(a) no one who wants mainstream appeal is going to name themselves the project for a new Likud century or West Bank Settlements 'r Us. Their goal lies in convincing people that U.S. and Likud interests are one and the same and that therefore enacting hawkish Zionist policy as U.S. policy, at the behest of AIPAC, is no abandonment of sovereignty.
(b) they probably believe it, in the same way that my maiden aunt who will talk your ear off about how migraines (from which, by great coincidence, she suffers) are the greatest threat to the public health, and how a federally-funded War On Migraines (I’m not kidding) would be the best thing for the nation as a whole. Of course people with a pet cause find ways to convince themselves that it’s for everyone’s good.
I get it. You’re not anti-Jewish, just anti-Zionist. Just like that Chris Rock routine, right?
As for the contention that US foreign policy is driven by AIPAC–again, isn’t it nice to have someone to blame other than ourselves for our screwed up foreign policy? It’s not like we would have invaded Iraq because we thought it would be fun, no, instead we were tricked into it by people with a dual loyalty to a foreign power.
And that these agents of a foreign power just happen to be members of an ethnic group that have been blamed for starting various wars by various consipracy theorists up to and including a certain Austrian painter, that’s just a coincidence, right?
It can’t be A and B, as they’re mutually contradictory. If they believed that it was best for American dominance (no reason to doubt that, either), then they had no need to sell it as something else since their evil AIPAC masters were forcing their hand. If, on the other hand, they were really being controlled/directed/whatever by AIPAC, then they didn’t actually believe it on their own.
What’s funny, of course, is that we have about 75 pages where they go on and on, in their own contextual hypothesis, of what America needs to do for America’s benefit, and everything they say makes sense within their thinking and that context, and it’s all cogent and non-contradictory… and the answer is that maybe AIPAC told them to do it.
P.S. what’s with the strange use of adjectives? What exactly is hawkish “Zionist” policy. Who exactly are the ‘Zionists’ and what is their policy? What do you mean when you say “Zionist”?
Wrong. I am not anti-Zionist. They can pursue their romantic little 19th Century agrarian/socialist idyll to their heart’s content. It’s when they seek to entangle others in that, that I have a chip in the game.
I brought up AIPAC because AIPAC placed spies on the staff of a senior neocon U.S. Administration official. Is that irrelevant to whether U.S. policy is being potentially shaped by Israeli interests? If so, you’re really naive.
Nor did I ever claim AIPAC influence operated in a vacuum. I previously referenced (and I hope you did not think it was admiringly) dumbass millenial protestants. I could also reference Bill Bennett, who gave me vague and it turns out well-founded misgivings when, in the late '90s, he started out writing pieces about how, with the Cold War over, the U.S. needed to find new causes to which to turn its Cold War-engendered hegemony. Uh, maybe not. Uh, maybe the paleocon doctrine of “don’t just ‘do something,’ stand there!” has some wisdom to it. Bennett (who as far as I know is a Gentile) bears as much of my blame for ushering in the era in which neocon “projects” could be presented as priorities of the sovereign U.S., as do any of the Jewish and non-Jewish backers of the Iraq war.
By this I mean: the belief that Israel as a nation-state has the right to define its own borders and that (modern version) the U.S. will support and defend with its full faith and credit the Israeli polity.
As noted, up until the part that’s marked (modern version), I really don’t have a dog in the fight, anymore than you could elicit from me an opinion on who owns the Falklands/Malvinas. As of right now, I’d say the U.K., but I sure wouldn’t risk an American life or fifteen American cents to defend that proposition.
I would have ETA that the above working definition of Zionism differs a bit from the one I referenced earlier (Herzl’s romantic let’s-go-start-a-kibbutz idea). But nor would I have a problem with Herzl and the lads having a go of it in the desert – again, just don’t involve me or mine.
Wait. What evidence was there that AIPAC as an organization did that, rather than AIPAC members themselves? And why does spying on someone mean that you can potentially shape their policy? The US was recently caught spying on the UN, does that mean that we potentially shape UN policy? Britain spied on other Security Council members during the runup to the Iraq war, does that mean that Britain potentially shapes France’s foreign policy? Hell, the US has spied on Israel, too.
You’re making a leap from spies being aware of foreign policy, to their presence meaning that they can potentially shape it.
More to the point, if they could shape our foreign policy, why not simply tell us to give them any and all relevant intel?
The fact that they have to do it covertly points to them not having enough influence to get it straight out.
But Israel has agreed that its actual legal borders will be determined by negotiation, not that it’ll define them itself. The US has generally backed that position as well, including perhaps most prominently Bill Clinton.
Steve Rosen was pretty high up the org chart at AIPAC. I’m not really buying this.
Fair enough in this case. I should have made clear (and I guess my use of “potentially” wasn’t explicit enough) that the DOJ indictments and statements went out of their way to say that as far as the U.S. Government was able to find out, the information flowed in only one direction, and there was no evidence found of direct Israeli government/intelligence influence on Feith through the AIPAC spies.
No one (least, not me) claims that Israel or AIPAC or the Mossad is some omnipotent supervillain. The U.S. decides to give the Israeli government X (X being a goodly amount). It decides (as a sovereign nation and as something of a regional deal-broker) to retain Y. Israel (acting as a rational economic actor) decides it would like Y too and takes action to get it.
Probably no need to rehash the recent threads, but that’s the $64 question – would the U.S. have made this “independent” decision if the region in question were, say, Kashmir, or Dagestan, or the Kuril Islands, and not a region as to which there was a lobby before which Presidential and congressional candidates routinely genuflect, and which they fear alienating? Maybe yes, maybe no. It’s not irrelevant to raise the question, and if Japanese irredentists or Dagestani militants had a lobbying/spying operation as well-developed as that revolving around Israeli interests, I’d be just as concerned about whether the U.S.'s “independently derived” positions on those regions were truly formulated with only U.S. sovereign strategic interests in mind.
Not so much a “conspiracy” I suppose, but more … I don’t know… disappointment that a country to which we have given so much, and supported so steadfastly and at some risk, doesn’t really seem to have our best interests at heart and plays us mercilessly, like a bright child plays a foolish and indulgent parent or guardian.
Well, leaving aside the fact that you either don’t know what ‘Godwinism’ means our you are using your own definition of it…yeah, I thought it was pretty clever. And amusing, all things considered. You don’t see many ‘Re the lead up to the Iraq War do we need to re-assess our relationship with the UK?’ type thread…which is kind of curious, ehe?
Well, I’m glad we cleared THAT up then. You should just declare victory in the entire thread and then we could all go back to doing something productive instead of the 10000th ‘OMG Israel (but not the Jews…didn’t say that) is teh EVIL!’ threads.
Heck, there is another 9/11 conspiracy thread that looks most interesting on the main page in GD that probably needs attention…
Well, the curious thing is that we don’t see a lot of threads asking for us to re-assess our relationship with the UK due to supposed bad intelligence by their intelligence agencies. And yet the UK’s intelligence (and our own) had a lot more to do with us going to war in Iraq than Israel’s did. As I said, had we been following Israel’s master plan we would have invaded Iran…a country who Israel feels is a much bigger threat to itself and regionally.
We went to war with Iraq for our own reasons (which hinged on the past history between Iraq and the US wrt the first Gulf War), so the OP is flawed.
I never said you wouldn’t or shouldn’t re-evaluate alliances or foreign commitments. Preaching to the choir there. What I said is that it’s curious that in these kinds of threads it’s always Israel who comes under the microscope.
Yes, and by and large I agree with him, especially during his own time. A couple of things though. First off, things have changed since Washington’s time. The country and the world are radically different than when he was struggling to forge a new nation. Secondly, though I respect the FF’s, I don’t think that their words should be graven on rock and then trotted out and used as a metric for the way things will and should always be in the US. THEY were smart enough to know that things change over time and that a working system needs to be flexible, to shift with those changing perceptions and circumstances.
And, FWIW, I believe the U.S. should have distanced itself from its “special relationship” with the U.K. in the '70s and '80s when the U.K. was behaving badly (IMHO) in Ulster. To take that analogy further, if the IRA had been attacking U.S. targets, and if there were a plausible argument that they were doing so out of revulsion at unswerving U.S. support for the British occupation, I suspect you would have seen Americans asking – is this alliance worth the cost? Naturally, the question of whether the U.S. policy on Israel is what buys terrorism is a separate GD.
What I mean by profligacy is American’s indulgent life style of consumption and a willingness to go to any length to protect it, which means assuring a steady flow of oil. I think it was HW Bush who said: *The American lifestyle is not negotiable. *
I don’t think the U.S. invaded Iraq to steal their oil –- after all, that would be a crime. I do think the U.S. wants American friendly regimes or feels the need neutralize anti-American extremism in order to guarantee no oil disruptions. The fears of oil disruptions caused by the Iraq/Iran War lead to the U.S. Navy becoming a permanent fixture in the Persian Gulf. Oil is the life blood of American consumption and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is focused on protecting the uninterrupted flow of oil.
Israel is a U.S. ally in a region of the world that the U.S. wants to control. Extremists in the Middle East despise American imperialism.
It is easy to blame Israel for our foreign policy problems but the reality is that our fate on 9/11 took root long before 2001 when the U.S. decided that a need for free flowing oil necessitated U.S influence and intervention when necessary in a region of the world hostile to western values.
Nothing you are saying is wrong, and no one is saying that alliance with Israel is the only cause of problems the U.S. encounters in the region. The only question I’ve advocated at least putting on the table is whether the “alliance” does the U.S. more good, or more harm. None of your points conclusively settle this question one way or the other.
We could quibble over whether the U.S. wants to “control” the region. But I am more apt to say: what is an “ally,” and why would we assume that having an “ally” in a given region equates with control thereof? Other GD threads have established that in many of the traditional senses, Israel just can’t provide the things we think of “allies” as providing – financial aid, troops, basing rights, missile launching permission. If the alliance is limited to taking U.S. aid and cooperating on security issues, okay, but simply stating “ally” doesn’t end the weighing. Also, I’ve seen no iron rule of geopolitics that says that having a (nominal or otherwise) ally in a region you want to control always, in fact, helps establish this control.
This kind of ties in with the “only Middle Eastern democracy” argument. Okay, let’s say that’s true and admirable (and mind you, I read a number of websites that CAIR and Casey Kasem would not find very congenial – I’m under no illusions about warm and cuddly mullahs). But – so what? (looked at from an investment perspective) – their democratic experiment has hardly led to a blossoming of similar parliamentary democracies in the region. Again, not Israel’s fault, but another factor that might price into the “is this a good investment?” calculus.
They may just hate Americans, period. But I could counter that capitalists in the Middle East love American oil buyers.
One of Warren Buffett’s simple tests for investing/remaining in a particular business is: If this business had never been invented, would you invest in starting it up today? That’s why you won’t see him investing in GM.
So I’ll ask a version of that: taking as granted your proposition that all of the U.S.'s problems with religious extremists and opponents of U.S. petro-hegemony in the Middle East were inherent and inevitable, even putting aside Israel – would you, today, as someone charged with maximizing strategic advantage and value for the U.S., invest in plopping down a new thing called “Israel” in the middle of that mix, knowing the players, and then commit substantial financial and political capital toward that? Thinking as Buffett or as some cold-blooded British colonial administrator, I don’t have the answer to that, but I know it is not a no-brainer.
I agree that oil rich countries developed a symbiotic relationship with the U.S., but increased competition for oil by new oil consumers like China have complicated the dynamics. Interestingly, wealthy Arab countries invest little to help the Palestinians achieve autonomy. It seems protecting wealth trumps getting bogged down in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A stance the Bush administration also seemed to take on the issue. Other than a wink, a nod and munitions, Bush did nothing to stabilize the region – but now I am veering off topic.
I view the U.S. relationship with Israel and the rise of Muslim extremism differently than you. I would argue that U.S. intervention in the Middle East fuels militant anger and resentment which manifests into tension and violence in Israel. In other words, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia has caused more problems for Israel than Israel has caused the U.S.
“Tricked into it…” “dual loyalty” - Sole loyalty more correctly. Deceit was used to prosecute this war in the service of Israeli security. There should be no fear in going where the evidence takes you.
Probably a lot of the Neo-Cons are Jewish. They’re certainly tied to the Likud, but who’s counting?