forwarded message i thought i in turn would forward

This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but because

it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence Jews in
America have on the current drive towards war as well as other aspects
of the administration and American polity. It's not only complicated
and
needs to be aired, but almost totally absent within mainstream Jewish
journals and society, not to mention the rest of the media. This essay
presents one point of view, brilliantly.

Ed
Israel and the US War on Iraq
A Lethal Warning to US Client States: Behave or Else

by CARL ESTABROOK

It's remarkable how rarely Israel is mentioned in regard to the American

plans to attack Iraq -- with the exception of occasional notices of how
strongly the Israeli government supports those plans. A proper
assessment
of its part in this war depends upon an understanding of Israel's
position
in
the United States' overall policy for the Middle East, and how that
policy
is being implemented with specific regard to Iraq.

Patrick Buchanan was thoroughly rebuked when he remarked on the eve
of the US attack on Iraq in 1991, "There are only two groups that are
beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli Defense
Ministry
and its amen corner in the United States." But he was saying aloud what
few
others were. What his national chauvinism prevented him from noticing
was
that, in its avidity for war, the Israeli government was acting -- as it
had
for
more than a generation -- as the principal US client, our "local cop on
the
beat," as the Nixon Administration had put it. It's this ongoing role
that
explains what part Israel has in the current slaughter of Iraqis.

US FOREIGN POLICY: THE MIDDLE EAST
Since the Second World War -- from which the United States emerged as
the world's only undamaged major country and proceeded to organize the
economy of the world -- a cornerstone of American policy has been
control
of Middle East energy resources, the greatest geopolitical prize in the
modern
world. Control, not just access, was what was demanded by all US
administrations, Republican and Democrat, because control of those
resources
gave the UScontrol of its principal economic competitors -- which turned
out
to
be, by the late 20th century, a German-led Europe and a Japan-led East
Asia.

The US has never in fact required Mideast oil for its own society -- all
the
energy requirements of the US could be filled from national sources
(especially when we include in "national sources," our "backyard" --
Latin
America) But Germany imports 80% of its energy resources, and Japan,
100%.
Who controls world oil, controls the life-line of the modern world.

And the principal threat to U.S. control has always come from what the
US
called "domestic radicalism" -- the dangerous idea amongst the peoples
of
the oil-producing regions that their natural wealth should be used for
their
benefit, rather than for that of the corporations and the economic
elites to
whom the US might assign it. And the chief form of "domestic radicalism"
was
Arab nationalism. To guard against it, the US constructed (and took over

from Britain) a series of repressive Arab governments, the family
dictatorships
around the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia at their head.

US FOREIGN POLICY: ISRAEL
Since it launched a war and destroyed the center of Arab nationalism in
1967,
Israel's job in America's "overall framework of order," in Henry
Kissinger's
phrase, was to guarantee that those conservative Arab governments were
protected from their most dangerous enemy -- their own populations.
Israel
was to be the final bulwark against the dangers that would be posed to
US
control if "domestic radicals" came to power in one of the oil-producing

states -- as happened in Iran in 1979.

For that reason (and not because of some imagined invincibility of the
pro-Israel lobby), the US is willing to provide Israel with vastly more
money and support than it gives to any other country in the world.
(In second place is Egypt, Israel's principal antagonist in 1967, whom
the Carter administration bought off at Camp David in 1978, securing
Israel's southern border; in third, Turkey, Israel's principal military
ally
in the present-day Middle East.) Today as a result Israel has perhaps
the third strongest military in the world, with hundreds of advanced
nuclear
weapons (Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty),
missiles
and submarines with which to deliver them, and an air force of
US-supplied
F-16s and attack helicopters.

For that reason too the US is willing to support Israel's brutal and
racist
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (condemned by the United Nations
thirty-five years ago in Security Council Resolution 242) and its
settlement
of its citizens in the occupied territories (recognized as a violation
of
the
Fourth Geneva Convention -- a war crime -- around the world). Not only
have these been the consistent policies of all Israeli governments,
Labor
and
Likud, they also serve the US purpose of discouraging domestic
radicalism, a
democratic and secular Palestine being seen as a "threat of a good
example"
even by some Arab states. To discourage the threat of progressive Arab
nationalism, the US and Israel have on occasion been willing to fund
even
Islamicist movements (Hamas and the Mujahideen) that they saw as
counters
to it. Consistent US/Israeli policy has been largely successful in
destroying
secular Arab nationalism as it existed two generations ago -- and
replacing
it with religious fundamentalism.

In 1982, in order to consolidate the Israeli control over the occupied
territories, the US armed and supported the most extreme terrorist act
in
the Middle East in a generation, the invasion of Lebanon, which killed
about
20,000 people (many more than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). It was
conducted
by the current Prime Minister of Israel and launched because of the
danger
that peace might break out in the Middle East. That motive grows to the
extent
that the state is militarized. In the principal American client as
perhaps
nowhere else in the world is it true that war is the health of the
state.
And that war is principally a war against Palestinians.

That war is not simply killing. To take one example from far too many,
Israeli forces closed the Islamic University and the Polytechnic
Institute
in Hebron last month, actions to which even the US State Department
took mild exception. Elsewhere, the Israeli army looked for similarly
creative forms of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing: in east
Jerusalem, they sealed the apartments of three imprisoned Hamas
militants
(one of whom had been sentenced to thirty-five consecutive life terms)
by filling the rooms with concrete. The Guardian (UK) reports that now
more than a thousand Palestinians are held by the Israeli army under
detention without charge (the sort of thing we used to think only
totalitarian
governments did -- it is of course now US practice, too).

This oppressive and anti-intellectual policy is practiced by other
American
clients as well. US financial and military aid to Turkey was used
brutally
to suppress the Kurds in the southeast in the 1990s, creating millions
of
refugees, destroying some 3500 villages, and killing tens of thousands
of
people -- an ethnic cleansing supported by the Clinton administration.
Since
the military coup in 1980, Turkish universities have been rife with
police
spies, and evidence of Kurdish culture, to say nothing of Kurdish
nationalism, has been suppressed. America and its clients in the Middle
East
have as their enemies whole peoples of the region.

Any understanding of Israel's role in the coming US attack on Iraq has
to
begin with the Jewish state's continuing position in US policy. Those on
the
American Right (and elsewhere) who think that the Israeli tail is
wagging
the US dog have got it quite wrong: the dog is firmly in control.
Israeli
governments, whether Labor or Likud, do nothing without the approval of
their American paymasters. Noam Chomsky offers three recent examples,
beginning with the first Bush administration:

"--The Bush #1 case involved $10 million in loan guarantees, which
Israel
was using (illegally, but with US connivance) for settlement in the
territories. The Shamir government was doing it in a brazen way that
annoyed Baker-Bush. Bush suspended the guarantees, ... Israel returned
to
the preferred Labor-style hypocrisy ('thickening settlements,' 'natural
growth,' etc.) and all was well. "--In 2000, Israel's highly militarized

high-tech economy was counting heavily on a huge sale of Phalcon air war

technology to China. The US didn't like it. Barak said Israel would
never
back down. Clinton told them quietly, 'Sorry, no.' End of story.
"--Sharon's siege of Arafat in Ramallah was interfering with Bush
administration efforts to garner support for the war on Iraq. The orders

came quietly from Washington. Same [result]."

Chomsky points out that there are many such cases, "some major ones
(like
Eisenhower ordering Israel out of Egyptian territory on the eve of a
presidential election), others minor ones like Ramallah, many in
between."
Were it not for the part that Israel plays in the US government's
decades
-long plan for control of Middle East energy resources, it would be of
no
more concern to us than any other state with a questionable racial
policy
and a population less than that of New York City -- Zimbabwe, say, or
Uganda (even if the latter had become a Jewish state, as once proposed).

Israel's military usefulness to the US is not limited to the Middle
East. In
two of the worst examples -- near-genocidal campaigns in which the US
government was hampered by political pressure at home -- Israel carried
out
the bidding of its patron. In the 1970s, at the request of the Carter
administration, Israel transferred war-planes to Indonesia to aid in the

suppression of the East Timorese, a massacre comparable to those in
Cambodia.

In the 1980s, Israeli military advisors aided the Reagan administration
in
genocidal campaigns in Guatemala (for which Clinton later apologized,
with
monstrous inadequacy). Chomsky refers to Israel as "virtually an
offshore
US military establishment." An Israeli journalist recently described the

country
as "an army with a state, not state with an army," and that army is
"almost
an
offshoot of the Pentagon," Chomsky adds. He points out, "Unfortunately
for
Israel, it's coming to resemble the US in other ways. It approximates
the US
in having the highest inequality in the industrial world, and its social

welfare system, once impressive, is visibly declining. It may end up
being
almost a caricature of the worst features of American society. These are

consequences of the choice of confrontation and dependency rather than
peaceful integration into the region, fateful choices decades ago." It
also
makes the Israeli polity dependent on war: Zalman Shoval, former Israeli

ambassador to the US, is quoted as saying recently to Israel's Military
Radio (GALATZ), "The postponement of the war against Iraq is against
the Israeli interests."

US FOREIGN POLICY: IRAQ
In 1934 Fascist Italy invaded the impoverished kingdom of Ethiopia to
build
its new Empire, and in the event the principal contemporary organ of
international law, the League of Nations, was destroyed. The US war on
Iraq
resembles Italy's, not least in that it shreds international law and
subverts
the UN. The comparison perhaps reverses a famous observation about
everything in history happening twice: the first time it may have been a

farce,
but the second may be a great tragedy indeed.

The Bush administration has at least three important goals in launching
this
criminal enterprise:

First, consistent with the fundamental principle of US foreign policy,
this
is a war for oil, for control of (not just access to) Iraqi oil
reserves,
the second largest in the world. That control rather than access is the
issue, is shown by the hesitation of the large oil companies about this
war: they have access now and fear its disruption.

Second, it is a demonstration war, as all US wars since World War II
(including Vietnam) have been: a state which refuses to obey
Washington's
orders -- or has the dangerous idea that it wants to use its resources
for
the purposes of its population, rather than integrate them into the
world
economy on terms set by the US -- must be punished severely.

Third, the war distracts from our wretched economy at home; the
administration mobilizes for war and encourages the fear of terrorism to

cover over their understandably unpopular economic policy -- nothing
less
than the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich -- and
nevertheless
to assure their reelection (if you agree that they were elected, at
all.)

The war is meant to secure and defend the long-term foreign policy of
the
US in the Middle East and in the world at large. To understand why that
policy requires the reduction of Iraq -- and indeed the destruction of
any
regional power with "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) -- we need to
grasp what might be called "asymmetrical deterrence," the way in which a

weak state may have just enough weapons to deter the threats of a strong

one.

The US enjoys nuclear dominance in the world and Israel, with a stronger

military than any European NATO country, nuclear dominance in the
region.
(General Lee Butler, head of the Strategic Command under Clinton: "It is

dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we
call
the
Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of

nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires
other
nations to do so.") These weapons are used primarily as a threat against

weaker, non-nuclear countries. Thus every US president since Truman has
threatened to use nuclear weapons against a Third World country. But the
US
ability to threaten another country is limited if, even though the US
reduced that country to nuclear waste, it could itself be hit with even
one
nuclear weapon.

Similarly, Israel has an overwhelming dominance of weapons of mass
destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical) in the region, but the
possession of only a few -- or even one -- by a rival to the US cop can
neutralize the cop's offensive dominance. Of course it would be insanity
for
Iraq or any other state to attack Israel -- it would be immediately
obliterated by Israel and the US -- but Israel has to hesitate to use
its
weapons of mass destruction, or even threaten to do so, if there is any
chance that the cost would be Tel Aviv...

The American "framework of order" is endangered if its regional enforcer
can
be constrained. It is in this way that the possession of a few WMDs (by
Iraq, Iran, or any other state in the region) is a defensive posture,
not an
offensive one -- and surely the policy that would have to be adopted
even if
the government in Baghdad were democratic (highly unlikely, because the
US
doesn't want it). Similarly, on an international scale, China developed
nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them a generation ago and
produced about twenty, which they still have -- not an offensive threat,
but
a defensive caution to the US and Russia.

The new US attack on Iraq, then, is based first of all on maintaining
the
persistent US position in the Middle East and eliminating a check on
America's regional enforcer. But it is a good deal more than that. It is

also part of a plan for a new colonialism, a plan quite publicly
announced
by the most extreme elements in the US government, in league with the
most
right-wing elements in Israel (much to the right of the current prime
minister,
war criminal as he may be).

As Kurt Nimmo explained in CounterPunch, "...the idea of killing Saddam
Hussein and inflicting depredation on the Iraqi people is not a Bush
idea
(it can be argued Bush has no original ideas of his own) -- the current
scheme
was a roughcast devised by Likudite Richard Perle. In 1996, Perle (and
Douglas Feith) wrote 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm,'
which he presented to then Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu. The plan
called
for not only eliminating Hussein and installing a Hashemite monarchy in
Baghdad, but also for trashing the Oslo Accords, Israeli occupation of
the
West Bank and Gaza, and overthrowing or destabilizing the governments of

Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Perle's master plan for Likud
regional dominance ... was crafted for the Jerusalem and Washington,
D.C.-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
(IASPS)..."

The plan had been announced in the Clinton administration (which was
more
extreme on Israel than the first Bush administration), but the planners
came
to power in the Pentagon and the State Department in the second Bush
administration. They saw 9/11 as a heaven-sent opportunity to put the
plan
into operation. As the Washington Post recently reported, Bush signed a
document directing the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of
Iraq
less than a week after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington
--
although the administration has never had any evidence of Iraqi
complicity
in those attacks. And, quite consistently with the views of the
Washington
hawks ("chicken-hawks" who avoided the military themselves), Israeli
Prime
Minister Sharon told The Times (UK) that Iran -- one of the "axis of
evil"
powers identified by Bush -- should be targeted "the day after" action
against
Iraq ends because of its role as a "centre of world terror". The plan is

clearly
underway.

* * *

IN SUMMARY, ISRAEL'S PART in the US attack on Iraq depends on its
central role in the on-going American policy of controlling Middle East
energy
resources, which gives the US a strangle-hold on the world economy; the
US
attack removes the defensive constraint that even one weapon of mass
destruction might have on Israel's ability to threaten its neighbors
with
its overwhelming nuclear advantage, while the US issues a lethal warning
to
the world of what happens to American clients who stop obeying orders.

The conservative columnist Robert Novak said on Meet the Press in
December
that the extremists in the Bush administration never wanted inspections
in
Iraq: "This is really about change of regime in Iraq and change of the
political outlines in the Middle East more to Israel's benefit. That's
what
this has all been about, and since it's very hard to sell that to the
American people, they have done it on a weapons of mass destruction
basis."
With the proviso that "Israel's benefit" here means the enhancement of
the
role that US foreign policy provides for a militarized Israel -- hardly
to
the benefit of the people of Israel -- the comment seems about right.

Carl Estabrook is a Visiting Scholar University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. He can be reached at:
mailto:galliher@...
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
>
> This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but
because
>
> it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence
Jews in
> America have on the current drive towards war

taboo? it's not too taboo for members of congress to make these
claims, apparently. unfortunately it's extremely hurtful for that
majority of american jews who oppose the war, and is absurd
considering the religious affiliation (if you must) of most of the
architects of this whole war -- basically the former reagan
administration -- it's all documented.

> the
> US
> attack removes the defensive constraint that even one weapon of mass
> destruction might have on Israel's ability to threaten its neighbors
> with
> its overwhelming nuclear advantage,

etc. this statement bears no relationship with reality, none at all.
what defensive constraint does one weapon of mass desctruction have
on this purported threat? this doesn't even make sense. all of this
propaganda is old, recycled trash that we've seen for years, coming
from the arab and muslim worlds and the far left and far right in
america. now it's clearly becoming mainstream, not taboo at all. it's
getting to be like the 30s all over again, but perhaps on a grander
scale.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
>
> This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but
because
>
> it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence
Jews in
> America have on the current drive towards war as well as other
aspects
> of the administration and American polity. It's not only
complicated
> and
> needs to be aired, but almost totally absent within mainstream
Jewish
> journals and society, not to mention the rest of the media. This
essay
> presents one point of view, brilliantly.

kraig, there's far more to this essay than the unfortunate summary
you choose to present above. did you really read it, or just forward
it? why did you choose to highlight this one element?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> Since it launched a war and destroyed the center of Arab
nationalism in
> 1967,
> Israel . . .

huh??? can you please fill me in on this bit of "history"? the author
must have been reading the standard palestinian schoolbooks,
published by france btw, which also claim that the holocaust did not
occur.

> This oppressive and anti-intellectual policy is practiced by other
> American
> clients as well. US financial and military aid to Turkey was used
> brutally
> to suppress the Kurds in the southeast in the 1990s, creating
millions
> of
> refugees, destroying some 3500 villages, and killing tens of
thousands
> of
> people -- an ethnic cleansing supported by the Clinton
administration.

well, at least we know this propaganda did not stem from turkey :)
seriously though, the kurds are truly caught in the middle in this
war, which saddam threatening them from one side and a turkey-us
alliance on the other. my heart goes out to them.

> Were it not for the part that Israel plays in the US government's
> decades
> -long plan for control of Middle East energy resources, it would be
of
> no
> more concern to us than any other state with a questionable racial
> policy
> and a population less than that of New York City -- Zimbabwe, say,
or
> Uganda (even if the latter had become a Jewish state, as once
proposed).

please fill me in on the details, and especially the relevance, of
this last aside.

> Chomsky adds. He points out, "Unfortunately
> for
> Israel, it's coming to resemble the US in other ways. It
approximates
> the US
> in having the highest inequality in the industrial world, and its
social
>
> welfare system, once impressive, is visibly declining. It may end up
> being
> almost a caricature of the worst features of American society.
These are
>
> consequences of the choice of confrontation and dependency rather
than
> peaceful integration into the region, fateful choices decades ago."
It
> also
> makes the Israeli polity dependent on war: Zalman Shoval, former
Israeli
>
> ambassador to the US, is quoted as saying recently to Israel's
Military
> Radio (GALATZ), "The postponement of the war against Iraq is against
> the Israeli interests."

likewise i don't see how any of this ties into the argument, or if it
does, the logic seems egregiously weak. spin a few quotes together
and you can appear to support just about any argument.

> First, consistent with the fundamental principle of US foreign
policy,
> this
> is a war for oil, for control of (not just access to) Iraqi oil
> reserves,
> the second largest in the world. That control rather than access is
the
> issue, is shown by the hesitation of the large oil companies about
this
> war: they have access now and fear its disruption.
>
> Second, it is a demonstration war, as all US wars since World War II
> (including Vietnam) have been: a state which refuses to obey
> Washington's
> orders -- or has the dangerous idea that it wants to use its
resources
> for
> the purposes of its population, rather than integrate them into the
> world
> economy on terms set by the US -- must be punished severely.

look, i oppose the war, but neither of these arguments above make any
sense to me. maybe i'm just losing brain cells along with my hair,
but could someone please explain to me how these arguments work? i'd
truly like to know. explain to me the idea of control vs. access of
oil, and explain to me how saddam's administration wants to use its
resources for the purposes of its population.

> Third, the war distracts from our wretched economy at home; the
> administration mobilizes for war and encourages the fear of
>terrorism to
>
> cover over their understandably unpopular economic policy -- nothing
> less
> than the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich -- and
> nevertheless
> to assure their reelection (if you agree that they were elected, at
> all.)

i can agree with most of this!

> These weapons are used primarily as a threat against
>
> weaker, non-nuclear countries. Thus every US president since Truman
has
> threatened to use nuclear weapons against a Third World country.

ok, but who has israel threatened to use nuclear weapons against?
this seems to be a key omission from the below:

> Similarly, Israel has an overwhelming dominance of weapons of mass
> destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical) in the region, but
the
> possession of only a few -- or even one -- by a rival to the US cop
can
> neutralize the cop's offensive dominance. Of course it would be
insanity
> for
> Iraq or any other state to attack Israel -- it would be immediately
> obliterated by Israel and the US -- but Israel has to hesitate to
use
> its
> weapons of mass destruction, or even threaten to do so, if there is
any
> chance that the cost would be Tel Aviv...
>
> The American "framework of order" is endangered if its regional
enforcer
> can
> be constrained. It is in this way that the possession of a few WMDs
(by
> Iraq, Iran, or any other state in the region) is a defensive
posture,
> not an
> offensive one -- and surely the policy that would have to be adopted
> even if
> the government in Baghdad were democratic (highly unlikely, because
the
> US
> doesn't want it).

ok, iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a defensive posture, funny
since they claim they don't have any and since they've been used
aggressively against iran and against iraq's own people. meanwhile,
isreal's are an offensive posture. hmm. this must have something to
do with what supposedly happened in 1967, presumably?

> Similarly, on an international scale, China developed
> nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them a generation ago
and
> produced about twenty, which they still have -- not an offensive
threat,
> but
> a defensive caution to the US and Russia.

and israel's weapons *are* an offensive threat? how much offensive
hostility has china seen from the us and russia, compared with what
israel has seen from the entire region surrounding it, 100 times its
size?

> The new US attack on Iraq, then, is based first of all on
maintaining
> the
> persistent US position in the Middle East and eliminating a check on
> America's regional enforcer.

doesn't make any sense. pakistan has plenty of nukes and is openly
hostile to israel's existence. yet the us is all too happy to
befriend pakistan.

> But it is a good deal more than that. It is
>
> also part of a plan for a new colonialism, a plan quite publicly
> announced
> by the most extreme elements in the US government, in league with
the
> most
> right-wing elements in Israel (much to the right of the current
prime
> minister,
> war criminal as he may be).
>
> As Kurt Nimmo explained in CounterPunch, "...the idea of killing
Saddam
> Hussein and inflicting depredation on the Iraqi people is not a Bush
> idea
> (it can be argued Bush has no original ideas of his own) -- the
current
> scheme
> was a roughcast devised by Likudite Richard Perle. In 1996, Perle
(and
> Douglas Feith) wrote 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
> Realm,'
> which he presented to then Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu. The plan
> called
> for not only eliminating Hussein and installing a Hashemite
monarchy in
> Baghdad, but also for trashing the Oslo Accords, Israeli occupation
of
> the
> West Bank and Gaza, and overthrowing or destabilizing the
governments of
>
> Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Perle's master plan for
Likud
> regional dominance ... was crafted for the Jerusalem and Washington,
> D.C.-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
> (IASPS)..."
>
> The plan had been announced in the Clinton administration (which was
> more
> extreme on Israel than the first Bush administration), but the
planners
> came
> to power in the Pentagon and the State Department in the second Bush
> administration. They saw 9/11 as a heaven-sent opportunity to put
the
> plan
> into operation. As the Washington Post recently reported, Bush
signed a
> document directing the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of
> Iraq
> less than a week after the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington
> --
> although the administration has never had any evidence of Iraqi
> complicity
> in those attacks.

this invocation of perle is obviously meant to influence the
uninformed -- by now everyone knows this whole 'new colonialism' and
plan for iraq originated quite a few years *before* 1996, with
certain members of the reagan administration who are now employed
under W.

so, kraig, what you took from this article was that american jews
have too much influence??

peace to you, and to all.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
>
> This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but
because
>
> it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence
Jews in
> America have on the current drive towards war as well as other
aspects
> of the administration and American polity.

here's a response to this claim of yours, as well as to some claims
the essay you posted actually made:

March 13, 2003

From: Martin J. Raffel

Re: Blaming Israel and Jews for War against Saddam
Hussein

The controversy surrounding Representative Moran's comments earlier
this week, in which he said, "if it were not for the strong support
of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing
this," has generated considerable concern in the Jewish community.
The Congressman, who subsequently apologized for his remarks, has
been widely criticized by Jewish and non-Jewish leaders, as well as
by some Democratic Representatives who have indicated they will not
support his re-election. The Washington Post editorial embedded
below also sharply condemns him. This is not an isolated occurrence;
unfortunately, the alleged Israeli and Jewish backing of a war
against Saddam Hussein has become a significant topic of discussion
in the mass media. Therefore, the principal focus now should be on
distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate discussion of this
issue, and formulating appropriate responses.

Distinguishing Between Appropriate and Inappropriate Discourse

It is not inappropriate to suggest that Israel and the American
Jewish community support war against Iraq, but it would be wrong.
While some Israeli leaders have referred to the potential benefits of
a disarmed Saddam Hussein, Israel, which stands to suffer an attack
against its civilians in the event of a war, has taken no position on
this issue. Virtually all of the mainstream Jewish organizations
have refrained from taking a position as well. The JCPA's policy
statement adopted last October urges the disarmament of Saddam
Hussein, with the use of force "as a last resort." Polls reveal that
American Jews generally are as divided on the Iraq situation as other
Americans.

On the other hand, if the suggestion is made that the Jewish
community is somehow controlling or manipulating U.S. policy on Iraq,
either through Jewish officials in the Administration or through the
advocacy work of its organizations, that crosses a line between
legitimate discourse and dangerous rhetoric. Here too there may be a
line, not always easy to define, between offensive language, which
may have an anti-Semitic impact or resonance, and intentional anti-
Semitism. It is desirable to apply the term anti-Semitism only in
the most egregious circumstances.

Blaming the Jews

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

OUR VIEW THAT Rep. James P. Moran Jr. is unfit to serve in Congress
is not new. Last July, citing Mr. Moran's ethical obtuseness, we
urged Democrats in Alexandria and surrounding neighborhoods to find
another candidate for the fall election. Now, by blaming American
Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has
confirmed our opinion about him. House Democratic leaders quickly
dissociated themselves from his remark; it will be interesting to see
whether they, and Northern Virginia Democrats, will make an effort to
find a better candidate to run in 2004.

Meanwhile it may be useful to examine Mr. Moran's assertion, for he
is far from alone in his view. "If it were not for the strong support
of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing
this," Mr. Moran said, as reported first by the Reston Connection
newspaper. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential
enough that they could change the direction of where this is going,
and I think they should." The comment perpetuates a stereotype of
Jews as a unified bloc steering the world in their interest and
against everyone else's. Over the centuries anti-Semites have used
this libel to distract attention from their own failings and to
instigate violence and discrimination against Jews. In the United
States today, though anti-Semitism is far from eradicated, such
violence may seem a mercifully distant danger. But Mr. Moran's
comment will be used to concentrate the poison of anti-Semitism in
many parts of the world where it remains virulent and dangerous.

Jews in fact are far from unified in their opinion of President
Bush's Iraq policy. Nonetheless many people argue, often in more
sophisticated ways than Mr. Moran, that the Bush policy is being
engineered by and on behalf of Jews or Israel. At its most
conspiratorial, the theory goes like this: A small group of Jews
(sometimes referred to, in a kind of code, as "neoconservatives"
or "neocons") decided years ago that Saddam Hussein should be
overthrown to improve Israeli security. Evidence is contained in a
memo that some of them wrote in 1996 for Israeli politician Binyamin
Netanyahu. These "neocons" then insinuated themselves into the Bush
administration and seized on 9/11 as the pretext to put their plan
into motion. Mr. Bush and his top foreign-policy team -- Vice
President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza
Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet -- are presumably too weak and
gullible to evade the manipulations of these Jews.

Unfortunately for this theory, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a very
minor part of the memo in question, and many Israeli officials never
accepted the American view of Iraq; they regard Iran as a greater
threat to Israel. Moreover, those who wrote the Netanyahu memo are
but part of a far larger group of American conservatives who for
years have campaigned loudly and openly in Washington for the removal
of Saddam Hussein. In a public letter on Jan. 26, 1998, they urged
President Clinton to adopt regime change in Iraq as a goal, arguing
that Iraq threatened Israel -- and also American troops, moderate
Arab states, much of the world's oil supply and, ultimately, "the
security of the world." Signatories included a number of people, Jews
and non-Jews, who have since moved into government: Richard L.
Armitage, John R. Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, Robert B. Zoellick.

It's perfectly legitimate to debate Israel's place in U.S. Mideast
policy, or Israel's own behavior; charges of anti-Semitism shouldn't
be permitted to stifle criticism. It's not anti-Semitic to stand up
for Palestinians' human rights. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-
Semitic -- just demonstrably wrong -- to argue that Mr. Bush's Iraq
policy is motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel. But the
argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it
attributes to Jews or "the Jewish community" a single view and a
nefarious influence. Some Jews and some non-Jews, in Israel and
America and Europe, support disarming Iraq; some don't. In their
respective countries, they try to make the arguments on their merits.
Mr. Moran and his ilk should do the same.

one more comment, kraig -- if isreal, or those who are concerned with
its interests, had so much say in the matter, as your essay claims,
the country the U.S. would be far and away most hostile toward would
be syria. talk about harboring terrorists (or about working to rid
the middle east of the zionist oppressor, depending on your point of
view)! so, have you seen any talk in the us administration about
military campaigns against syria?

I fowarded as it came to me.
anmd i agree the subject is taboo. there was a whole three hour segmenty
here on pacifica with rabbis and like diiscussing the levela of taboo and
complexity of the subject.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but
> because
> >
> > it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence
> Jews in
> > America have on the current drive towards war as well as other
> aspects
> > of the administration and American polity. It's not only
> complicated
> > and
> > needs to be aired, but almost totally absent within mainstream
> Jewish
> > journals and society, not to mention the rest of the media. This
> essay
> > presents one point of view, brilliantly.
>
> kraig, there's far more to this essay than the unfortunate summary
> you choose to present above. did you really read it, or just forward
> it? why did you choose to highlight this one element?
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

you missed the point which says that Israel is acting under US influence,
not the other way around. this is not my paper i merely forwarded it.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is an important essay, not only for the subject matter, but
> because
> >
> > it touches upon the almost taboo subjects of how much influence
> Jews in
> > America have on the current drive towards war as well as other
> aspects
> > of the administration and American polity.
>
> here's a response to this claim of yours, as well as to some claims
> the essay you posted actually made:
>
>
>
> March 13, 2003
>
>
>
> From: Martin J. Raffel
>
>
>
> Re: Blaming Israel and Jews for War against Saddam
> Hussein
>
>
>
> The controversy surrounding Representative Moran's comments earlier
> this week, in which he said, "if it were not for the strong support
> of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing
> this," has generated considerable concern in the Jewish community.
> The Congressman, who subsequently apologized for his remarks, has
> been widely criticized by Jewish and non-Jewish leaders, as well as
> by some Democratic Representatives who have indicated they will not
> support his re-election. The Washington Post editorial embedded
> below also sharply condemns him. This is not an isolated occurrence;
> unfortunately, the alleged Israeli and Jewish backing of a war
> against Saddam Hussein has become a significant topic of discussion
> in the mass media. Therefore, the principal focus now should be on
> distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate discussion of this
> issue, and formulating appropriate responses.
>
>
>
> Distinguishing Between Appropriate and Inappropriate Discourse
>
>
> It is not inappropriate to suggest that Israel and the American
> Jewish community support war against Iraq, but it would be wrong.
> While some Israeli leaders have referred to the potential benefits of
> a disarmed Saddam Hussein, Israel, which stands to suffer an attack
> against its civilians in the event of a war, has taken no position on
> this issue. Virtually all of the mainstream Jewish organizations
> have refrained from taking a position as well. The JCPA's policy
> statement adopted last October urges the disarmament of Saddam
> Hussein, with the use of force "as a last resort." Polls reveal that
> American Jews generally are as divided on the Iraq situation as other
> Americans.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, if the suggestion is made that the Jewish
> community is somehow controlling or manipulating U.S. policy on Iraq,
> either through Jewish officials in the Administration or through the
> advocacy work of its organizations, that crosses a line between
> legitimate discourse and dangerous rhetoric. Here too there may be a
> line, not always easy to define, between offensive language, which
> may have an anti-Semitic impact or resonance, and intentional anti-
> Semitism. It is desirable to apply the term anti-Semitism only in
> the most egregious circumstances.
>
>
>
>
> Blaming the Jews
>
>
>
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003
>
>
>
> OUR VIEW THAT Rep. James P. Moran Jr. is unfit to serve in Congress
> is not new. Last July, citing Mr. Moran's ethical obtuseness, we
> urged Democrats in Alexandria and surrounding neighborhoods to find
> another candidate for the fall election. Now, by blaming American
> Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has
> confirmed our opinion about him. House Democratic leaders quickly
> dissociated themselves from his remark; it will be interesting to see
> whether they, and Northern Virginia Democrats, will make an effort to
> find a better candidate to run in 2004.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile it may be useful to examine Mr. Moran's assertion, for he
> is far from alone in his view. "If it were not for the strong support
> of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing
> this," Mr. Moran said, as reported first by the Reston Connection
> newspaper. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential
> enough that they could change the direction of where this is going,
> and I think they should." The comment perpetuates a stereotype of
> Jews as a unified bloc steering the world in their interest and
> against everyone else's. Over the centuries anti-Semites have used
> this libel to distract attention from their own failings and to
> instigate violence and discrimination against Jews. In the United
> States today, though anti-Semitism is far from eradicated, such
> violence may seem a mercifully distant danger. But Mr. Moran's
> comment will be used to concentrate the poison of anti-Semitism in
> many parts of the world where it remains virulent and dangerous.
>
>
>
> Jews in fact are far from unified in their opinion of President
> Bush's Iraq policy. Nonetheless many people argue, often in more
> sophisticated ways than Mr. Moran, that the Bush policy is being
> engineered by and on behalf of Jews or Israel. At its most
> conspiratorial, the theory goes like this: A small group of Jews
> (sometimes referred to, in a kind of code, as "neoconservatives"
> or "neocons") decided years ago that Saddam Hussein should be
> overthrown to improve Israeli security. Evidence is contained in a
> memo that some of them wrote in 1996 for Israeli politician Binyamin
> Netanyahu. These "neocons" then insinuated themselves into the Bush
> administration and seized on 9/11 as the pretext to put their plan
> into motion. Mr. Bush and his top foreign-policy team -- Vice
> President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense
> Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza
> Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet -- are presumably too weak and
> gullible to evade the manipulations of these Jews.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for this theory, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a very
> minor part of the memo in question, and many Israeli officials never
> accepted the American view of Iraq; they regard Iran as a greater
> threat to Israel. Moreover, those who wrote the Netanyahu memo are
> but part of a far larger group of American conservatives who for
> years have campaigned loudly and openly in Washington for the removal
> of Saddam Hussein. In a public letter on Jan. 26, 1998, they urged
> President Clinton to adopt regime change in Iraq as a goal, arguing
> that Iraq threatened Israel -- and also American troops, moderate
> Arab states, much of the world's oil supply and, ultimately, "the
> security of the world." Signatories included a number of people, Jews
> and non-Jews, who have since moved into government: Richard L.
> Armitage, John R. Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
> Wolfowitz, Robert B. Zoellick.
>
>
>
> It's perfectly legitimate to debate Israel's place in U.S. Mideast
> policy, or Israel's own behavior; charges of anti-Semitism shouldn't
> be permitted to stifle criticism. It's not anti-Semitic to stand up
> for Palestinians' human rights. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-
> Semitic -- just demonstrably wrong -- to argue that Mr. Bush's Iraq
> policy is motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel. But the
> argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it
> attributes to Jews or "the Jewish community" a single view and a
> nefarious influence. Some Jews and some non-Jews, in Israel and
> America and Europe, support disarming Iraq; some don't. In their
> respective countries, they try to make the arguments on their merits.
> Mr. Moran and his ilk should do the same.
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

they were listed as an AXIS of EVIL where they not?
(which I would say they have gotten off easy concidering there history within their own
borders.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> one more comment, kraig -- if isreal, or those who are concerned with
> its interests, had so much say in the matter, as your essay claims,
> the country the U.S. would be far and away most hostile toward would
> be syria. talk about harboring terrorists (or about working to rid
> the middle east of the zionist oppressor, depending on your point of
> view)! so, have you seen any talk in the us administration about
> military campaigns against syria?
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

i thought that was just iran, iraq, and north korea. did i miss
something? anyway, bush is an idiot!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> they were listed as an AXIS of EVIL where they not?
> (which I would say they have gotten off easy concidering there
history within their own
> borders.
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > one more comment, kraig -- if isreal, or those who are concerned
with
> > its interests, had so much say in the matter, as your essay
claims,
> > the country the U.S. would be far and away most hostile toward
would
> > be syria. talk about harboring terrorists (or about working to
rid
> > the middle east of the zionist oppressor, depending on your point
of
> > view)! so, have you seen any talk in the us administration about
> > military campaigns against syria?
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Hi Kraig,

Whether you realize it or not, you are playing "Bash the Jews" on this list.
Yesterday there was a full page ad against the Iraq war in The New York Times
signed by hundreds of Jews. Every Jew I know is either against this "war" or
ambivalent about the Iraq war.

Maybe your disgust of America in this war is forcing you to find someone else
to blame, besides Americans.

best, Johnny

I believe the article blamed the american and blamed america for things normal blamed on
israel.

Afmmjr@... wrote:

> Hi Kraig,
>
> Whether you realize it or not, you are playing "Bash the Jews" on this list.
> Yesterday there was a full page ad against the Iraq war in The New York Times
> signed by hundreds of Jews. Every Jew I know is either against this "war" or
> ambivalent about the Iraq war.
>
> Maybe your disgust of America in this war is forcing you to find someone else
> to blame, besides Americans.
>
> best, Johnny
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

kraig, your words were:

"the almost taboo subjects of
how much influence Jews in
America have on the current drive towards war"

i did not misunderstand the article, as you claimed -- like johnny, i
was reacting to this statement of yours. by saying "how much", you're
implying "too much", yes?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I believe the article blamed the american and blamed america for
things normal blamed on
> israel.
>
> Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Hi Kraig,
> >
> > Whether you realize it or not, you are playing "Bash the Jews" on
this list.
> > Yesterday there was a full page ad against the Iraq war in The
New York Times
> > signed by hundreds of Jews. Every Jew I know is either against
this "war" or
> > ambivalent about the Iraq war.
> >
> > Maybe your disgust of America in this war is forcing you to find
someone else
> > to blame, besides Americans.
> >
> > best, Johnny
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

these were not my words as i said before, these are what i forwarded

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> kraig, your words were:
>
> "the almost taboo subjects of
> how much influence Jews in
> America have on the current drive towards war"
>
> i did not misunderstand the article, as you claimed -- like johnny, i
> was reacting to this statement of yours. by saying "how much", you're
> implying "too much", yes?
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > I believe the article blamed the american and blamed america for
> things normal blamed on
> > israel.
> >
> > Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kraig,
> > >
> > > Whether you realize it or not, you are playing "Bash the Jews" on
> this list.
> > > Yesterday there was a full page ad against the Iraq war in The
> New York Times
> > > signed by hundreds of Jews. Every Jew I know is either against
> this "war" or
> > > ambivalent about the Iraq war.
> > >
> > > Maybe your disgust of America in this war is forcing you to find
> someone else
> > > to blame, besides Americans.
> > >
> > > best, Johnny
> > >
> > >
> > > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> > >
> > > To post to the list, send to
> > > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > You don't have to be a member to post.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

one more addition to this

Since i have already explained this before possibly i should just come out and say that i
am sure jews have influence upon our politics, but that is what is supposed to happen,
everyone is. too much? it seems the christian right has too much if anyone.
What has too much influence is money and that is why the government is doomed without
meaningful campain reform. actually i think it is already doomed. One you have secret
police you willl never get rid of them cause they themselves will make sure no one will
ever get elected that willl mess up their little empire. The military also now has
trillion to spend keeping themselves big. and they are just going to get bigger.

What i want to know how can the Israel trust a man like Bush who is desendent from the
nazi treasury dept and also has patron in the oil business (one that made milllion yet
produced no oil at all) of the likes of the bid laden family who i am sure had much
influence on how their son Osama thinks today. On top of this throw in his friends and
backers on the far right. on top of this remember how he was not pro israel before taking
office or when he first started.

Somethin fishy and i bet that 20 lb carp was talkin about this weazel

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

In a message dated 3/23/03 3:09:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kraiggrady@... writes:

> one more addition to this

Thanks, Kraig, for the explanation. Along these lines, why should Israel
trust the UN? Nazi Kurt Waldheim lead the organization for 10 years. They
couldn't (wouldn't) defend "protected" Srebernica causing a massacre of 7,000
Bosnians. And they put Libya in charge of human rights (who is personally
responsible for the destruction of the ancient Jewish community of Tripoli).
The list is endless.

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]