once these dual loyalty people snuck in? When was Bill Clinton pals with Syria and Iran and Iraq? Answer, never. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/32 "2006-09-11T22:22:59Z")
Well, pardon me if this quote attributed to Perle: “‘Somehow, we’ve got to isolate Assad and make him realise that there’s very little benefit in playing host to these people’ - i.e. Hizbollah and Palestinian groups” doesn’t quite sound like the sort of thing you were alleging, i.e. “taking out Saddam Hussein, and then Syria, and then Iran”. > [@](#): > > And once more, I am not alleging a “conspiracy.” No, it’s been amply demonstrated that you’d rather take refuge in constant innuendo. > [@](#): > > I have to ask: do you think it’s appropriate for Perle to go from writing policy papers for the Israeli government to taking part in US policy decisions? Do you see no potential conflict of interest there? Speaking out in accordance with one’s views is not equivalent to a conflict of interest. I would feel differently if one is accepting compensation from an outside party affected by one’s actions, or expects to do so in the future. Or does support for Israel _per se_ constitute a conflict of interest in your view? > [@](#): > > As I am now writing for about the fifth time, Perle was writing policy papers for the Israeli government of Netanyahu. It has fuck-all to do with his religion. Good. Now can you explain how writing policy papers for a past Israeli administration constitutes the “very close personal ties to Israel” you previously claimed? What’s so very personal about it? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/33 "2006-09-11T22:48:43Z")
**Jackmannii** , what you call innuendo I call reasonable grounds for suspicion. There was apparently a New York Times on the questions raised about the relationships among Perle, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the Israeli government. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the archives of the Times. [Here’s an article from the Asia Times](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI02Ak02.html) which makes a brief reference to the NYTimes story, and also catalogs the pattern of suspicious activities. Here’s part of the Asia Times article: > [@](#): > > Perle, Ledeen, and Wolfowitz have also been the subject of FBI inquiries, according to Green’s account. In 1970, one year after he was hired by Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, an FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing classified information with an embassy official, while Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a US weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an AIPAC staffer. > > In 1992, when he was serving as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon officials looking into the unauthorized export of classified technology to China found that Wolfowitz’s office was promoting Israel’s export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with Washington on arms re-sales. > > The FBI and the Pentagon are reportedly taking a new look at all of these incidents and others, in the words of a New York Times story on Sunday, to “get a better understanding of the relationships among conservative officials with strong ties to Israel”. > > It would be a mistake to see Franklin as the chief target of the current investigation, according to sources, but rather he should be viewed as one piece of a much broader puzzle. Like I said. Reasonable grounds for suspicion. (Or do you suppose that the FBI is on an anti-Semitic with-hunt?) > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Or does support for Israel per se constitute a conflict of interest in your view? You understand that writing policy papers for the Israeli government goes a bit beyond “support for Israel”? And as for “personal ties” (beyond governmental ties), let’s see: Perle is a director of [The Jerusalem Post](http://www.jpost.com/). Is that personal enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/34 "2006-09-11T23:08:13Z")
So if an American worked for the British goverment, then the American government, you’d have a problem with that? What about if they wrote for a British newspaper? What if they were ethnically British? What if they were Anglican? I have the feeling that an Anglophile who once worked for the British government and British newspapers wouldn’t cause you to question their loyalty to America. What about a Chinese-American that does business in China? What about a muslim Arab-American? Its always the Jews that have double loyalty. Why is that, do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/35 "2006-09-11T23:20:57Z")
If you want to discuss other areas in which Perle may have been guilty of conflicts of interest, here’s [an interesting article.](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030317fa_fact) If Seymour Hersh is to be believed, Perle has been busy trying to drum up business among the Saudis and used his influence on behalf of a British firm (with which he is affiliated) to get a U.S. Homeland Security contract. Now if this is so, would you argue that this proves his “very close personal ties” to the Saudis and British? Or does that only apply to work he took part in on behalf of Netanyahu’s government? Are you concerned about all the various business relationships that goverment officials have had and/or still have that might unduly affect the direction of U.S. policy - or only those that have some connection to Israel? It seems that your “reasonable grounds for suspicion” have very circumscribed regional borders. By the way, regarding Perle being on the board of directors of the Jerusalem Post, that paper apparently is owned by a Canadian firm in which Perle is a bigwig. That firm also has controlling interest in a bunch of U.S. papers, including the Chicago Sun-Times. Now you’ve got me worrying about the Canada-Britain-Jerusalem-Saudi-Chicago axis of influence. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/36 "2006-09-11T23:37:23Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] So if an American worked for the British goverment, then the American government, you’d have a problem with that? [/quote] AbsolutelyI would, and particularly if US interests and British interests diverged on a given point of policy. And even more so if your hypothetical individual seemed to be promoting British interests. > [@](#): > > I have the feeling that an Anglophile who once worked for the British government and British newspapers wouldn’t cause you to question their loyalty to America. Your feelings are your own. Paranoia seems to be prominent among them. > [@](#): > > Its always the Jews that have double loyalty. Why is that, do you think? Whio said that? Not I. But now that you bring it up, I do think _some_ American Jews feel a special affinity for Israel (which is entirely understandable). Do they not? You seem to feel such an affinity yourself, or am I mistaken? It is nothing unique to Jewish Americans, though. For example, I think that some Irish-Americans have shown an unfortunate affinity for the IRA. (Not that I am comparing Israel to the IRA.) There’s nothing _per se_ wrong with having an affinity for Israel. It’s entirely understandable, as I say. The only time it becomes a problem for me is when you begin conflating Israel’s interests with US interests. And that seems to me to have happened in the current administration. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/37 "2006-09-11T23:41:08Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] Are you concerned about all the various business relationships that goverment officials have had and/or still have that might unduly affect the direction of U.S. policy - or only those that have some connection to Israel? [/QUOTE] :dubious: Haven’t you been paying attention? I expressed that very concern in post #25. So now which of us is the one with a selective area of concern? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/38 "2006-09-12T00:06:05Z")
At this point it seems to me that you two ( **Lemur866** and **Jackmannii** ) are reduced to trying to smear me as an anti-Semite. That will be a fruitless exercise, and one in which I see no reason to participate. Y’all have fun. Me, I think I’ll click on the Google ad and try to meet some of those nice Jewish girls in my area. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/39 "2006-09-12T00:24:08Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] :dubious: Haven’t you been paying attention? I expressed that very concern in post #25. [/quote] You also told us what your major worry is. > [@spoke-](#): > > But whether or not Israel is exerting a more direct influence on foreign policy, it is valid to be concerned that individuals who have close ties to Israel may (with the best intentions) wrongly conflate Israel’s interests with our own. **That is my primary concern.** (bolding added) > [@spoke-](#): > > At this point it seems to me that you two (Lemur866 and Jackmannii) are reduced to trying to smear me as an anti-Semite. What I’ve done is highlight your lack of substance and extensive use of innuendo. You’ve done your best to evade specifics. You still have not explained what precisely you are getting at by claiming that “Perle, Wolfowitz and the others” have “very close personal ties” to Israel. There’s something pitifully ironic about your engaging in a massive innuendo-fest - and then when called on it, to proclaim that **you** are the victim of innuendo and beat a hasty retreat. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2006, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194/40 "2006-09-12T11:01:54Z")
[QUOTE=Puzzler] [QUOTE=Sevastopol] a primary part of the American Neo-Con agenda has always been the use of the US military to benefit the security of Israel. [/quote] Cite? [/QUOTE] Where to start? Probably Wikipedia on this guy is a good first step: [Neo-Con Player](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith) > [@](#): > > … > Professor Richard Pipes, Feith’s undergraduate mentor, later provided Feith’s vector into government following graduation. > … > Feith was a member of the study group which authored a controversial report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [12], a set of policy recommendations for the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. > … > Feith criticized the Oslo Accords and the Camp David peace agreement mediated by former President Jimmy Carter between Egypt and Israel. In 1997, he published a lengthy article in Commentary, titled “A Strategy for Israel”. > … > Feith favors US support for Israeli security and has promoted US-Israeli cooperation. > … > Feith also cofounded the organization One Jerusalem to oppose the Oslo peace agreement. > … > Senator Carl Levin: “Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith’s office [23] [24] approach to intelligence analysis?” > > CIA Director Michael Hayden: “No, sir, I wasn’t. I wasn’t aware of a lot of the activity going on, you know, when it was contemporaneous with running up to the war. No, sir, I wasn’t comfortable.” > … > According to the long-running Washington newsletter, The Nelson Report, edited by Christopher Nelson, Feith was standing in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a 2003 interagency ‘Principals’ Meeting’ debating the Middle East, and ended his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, “Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador.” > … > United States Army General Tommy Franks, according to Bob Woodward’s 2004 Plan of Attack, described Feith as the “fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth” > … > **Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated “A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”** > … > Feith led the controversial Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June of 2003. [43] This now defunct intelligence gathering unit has been accused of manipulating intelligence to bolster support for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. > … > \*Israeli Settlements: Legitimate, Democratically Mandated, Vital to Israel’s Security and, Therefore, in U.S. Interest, The Center for Security Policy, Transition Brief No. 96‐T 130, December 17, 1996 \* > … > [Israel and neo-cons](http://www.counterpunch.org/green09032004.html) > … > [Neo-Cons & Israel 2](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI02Ak02.html) _(my emphases)_ [QUOTE=Jackmannii] [QUOTE=Sevastopol] there is something to the OP’s link, albeit overstated. [/QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE] The gift of understatement is formidable, if difficult to discern. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-serious-agenda-by-us-neo-cons-israel/372194.md?page=3)