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.
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). Browsing through its website 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 (who would later become chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, which advises the Department of Defense) and 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, 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, who would become Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under George Bush, and 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 (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.
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.
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 and dailykos.com”).
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.
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”?
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.
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 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.
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.
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…
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!
You yourself raised the possibility of some sort of conspiracy, in your last post:
And much of your language in your previous posts dances around the idea of some sort of subterranean plot:
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:
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:
You notice wrong. You still haven’t documented any of your claims.
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:
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.
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:
Um, O.K, we’ll assume you were talking about something other than their religion.
Others (blogosphere fans note) get into specifics right off the bat.
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?
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?
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.
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”.
No, it’s been amply demonstrated that you’d rather take refuge in constant innuendo.
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?
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?
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 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:
Like I said. Reasonable grounds for suspicion. (Or do you suppose that the FBI is on an anti-Semitic with-hunt?)
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. Is that personal enough for you?
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?
If you want to discuss other areas in which Perle may have been guilty of conflicts of interest, here’s an interesting article. 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:
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.
Your feelings are your own. Paranoia seems to be prominent among them.
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.
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.