That’s some formidable Wikipedian documentation of Conspiracy you’ve got there.
Particularly shocking was this: “Feith favors US support for Israeli security and has promoted US-Israeli cooperation.”
The horror.
Much of the gossipy stuff is aimed at showing that Feith had a bad reputation and wasn’t respected by other key figures in the Administration. I’m a bit confused as to how that made him a major “Neo-Con Player”. But I can tell you’ve already connected-the-dots.
I believe every country tries to influence other countries’ foreign policies to benefit their own goals. Israel is no exception.
It may be worth stating the obvious: America’s influence on Israel foreign policy is overwhelming.
Disregarding the debate regarding if the current policy was indeed conceived in some think tank or another, I took a look at the site.
As of today, there are 7 articles about Iraq, and 5 on other ME issues.
For comparison, there are 47 articles about NATO / Europe, 18 about East Asia, and 47 about the Balkans. A Google site search for Israel reveal 68 hits. Again, for comparison, China (a long time enemy of Israel :dubious: ) hits 215 times.
So, if anything, I’d say that think tank had a strong indifferent to Israel.
Your point?
Look, I guess if you looked hard enough under bridges, you might find some folks who had no previous exposure to foreign affairs. Do you really want those to decide your foreign policy? If you take people with experience, you obviously take their views as well. And yes, some of them may be pre-biased toward one side or another. I would start worrying only if I learned that a certain president surrounded himself with a “one-tone” advisors / officials, rather than making sure to get many views on the situation.
Ahhhh… the conspiracy reveals. Netanyahu allowed a bunch of American citizens to write a policy paper for him. No wonder they placed American concerns over Israeli ones. That’s why Israel was pro-American throughout.
They were questioned? Questioned? HANG THEM IN THE CITY SQUARE!
Now, does all this add up to you being Anti-Semitic? Nor necessarily. But what is very clear is that you hold views that are uncomfortably close to those of Anti-Semitics.
No, I’m not saying you are indeed Anti-Semitic. I just try to demonstrate that your particular choice of words seem to place you very close to the conspiracy believers.
I disagree. It’s not enough to cause wonderment.
If you think they did knowingly placed Israel’s interests over those of the USA, please say so. Your suspicions are irrelevant.
Have you stopped for a minute to think that maybe, just maybe, they did have US best interests at heart? And that those interests just happen to coincide with Israel’s?
Can you accept that people may disagree with you and still have America’s best interests at heart? That they may consider America’s long range wellbeing, even if it viewed as harmful in the short term?
Defiantly. And vice versa.
These facts mean nothing unless you can show the policy choices made were knowingly against US interests.
I have seen no such evidence. But then, I don’t think anyone who believes in promoting democracy, and hence support states with democratic regimes, to be an Israeli undercover agent.
You’d be proud to know you’re in a a good company. [Moderator’s Note: Link to David Duke’s website.]
With your permission, I will disregard internal US issues from now on.
Even if we’ll accept your blogsphere experience as gospel, it does not mean it was done for Israel.
So, in your thesaurus “control” is synonymous with “go to war”?
I just think it’s worth giving a related quote (from wiki):
Simple answers: yes, and no, in that order.
Why? I thought about the opposite case of a former US administrator working in Israel’s administration. Does it bother me? No, as long as that person is not the one making the decision, and that there are enough balances.
Sevastopol, nothing would please me better than going through your wiki quote point by point. But before I do, please tell me: how precisely does it support your claim?
Say Puzzler - I don’t know exactly what David Duke has to say about the Neocon/Israel Conspiracy (I can guess, though I suspect he’s coming at it from a different direction than the bloggist in the OP) - but it is probably a bad idea to link to his site without warning.
Not only is it likely not work-safe, but visitors might not have enough bleach on hand to scrub their brains clean after reading his drivel.
I am curious Puzzler, how many questions are we allowed to ask about the seemingly, near incestuous relationship some between influential American foreign policy advisors and the State of Israel, before we cross the line into ant-semitism?
It should be generally recognized in debate that when one delves into propositions that invoke classic bigoted stereotypes, that one had better have a compelling array of facts to back them up. And even then, expect stern scrutiny, and be able to handle criticism with factual rejoinders (instead of whines about how one is being maligned unfairly).
This goes for Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic/religious groups as well.
I’d like to think that policies and the people who promote them can be dicussed on a pro/con basis without hints and smirks about the ethnicity of those involved, but apparently there’s not enough meat on those bones for some. Or if one is not winning the argument, the temptation arises to stir resentment against ones’ foes by other means.
As to that oldie but goodie about “divided loyalties” - how many people making this argument are the same folks who are outraged when members of the Bush Administration question the patriotism of those who oppose our involvement in the Iraq conflict?
I already said I don’t think you’re an anti-Semite, spoke-, so stop playing the martyr card. I think you (and your kind) are being USED by anti-Semites, I think the current wave of anti-Israeli hatred is largely anti-Semitic at base. Criticize Israel all you like. But surely you know that the accusation of dual loyalty is a classic anti-Semitic smear? You can’t be that naive, can you?
It goes like this. David Finkelstein is a Jew. He supports Israel. Therefore, we should suspect him of conflating the interests of Israel and the interests of the US? That’s the kind of crap I expect from the Pat Buchanans and the Sevastopols. It’s a load of crap, and you should be smart enough to see it for what it is.
I KNEW it! I knew spoke- was a Scientologist! Not only is he a Scientologist, he is the reincarnation of L. R. Hubbard!
Come on out of the closet spoke-! You aren’t fooling anyone you know…
I have no specific idea about the religious orientation(s) of the various Bush Administration neo-con advisers being discussed in this thread, but assuming for a moment that they happen to be Jewish, or a majority of them are Jewish, are you really going to qualify a critical discussion about their policy advice and objectives relative to US interests, as a crypto, anti-semitic game of “Find the Jew”?
On the contrary, I’m still waiting for a factual argument. Insinuations and "it could be"s do not make for cogent debate.
Since you are still hanging about proclaiming your victimhood, why not clear this matter up as you’ve been repeatedly asked? You said
What constitutes “very close personal ties”? In the case of Perle, you mentioned his being a member of the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper. Is that a “very close personal tie”, but his various business dealings in Canada, Britain and Saudi Arabia are not? Surely you can explain what you mean in a straightforward manner.
I meant that he had actual connections with Israel rather than just being an American with a fondness for Israel. Those connections include business ties, direct connections to the government of Netanyahu, and (it turns out) an FBI wiretap which (according to the Asia Times sources) indicated that he has passed classified information to the Israeli government.
In other words, it ain’t just that he’s Jewish.
Now wave your red cape at those facts and call me an anti-Semite again.
“Ties” to businesses in other countries have been noted. Not relevant.
“Direct connections” meaning he, along with numerous others, contributed to a policy paper used by a former Israeli administration. What is “direct” and currently relevant about this?
An undocumented allegation resulting in no criminal complaint or charges. Oh, that’s right - in your book being questioned about something is tantamount to guilt.
That’s the only “personal” factor that I see. And of course your “concerns” about “Wolfowitz and the others” have no other obvious context.
I haven’t done so previously.
Since you won’t explain yourself in any logical manner, we have to assume that a) supporting Israel is incomprehensible and reprehensible in itself for you, b) being a member of an Administration that supports Israel makes one a dupe or shows that one has an ulterior personal motive, c) the “personal factor” held in common by Perle, Wolfowitz and presumably “the others” is their being Jewish, and d) that makes them suspect for being complicit in some kind of cabal inimical to America’s true interest, although not necessarily.
If you’d prefer another interpretation, fire away. This constant hemming and hawing (as well as the subject matter itself, to be honest) gets very tiresome.
Note these elements of the 1996 paper: regime change in Iraq (“an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”), and destabilization or “rolling back” of Syria. Note also the suggestions for manipulation of American public opinion:
(Oh, and as to the “many others” who contributed to the paper, Jackmannii, there are 7 others listed, at least two of whom – Feith and Wurmser – wound up in the Bush Administration along with Perle. Perle is listed as the Study Group Leader, and therefore is presumably the primary architect of the policy.)
