How the Jewish Lobby Helped Save My Family

My people came to this country in the ten years either side of 1900. They were afraid of the pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, they came from Poland, Bukovina, Bialystok, to Brooklyn and the Lower East Side.

Some day someone should make a Schindler's List-like movie of the guy who helped bring us out. It was Jacob Henry Schiff (1847-1920). Schiff was a great Jewish hero, there should be statues to this guy. He was the head of Kuhn, Loeb, and rivaled J.P. Morgan, and Lord Rothschild, and Bleichroder, as the most powerful banker in the world.

I'm reading a great book, To Free a People (1982), by Gary Dean Best, a professor of history emeritus at University of Hawai'i. It's about the efforts by American Jewish leaders to stop the pogroms in Europe and to ease the situation of Jews there. It's about the birth of the Jewish lobby. "In the quarter century between 1890 and 1914 the American Jewish leaders forged the foundation for a strong American Jewish lobby which significantly influenced American foreign policy toward eastern Europe...and served as the basis for the powerful present-day American Jewish lobby," Best writes.

The lobby then comprised Schiff and a few other bankers, who gained access to the president whenever they wanted it, and also Simon Wolf, of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. These bankers were warned early on that it was better to operate "diplomatically," i.e. behind closed doors, than for Jews to have mass meetings—rallies, which would piss off the Russians and Roumanians who were persecuting my ancestors. So that's what they did generally, they had private meetings. (Though rallies would play a role over the years.)

Best shows that while American Jews were able to influence American policy, American statements, they were only moderately successful in actually influencing Russia. Though, yes, they kept up the flow of emigration. At one point, Simon Wolf made the following boast, to a Russian diplomat:

Russia at this juncture needs two important elements to inspire its future prosperity and happiness: money and friends. The Jews of the world, as citizens of their respective countries, control much of the first and would make a magnificent army of the latter. There is no use disguising the fact that in the United States especially the Jews form an important factor in the formation of public opinion and in the control of finances... By virtue of their mercantile and financial standing in this country they are exercising an all potent and powerful influence...

This was not an idle boast. Best says that in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-05, Schiff played a powerful role in defeating the Russian forces by acting to block their access to capital in Europe and America, and meantime floating bond after bond, into the hundreds of millions, for the Japanese.

All because of Russian persecution of Jews. I love this guy.

Obviously I am bringing this up to talk about the present day. Schiff waffled on Zionism, as so many German Jews did. Ultimately he helped out. Today the Israel lobby is devoted not to stopping the persecution of the Jews but to the militarization of the Jewish state and defense of the occupation. Toughdove and other Peace Now Jews are against that lobby, and good for them. They know better than I do the horrors of the occupation, and are trying to end it. Where we differ is that I think the Israel lobby has profoundly influenced American foreign policy, and hurt it. They say that's preposterous, Jews don't have that kind of power. Gary Dean Best, a scholar, says that we do.

Antisemites have scorched the earth for any intellectual discussion of this—that is the belief of the toughdoves. I take their point. I don't want more Jewish persecution to emerge from what Albert Lindemann, another fine scholar, calls the "rise of the Jews." But I'm betting that we can have that conversation in America without persecution, and we need to. Undeceiving ourselves about our rise, undeceiving ourselves about our influence on policy seem to me essential elements of an essential conversation: Why Are We In Iraq?

Comments

[Susan]

Thank you for a remarkably interesting post. I for one agree with your point that we can & should have this discussion here.
(How are your dogs doing? We haven't seen a picture of them in ages. Are you afraid one of your interlocutors might poison them?)

[tough dove]

"Where we differ is that I think the Israel lobby has profoundly influenced American foreign policy, and hurt it. They say that's preposterous, Jews don't have that kind of power."

No one in their right mind would say the Israel lobby hasn't profoundly influenced American foreign policy. Of course it has. I, for one, and ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy. As far as I can tell, we just disagree about the extent to which the "lobby" or Israel were responsible for the decision to invade Iraq. They played a role. I just don't see enough evidence that it was the decisive role that Mearsheimer claimed.

[David]

ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."

This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.

[David]

ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."

This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.

[Klaus Bloemker]

Eating, socialising and pogroms in Russia.
__________

There is no hint as to why the persecution of the Jews of Russia was particularly bad. Dostojewsky writes that even in prison the Jews refused to eat at the same table with the non-Jewish inmates. Even today in a Frankfurt Jewish-German old-age home, the Jews there are told to leave their plates of kosher food on their trays in case they sit at the same table with the elderly Germans.
Well, the kosher laws do not account for the violent progroms but I think they are the social root of the animosity.

Klaus

[Klaus Bloemker]

Eating, socialising and pogroms in Russia.
__________

There is no hint as to why the persecution of the Jews of Russia was particularly bad. Dostojewsky writes that even in prison the Jews refused to eat at the same table with the non-Jewish inmates. Even today in a Frankfurt Jewish-German old-age home, the Jews there are told to leave their plates of kosher food on their trays in case they sit at the same table with the elderly Germans.
Well, the kosher laws do not account for the violent progroms but I think they are the social root of the animosity.

Klaus

[Ben]

I think this is a great post.

[tom]

Two points:
1. The jewish lobby by itself would not have gotten the US into Iraq. Karl Rove's desire to paint Bush as a War President, various corporations desire for profits, armchair stratagists desire to prove their manhood by embarking on war (since they missed the one in Vietnam), the neo wilsonian myth that America has a destiny to bring democracy to the benighted all played their part. However, without the Likudnik wing in the pentagon and in the right wing think tanks, this unnecessary and disasterous war would have been much more unlikely. So I suggest we view the role of the Jewish lobby in causing the Iraq war as "necessary but not sufficient".

2. Anti-semitism has a long history. Who would have predicted 100 years ago that Germany, a center of Jewish culture and life would try to exterminate such a vital part of its people? Today, Jews play a huge role in American life, in many ways not dissimilar to the role they played in Germany before World War I. The fear that it could happen again, that it could happen here, although unlikely, is understadable.

However, it is precisely the sense amongst non Jewish Americans that Jews have a greater loyalty to Israel than to the United States that is most likely to spark a rise in antisemitism here. Not discussing the subject will not make it go away. What is needed is for more Jews to recognize that their interests as Americans and as Jews do not coincide with those of the settlers.

[Klaus Bloemker]

"rise of the Jews"

Persecution of Jews does not emerge from the 'rise of Jews'. To the contrary. The Russian/Polish Jews were the most downtrodden, backward, superstitious, worst integrated and uninfluential Jews compared to the German Jews around 1900. Germany at the time (till the advent of the Nazi movement) was to the East European Jews what America was to become after WW II. If you wanted - as an Eastern Jew - to get ahead the advise was: go to Berlin. The rise of Jews (educationally, economically, politically) usually went along with assimilation (more socialising with the Gojim, more intermarrige etc.) - thus lessening social tensions. In Russia and Poland (which was part of Russia till WW I) there had been no 'rise of the Jews'.

Klaus

[David]

ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."

This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.

[Jack]

Judging by the comments of some of your regular posters here, there is good reason for people to question whether you can have that conversation without persecution. This is not to say that you shouldn't have the conversation, but you shouldn't fool yourself as to the forces that are then put into play.

[Abe]

The article by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" would not be taken seriously if not for the reputations and associations of the authors. They have each written respected scholarly works on government and international relations and occupy important positions at their universities.

The article itself, which was first posted in full on the Kennedy School Web site and then published in executive summary form by the London Review of Books, is a 41-page, amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy. It addresses in a perfunctory and all-knowing fashion some of the most important and complicated issues surrounding the Middle East conflict. Nowhere in evidence is a sense of complexity, balance, an examination of the variety of factors that cause an event, or of putting individual comments in perspective – all the appropriate tools for a serious piece of scholarship or journalism.

On every issue, the authors start with unproven, anti-Israel assumptions and then look for isolated examples to justify these assumptions. One does not have to take a pro-Israel position to recognize that the authors, despite their reputations, have no interest in producing a serious, balanced work. The result is a sloppy diatribe.

Here’s how it works. Mearsheimer and Walt start by blaming Israel for everything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once establishing Israel’s consistent guilt, from the creation of the state to present day, they then move to asserting that the “Israel lobby” (which is loosely and inconsistently defined) in the United States uses every device and method of pressure politics to stifle criticism of Israel and to ensure America’s pro-Israel policy, against America’s true interests and to serve the interests of the Jewish state.

On Israel’s founding, they cite as truth several of the most extreme anti-Israel perspectives. They write of Israel’s “crimes against the Palestinians” in the creation of the state. They select a single quotation from David Ben Gurion to “prove” that Israel did not accept the partition of Palestine. They present as the primary explanation of the refugee problem that grew out of the War of Independence the theory that Israel deliberately and calculatedly expelled Palestinians.

On all these matters, there is extensive historiographical work developed over decades presenting many perspectives. Criticism of Israeli policies is part of these perspectives. Thus, for example, on the refugee issue, scholars recognize that a certain number of Palestinians were forced from their homes. But, they also recognize that others left at the urging of Arab leaders and most left simply because warfare causes people to flee. The authors, however, are not interested in complex truths because they would undermine their goal to blame Israel for everything.

Similarly, with regard to the issue of peace, the authors “know” that Israel has never been serious about reconciliation with the Palestinians and therefore they must find a way to dismiss Israeli offers to the Palestinians. Most notable is their denigration of Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s (and President Bill Clinton’s) offer to Yasir Arafat at Camp David as not providing the Palestinians the possibility of a state but “Bantustans.” Not only is this selecting the most extreme negative depiction of what happened at Camp David, but it ignores the further concessions made by Israel in the negotiations at Taba several months after the violence of the second Intifada began.

On terrorism, they concede that the murder of civilians is a bad thing, but they rationalize it (read blame Israel) by saying it’s not surprising, “because the Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.”

All of this sets up their main purpose: to demonize what they describe as the “Israel lobby.” Since Israel is now established as the bad guy, as not serving American interests, the activities of the lobby are by definition working against what is good for America.

The authors make sure to pay lip service to the notion that pro-Israel activists in America have every right in a democracy to lobby their government and that they are not suggesting any conspiracy resembling that offered by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But this is merely lip service because the nonstop one-sidedness of their presentation, their gross exaggeration of the power of the “lobby”, the disregard for the consistently broad-based American public support for Israel, the omission of the very many interests that the U.S. has in a strong and safe Israel, and their overriding theme that policymakers are controlled by the “lobby,” adds up to an effort to delegitimize the work of pro-Israel activists and has elements of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Characteristics of such conspiracies are ideas that Jews have excessive, overarching power; that they are more loyal to an outside party – Israel in this case – than to their own country, America; and that Jews don’t function as individual citizens, but as a cabal.

In order to justify their accusation, they deliberately distort basic realities. They try to make a case that the “lobby” stifles any discussions that might lead to criticism of Israel. That they would focus on the U.S. Congress is not surprising (though false), since there the overwhelming support for Israel at least might give the impression of such a reality. The game is given away, however, when they make the same point with regard to two other U.S. institutions, the media and campuses. To suggest that criticism of Israel in these two places is stifled is laughable, even to those who don’t see these institutions as threatening to Israel. The list of criticisms of Israel both in the media and on campus is encyclopedic.

Similarly, the authors’ claim that the “lobby” prevents appointments in the Executive branch of government of anyone critical of Israel is absurd. Naturally, friends of Israel look to have friends in every administration, but to conclude that they in any way control this process ignores a range of officials such as Brzezinski, Baker, Scowcroft and others who hardly fall into the "in Israel’s pocket" category.

Other examples of the paper’s outlandish distortions and simplemindedness include the “evidence” of the power of the lobby in the establishment of Jewish chairs and programs in universities around the country. Aside from the fact that the authors simply ignore the importance of such scholarship to society and the Jewish community, to speak to this as an indicator of Jewish power without a mention of the millions and millions of dollars being spent by Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf – regimes that themselves do not have a culture of democracy and free expression – to set up massive programs in major universities (including Harvard), is just one more example of how outlandish this work is.

As to anti-Semitism in Europe, which is depicted as another subject the lobby manipulates to gain power and influence, Measheimer and Walt do the expected – accuse the Jews of falsely screaming anti-Semitism at what they suggest is merely legitimate criticism of Israel. The fact that European leaders like Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi and Joschka Fischer have long ago made clear that there is a serious problem of anti-Semitism makes no impression. Nor that so many in the Jewish community clearly differentiate between legitimate criticism of the Jewish state and the demonization, delegitimization and double standard employed against Israel that is either inherently anti-Semitic or generates an environment of anti-Semitism.

Again, on the Bush Administration’s entry into Iraq there obviously is much room for criticism, including criticism of the neoconservatives. What is unacceptable in this paper is the charge that the neocons encouraged the war totally or primarily to serve Israel’s interests, not America’s. Neoconservatives going back to the Cold War days always had a very particular view of American interests in the world, which they argued strenuously. Whether one agreed with that view or not, there is no basis ever for suggesting then, or now, that Israel’s interests superseded those of the U.S. in their thinking.

And finally, there’s the issue of Iran developing nuclear capability. As in everything else that Mearsheimer and Walt speak to, it is Israel’s alleged interests that drive U.S. policy. The fact that not only the United States, but Europe and even the International Atomic Energy Agency see Iran’s nuclear aspirations as a threat to world peace is lost on them (maybe better so because it might lead them to conclude that the “Israel lobby” now controls the entire international community). The mantra is repeated: American is not in jeopardy, Israel is, and because of the power of the “Israel lobby,” America acts against its own interests.

All of these examples point to the authors’ relentless obsession to see the world through their own narrowly conceived and intentionally distorted prism. It makes for one of the most unprofessional works coming out of respectable quarters. Undoubtedly, the anti-Israel forces will be citing this study for a long time to come. Because of its extremism, however, we can hope that mainstream individuals and institutions will see it for what it is – a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control.

[lester]

I know the founder of libertarianism, or one of it's founders, murray rothbard came from poland during that period or his family did. the jews in poland were not at all part of the society. they spoke yiddish and kept to themselves. it's not like today in the US.

Rothbard felt zionism was another ism lke communism and socialism and he opted out.

[David]

ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."

Then this might be a good time for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not downright neurotic) position.

[Rowan Berkeley]

So you think on balance that the results (1917 revolutions, Stalin, WW2, etc.) were all worthwhile?

You should compare notes with Stephen 'Suleyman' Schwartz, the Muslim Trotskyist neocon.

[David]

ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."

Then this might be a good time for you to explain why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not downright neurotic) position.

[Roddy Frankel]

Would you prefer that Jews kept quiet, and let everyone else decide the fate of Israel?

[Klaus Bloemker]

Interesting story. Phil should tell us something about the way his people lived in Russia/Poland around 1900.

Here is what the Berlin Jew Dr. Jakob Frommer wrote in 1911: "When one wants to see an ethnological sensation one doesn't have to roam far-flung lands. One just has to take a day-trip from Berlin. Go east, cross the Russian border and you find a race nearly unknown to the civilized world, a race full of enigma and wonders."

Klaus

[brenda]

Phil, you continue to delight and amaze me -- the way you persistently continue to ask the hard questions. It's like watching a man take a graceful leap into a deep river gorge, not knowing exactly what lies at the bottom. Of course no one would do a foolhardy thing like this in ordinary times, but what we are living through now is extraordinary and fraught with peril. So you can do no other and I admire you for that.

Reading through the extensive excerpts from 'Esau's Tears' -- an engaging short trip through a lot of history told from the point-of-view of the anti-Semitic impulse -- here are some of my impressions.

First, I'm glad you introduced this book to the discussion because it cuts us right to the chase -- I am convinced that the right-wing Israel Lobby is holding us in thrall, Jew & Gentile alike, by continuously conjuring up the European/Russian exterminations and pogroms of the last two centuries. I am also convinced that what the Zionists are presenting us with is a distortion of this history -- the very essence of really effective propaganda -- I am also convinced that it is propaganda which drives all wars, and that ordinary people if left to themselves would never go to war except in cases of true national defence to drive out an invading/occupying foreign army.

So historical 'anti-semitism' does have to be seriously looked at if The Question about today's Iraq war is to be addressed. Charges of anti-semitism is modern Zionist stock-in-trade, now a little shopworn but still effective, American Jewish fears of anti-semitism are important, and so are gentile fears of being labeled anti-semitic.

Here are some quotes from 'Esau's Tears' that resonated with me:

"America is our Palestine: here is our Jerusalem." Rabbi Max Lillienthal, 1867

"The British case, like the American, does not offer much support for Hertzl's beliefs." p.356, circa late 19th/early 20th centuries

"Jewish leaders claimed that not only was America a land of unusual freedom and toleration but also that American ideals and Jewish ideals had a deep kinship, exceeding that of any modern nation." p. 371, circa 1914

Also noted on that same page/time was widespread American moral indignation toward the Russian pogroms of 1903.

My comment on this excellent history is this -- America is not and has never been Europe or Russia. America has never persecuted Jews. America's shame is the historic genocide of indigenous peoples, and black African slavery followed by apartheid. Today in America, it is not Jews who are the vulnerable ethnic group -- it is blacks.

So finally, getting to The Question: why are we in Iraq? When the war first began, and before the war began, I did not believe any of the Bush Administration reasons for it. I knew about the decade of killing sanctions on Iraq which followed the destruction of that country during the Gulf War 1991. The 'real reasons' I settled on were: first oil, second Israel, in that order of priority. But lately I have been wondering if 'oil' carries any weight, despite the fact that the Iraq Ministry of Oil was the only element of Iraqi civilization and infrastructure protected by the American army. So where does that leave me?

[brenda]

Phil, you continue to delight and amaze me -- the way you persistently continue to ask the hard questions. It's like watching a man take a graceful leap into a deep river gorge, not knowing exactly what lies at the bottom. Of course no one would do a foolhardy thing like this in ordinary times, but what we are living through now is extraordinary and fraught with peril. So you can do no other and I admire you for that.

Reading through the extensive excerpts from 'Esau's Tears' -- an engaging short trip through a lot of history told from the point-of-view of the anti-Semitic impulse -- here are some of my impressions.

First, I'm glad you introduced this book to the discussion because it cuts us right to the chase -- I am convinced that the right-wing Israel Lobby is holding us in thrall, Jew & Gentile alike, by continuously conjuring up the European/Russian exterminations and pogroms of the last two centuries. I am also convinced that what the Zionists are presenting us with is a distortion of this history -- the very essence of really effective propaganda -- I am also convinced that it is propaganda which drives all wars, and that ordinary people if left to themselves would never go to war except in cases of true national defence to drive out an invading/occupying foreign army.

So historical 'anti-semitism' does have to be seriously looked at if The Question about today's Iraq war is to be addressed. Charges of anti-semitism is modern Zionist stock-in-trade, now a little shopworn but still effective, American Jewish fears of anti-semitism are important, and so are gentile fears of being labeled anti-semitic.

Here are some quotes from 'Esau's Tears' that resonated with me:

"America is our Palestine: here is our Jerusalem." Rabbi Max Lillienthal, 1867

"The British case, like the American, does not offer much support for Hertzl's beliefs." p.356, circa late 19th/early 20th centuries

"Jewish leaders claimed that not only was America a land of unusual freedom and toleration but also that American ideals and Jewish ideals had a deep kinship, exceeding that of any modern nation." p. 371, circa 1914

Also noted on that same page/time was widespread American moral indignation toward the Russian pogroms of 1903.

My comment on this excellent history is this -- America is not and has never been Europe or Russia. America has never persecuted Jews. America's shame is the historic genocide of indigenous peoples, and black African slavery followed by apartheid. Today in America, it is not Jews who are the vulnerable ethnic group -- it is blacks.

So finally, getting to The Question: why are we in Iraq? When the war first began, and before the war began, I did not believe any of the Bush Administration reasons for it. I knew about the decade of killing sanctions on Iraq which followed the destruction of that country during the Gulf War 1991. The 'real reasons' I settled on were: first oil, second Israel, in that order of priority. But lately I have been wondering if 'oil' carries any weight, despite the fact that the Iraq Ministry of Oil was the only element of Iraqi civilization and infrastructure protected by the American army. So where does that leave me?

[Bill Pearlman]

I figure you have to be in the middle of this one Rowan

Attacks on Britain's Jews

have risen to the highest level since records began.

A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.

The findings prompted the report's authors to warn of a "wave of hatred" against Jews.

The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year.

Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005.

Incidents ranged from the unprovoked stabbing of a Jewish man in north London to the sending of hate mail and the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues.

The Anti-Semitic Incidents Report 2006, compiled by the Community Security Trust (CST), responsible for combating anti-Semitism in the UK, blames the huge rise on a number of factors ranging from Israel's invasion of Lebanon last summer to the jailing of the historian David Irving in Austria for denying the Holocaust.

The threatened suspension of Ken Livingstone as Mayor for comments made to a Jewish Evening Standard reporter triggered 11 anti-Semitic incidents, according to the report.

When the figures were first compiled in 1984, there were just 154 reported incidents, about a quarter of the total for last year.

Mark Gardner, CST spokesman said of the level of hate crimes: "This is unacceptable racism, that many Jews had hoped and believed was a thing of the past.

"Today's anti-Semitism is a wave of hatred, intimidation and abuse against British Jews, who are stupidly blamed and randomly attacked over international tensions for which they bear no responsibility."

Incidents last year include:

•
An Orthodox Jew punched in the face and almost pushed off a Tube platform by an Arab man who screamed: "Get back to Stamford Hill, I want to kill you all"
•
A Jewish man walking to synagogue with his two young sons suffered a broken leg after being punched and kicked by a white man shouting "f***ing Jew"
•
Seventy incidents of desecration and damage to synagogues, cemeteries, Jewish schools and private homes with attacks including swastikas daubed on walls
•
Savage assault of a 12-year-old Jewish girl Jasmine Kranat, who was beaten unconscious on a north London bus by two teenage girls who asked her first if she was Jewish.

The physical descriptions of perpetrators in 205 of the incidents show 96 were by white people, 28 by black people, 60 by Asians and 16 by Arabs. The report has been passed to ministers.

[bill Pearlman]

Hard to match this one for complete drivel. First, how does he know what Simon Wolf said to an unknown Russian diplomat or is it another made up Phil Weiss factoid. Second, the Russians lost that war because the Japanese sank their fleet at Trushima. Third, Weiss is a German name, sometimes Jewish sometimes not. Although Phil is the last of the line. Their will be no more Jewish Weiss's from this deseased family. Next, my grandparents were off the boat too. I don't recall them mentioning any help from Schiff. And in fact to him they were probably "ostjuden". Next, the United States had a fairly liberal immigration policy up until 1924. It had nothing to do with the LOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! one way or another. And in fact if we are so fucking powerful how come we weren't able to open up the gates anywhere from 1933-45. Lastly, if Jacob Schiff were alive and could see Phil Weiss in action he would proably blow his brains out.

[Ben Brackley]

In assessing the impact of any group over American foreign policy, one should recognize that obtaining significant influence over American foreign policy may not be that hard to come by.

Despite its global power, most Americans (including reasonably well educated ones) have remarkably little interest in or knowledge about international affairs and even its politicians are remarkably (inexplicably, really) unserious about it. As a result a vaccuum develops which can be pretty easily filled by any group with strong convictions and the ability to exert political influence.

One can see this with the decisive influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. policy towards Cuba as well as with the Israel lobby. In both cases I am annoyed with the ill-advised policy that results, but at this point I worry more about the Israel lobby because I believe the consequences of its influence are much more pernicious in the current environment in terms of its consequences for America (and for Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well).

While I don't think the lobby's role was decisive in the invasion of Iraq, its influence was extremely important. More importantly, fear of the lobby's influence prevented any serious discussion or reevaluation of the U.S. role in enabling Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of settlements there. The logical step after ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan would have been, at minimum, a more balanced rhetorical approach to Middle East peace. Unfortunately, this was not regarded as a realistic option by either political party -- and fear of the lobby (justified or not) was almost certainly the principal factor for this judgment. A war with Iraq was somehow seen as the more viable option.

[Ben Brackley]

In assessing the impact of any group over American foreign policy, one should recognize that obtaining significant influence over American foreign policy may not be that hard to come by.

Despite its global power, most Americans (including reasonably well educated ones) have remarkably little interest in or knowledge about international affairs and even its politicians are remarkably (inexplicably, really) unserious about it. As a result a vaccuum develops which can be pretty easily filled by any group with strong convictions and the ability to exert political influence.

One can see this with the decisive influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. policy towards Cuba as well as with the Israel lobby. In both cases I am annoyed with the ill-advised policy that results, but at this point I worry more about the Israel lobby because I believe the consequences of its influence are much more pernicious in the current environment in terms of its consequences for America (and for Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well).

While I don't think the lobby's role was decisive in the invasion of Iraq, its influence was extremely important. More importantly, fear of the lobby's influence prevented any serious discussion or reevaluation of the U.S. role in enabling Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of settlements there. The logical step after ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan would have been, at minimum, a more balanced rhetorical approach to Middle East peace. Unfortunately, this was not regarded as a realistic option by either political party -- and fear of the lobby (justified or not) was almost certainly the principal factor for this judgment. A war with Iraq was somehow seen as the more viable option.

[Rowan Berkeley]

There are many observations i would like to make here but for the last 24 hours at least I have not been able to post any comments.

[David]

There's a real three-hankie weeper playing at the American Jewish Committee site. First there's "Anti-Semitism Today". Then "Anti-Semitism a Christian Disease". And if you can still see through the tears, there's--
"'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" by Alvin Rosenfeld

This is where it gets interesting: it's not just about David Duke any more. Alvin Rosenfeld goes after Tony Judt, Adrienne Rich, Tony Kushner, and Richard Cohen (not sure how he got in there) for not toeing the tribal line on the homeland.

http://www.ajc.org

Here's a NY Times article about it
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Phil Weiss was not mentioned, but there can be no doubt he's on their list of "bad Jews".

[Rowan Berkeley]

"Alvin Rosenfeld" sounds almost too good to be true, as a name.

[so pathetic]

It figures that douchebag Weiss doesn't even know that his last name is German- Weiss= white

[Rowan Berkeley]

AJC won't download the Rosenfeld product unless you join their mailing list - what chutzpah.

They have a snitty rejoinder to the NYT though.

[brenda]

"Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Antisemitism" by Alvin Rosenfeld was submitted to an earlier thread (Judt Responds to Dershowitz, Jan.26) by Mader Abu Faqar and I addressed it there, picking up on one of my favorite themes:

There's a lot of different things I could say about Rosenfeld's piece but here's the money quote:

"Apart from the United States, to which Israel is almost always linked by its enemies, no country on earth is as vilified as the Jewish State."

And here's my question:

How come the universal vilification of the United States is not a cause of concern for the author?

He mentions this only in passing and only to help make his alarming case for 21st century anti-Semitism.

Alvin Rosenfeld is an Indiana University professor writing this piece for the American Jewish Committee, so obviously an American. Do you notice how universal anti-Americanism is not treated as a cause for concern, but a (perceived) renewal of anti-semitism is?

I am not impressed with most examples of 'the new antisemitism'. None are related to national state policies/laws relating to Jews and other ethnic groups in the 1930's. Some of these examples have already been discounted, having been found to have been initiated by Jews themselves. But the torture/murder case in England is absolutely a cause for concern -- an individual Jewish scapegoat was found to satisfy an individual citizen's frustration with Israeli war crimes in Palestine. I think this is the kind of thing we can expect here if the Iraq war continues much longer, with the growing perception -- true or false -- that Jewish neocons were/are behind the war for the benefit of Israel.

[Rowan Berkeley]

the torture/murder case in England

- Brenda, France. And it was a gang.

[David]

Off topic: One week after 9/11, the American Jewish Committee commissioned a population study, but this one wasn't another of their obsessive counts of the Tribe. They had taken a sudden interest in the population estimates for their Muslim fellow-citizens. They concluded that there were far fewer Muslims than people thought.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=843637&ct=1044159

[you ain't seen nothing yet]

Nobody will have any doubts anymore once Bush attacks Iran. It won't be for Big Oil, it won't be for any corporations and it definitely won't be in the interest of the US.

I'm looking forward to see tough dove and the other apologists here try to explain that one!

Stay tuned.

In the meantime:

"Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US Media."

P. C. Roberts

[Addy]

From the files of Rowan "I'm no anti-semite" Berekeley comes this slip --

"Alvin Rosenfeld" sounds almost too good to be true, as a name.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | February 2, 2007 12:27 PM

Just come out and admit it, you neo-nazi scumbag. after I eviscerated your 9-11 conspiracy theory, can you just be honest for a change?

[Addy]

Interesting that Rowan Berkeley names Silverstein and Chertoff as "core conspirators" for 9/11 and goes on to implicate "Homeland Security" gangsters?

Geez and who knew that Silverstein, the leaseholder but not the owner of the Towers (and therefore not in charge of security) took over the lease for the WTC only 7 weeks before 9/11. Not a heckuva lot of time to plan something so intricate. And what of Chertoff? He wasn't Homeland Sec. Secretary and wouldn't be until 2005 when he replaced the inital Secretary, Tom Ridge. The Homdland Security Agency -- at first opposed by President Bush -- wasn't operational until 2002. Chertoff was in the criminal division of the DOJ in 2001 and stayed there until 2003. He worked on the Enron and Arthur Andersen cases. Seems like an odd perch to hatch a plot.

But if you weave conspiracy theories then, hey!, facts be damned, right?

[Rowan Berkeley]

Although you have posted this message on two threads I shall only respond to it on this one. All I said about Chertoff was that he was as sinister as Silverstein, though not for the same reasons, more for these reasons : Chertoff is the co-author, along with Viet Dinh, of the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law October 26, 2001. As head of the Justice Department's criminal division, he advised the Central Intelligence Agency on the outer limits of legality in coercive interrogation sessions. (Wikipedia)

That sort of police state stuff probably wouldn't bother you, though, if you see yourself as one of the future lite.

[Addled]

Nice work, Addy.

But you're at the wrong site.

[Addy]

Rowan,

In the real world of debate that doesn't cut it.

What you said was that Silverstein was "obviously" implicated. that doesn't exactly pass muster given that he was the leaseholder for a mere 7 weeks prior to 9-11. You then implicated Chertoff in 9-11.

you never mentioned the Patriot Act and you are now swimming to recast your original post but sorry, much like your neo-Nazi posts elsewhere on the web, you can't get away from what you wrote.

You're clearly anti-jewish, a conspiracy theorist, half-way educated....and unemployed (given how much you post).

You could never dream of joining the elite. But i have a job I must return to. next time, you may want to create a more sturdy conspiracy theory than one which takes 2 seconds to debunk.

Ta ta!!

[Addled]

Wasn't Chertoff also the one responsible for sending the 5 dancing Israelis back to safety?

[toughdove]

David characterized my position as follows:

"this might be a good time for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.

Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not downright neurotic) position."

David, I don't know how many of my posts you've read during the last two weeks or so, but on a number of occasions I've indicated --or tried to indicate-- that I think it is important to talk candidly about the conventional pro-Israel Lobby as well as the morality of the Israeli occupation.

I don't know how many more times I need to repeat this. I am not concerned with WHETHER to talk about it. I am concerned with HOW to talk about it.

Yes, the concern is based in part on worries about anti-Semitism, which you are entitled to believe are "neurotic" (as if it is just a fantasy, as if the Protocols of the Elder of Zion are not still being sold on streetcorners and via web sites) But it is also a tactical concern, i.e., I am among those trying to figure out how to mobilize American Jews to get more actively involved in building alternatives to AIPAC, etc.

I think the task of effecting political change is made more difficult by the tone and content of some of the posts on this blog and others on the blogosphere. Trotting out theories made popular by Henry Ford is not going to get you anywhere because it makes people MORE reluctant to criticize Israel and its "amen corner," not less reluctant. Treating Israel as if it were Darth Vader and an unredeemingly Evil Empire, while completely ignoring the contributions of Palestinian extremists and other Arabs to the ongoing tragedy in the territories, does not contribute to reasoned, rational debate how how to address that tragedy.

On the other hand, the AJC publication by Alvin Rosenfeld and some of the over-the-top screeching about Carter and Judt from mainstream Jewish leaders ALSO inhibits criticism. It is also deplorable.

That is a far cry from asking Phil to stop talking about the Lobby.

[Medgate]

Why do the Jews feel like they need to have a homeland?

[David]

"I am concerned with HOW to talk about it."

Well tell us more. What is the right way to discuss Jewish power, and what is the wrong way?

What was Phil doing wrong when you suggested that he "come up with better ways of addressing the issue"? If you could be specific, we could avoid falling into the same trap again.

P.S. Should we allow Gentiles to participate in the discussion?

[rowansboyfriend]

Can the site administrator please ban Rowan Berkeley from this site? He spends time on every anti-Jewish website known to man and I miss his warm embrace!!

Come on back to the raft, Rowan honey!

[Must-Read]

Let's get back to the Next War:

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

"A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, testimony to the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, February 1, 2007.

www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf

[!]

"or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran"

Did Brzezinski really said that?

[Must-Read]

Yes he did, yesterday.

www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf

[bill Pearlman]

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a classic old time Polish anti-semite who took in Jew hatred with his mothers milk. But that is beside the point.
I want all you brilliant geopolitical thinkers to contemplate this. Iran will have the bomb. The Shia bomb. This is going to force the gulf states and Egpt to develop their own bombs, not to mention Turkey. Your talking about a major spread in proliferation and the key instigator in this is a country thats run by a guy who thinks he talks to the 12th Imam/ Everybody is going to be on a hair trigger and while I know the rest of you don't particularly care if Israel gets nuked and in fact would regard that has a postive development its not going to stop there. Try radioactive oil fields and fist fights in the super market over the last bar of soap. The next zone of conflict is sunni/shia and its already started in Iraq. So, if everybody is prepared for a nuclear world where survival depends on the LEAST stable player. Of which the Moslems have no shortage of, fine. Do you seriously think that there is going to be a major nuclear exchange in the middle east and the United States is going to ride it out unscathed, Europe, Asia. Consider that at the next meeting of "all the worlds evils are the fault of the Jew zionist neocon war mongers club"

[Freddy Lejeune]

I just came across this. Whatever Brezinski after years of listening to brezinski and hearing him often giving lectures , speeches in Washington Dc where I live I also agree that he is not particularly fond of Jews. The man, is indeed, your typical wishy washy opportunist. A far cry from another person I knew , also a Pole, Jan Karski, who attempted in vain to alert the West, including President Roosevelt to the Holocaust. I knew the late Jan karski personally from 1979 till his death in 2001. The man was a true hero whereas Brezinski is simply the usual guy parroting whatever for a $10,000 fee per speech. . The man is wishy ,washy.

[bill Pearlman]

Jan Karski was a hero and had courage in a world where those terms have lost all value. Brezinski isn't.

[Dara]

"... he is not particularly fond of Jews"

By "Jews" do you mean some kind of pseudo-racial group? Jewish behavior? Zionist Jews? Tribalist Jews? ALL Jews?

Are you implying that this is some kind of failing on his part, not be fond of Jews?

Can ANYONE be as fond of Jews as other Jews are? Won't they all be found wanting? Or is that the point?

[bill Pearlman]

Actually Dara I'll spell it out slowly so you can process it in your behind the curve brain. I believe its called a euphemism. Brezinski is an antisemite. And in answer to your snotty inquiry their are plenty of Christians who like us. And actually when it comes to Israel and the situation of world and American Jewry I have a lot of faith in red state america. More than I have in a lot of my fellow Jews

[Rowan Berkeley]

Better no world at all than a world with antisemites, whatever they are, in it!

[Dog]

Remember kids, it's perfectly OK to question the intentions and motivations of Jews, but it's NOT OK to ever question to intentions and motivations of anyone critical of "Jews" or Israel. At least here on this blog.

[Rowan Berkeley]

I know it's tasteless but I do find these hybridised Jewish-American names amusing:

Company spokesman Kevin Cohen said the earnings were not out of line, given the billions of dollars the company invests around the globe.

[Rowan Berkeley]

It's because of stories like this that your Jewish-dominated politics have become an object of contempt and hatred:

ISRAEL FANS GROAN OVER HILL SPEECH
By MAGGIE HABERMAN, New York Post, February 2, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free. Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I have suggested." She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region. "I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran. Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate. "This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022007/news/nationalnews/israel_fans_groan_over_hill_speech_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

[David]

Confirming Rowan's point, it's interesting that both Bill P. and Freddy, after reading Brzezinski's comment -- which doesn't mention Israel or Jews at all -- both immediately started complaining of "anti-Semitism". Was it the fact that he hadn't appeared to be screaming for an Iran war?

Have we gotten to the point where it's anti-Semitic not to promote war in the Middle East? Is pimping for war and spreading Islamophobia what Jewishness has been reduced to?

[Rowan Berkeley]

Watch the puppets dance (a mercifully short two and a half minutes of AIPAC hypnosis):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5t_55OWbo

[bill Pearlman]

David, " a mythical historical narrative" we all know who that is don't we. The elders of zion. and don't pretend that you don't know what he is driving at. Look, Jews know who is anti-semitic and who is making a reasonable crticism. It really comes down to this. Their are multiple countries where Christianity is the official religion and there are crosses on the flag. Their are multiple countries where Islam is the official relgion and have islamic symbols on their flags along with amazing restrictions on visitation and practices for people that aren't even citizens. But when your vehement hatred is reserved for the worlds one small Jewish state, to the exclusion of everyone else. And you think that Jews are always engaged in conspiracies to advance our selves, ( which by the way hasn't worked out that great since their are only 13-15 million of us depending on what demographer you believe ) then yes, your a piece of shit anti-semite. Brezinski and his old boss are exactly that.

[brenda]

Tough Dove:

Here is an excerpt from a piece published in The Forward Jan. 30 about the Iraq Study Group.

'Baker Group Advisors Surprised, Upset at Report's Israel-Iraq Link' by Nathan Guttman.

" ... the Iraq Study Group's final report asserted that the United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The two co-chairmen of the panel, James Baker, who served as secretary of state under the first President Bush, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana and vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, have since advanced the argument in media interviews. Supporters of an increased American role in kick-starting the peace process have hailed the final report, while some pro-Israel activists and Jewish groups have worried that it could lead to pressure on Jerusalem."

Here is the question, and I do truly believe that this question cuts through the Gordian Knot you are entertaining --

Given that the peace process negotiations & agreements have already been completed and await only implementation by Israel (according to Carter), why would American pro-Israel activists and Jewish groups worry about putting pressure on Jerusalem?

Isn't this exactly what they should be doing? What is holding them back? If not now, when?

Is this reluctance on the part of American Jews to pressure Jerusalem coming from the Israeli position?

Here is a piece from The Washington Times published Feb. 1 "Israeli Envoy Rejects Mideast 'linkage'." by David R. Sands.

"Foreign-policy crises in Iraq and Iran will not be eased by pressuring Israel to cut a peace deal with the Palestinians, Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor said in an interview yesterday.
Mr. Meridor, in a luncheon with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, firmly rejected the idea pushed by Arab allies of the U.S. that an Israeli-Palestinian accord would reduce ethnic and sectarian violence in Iraq or slow Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb.
"Frankly, we don't see any connection between our dispute with the Palestinians and the level of violence on Haifa Street in Baghdad," said Mr. Meridor, who assumed his post in early December.
"And there is no linkage in my mind between the Israeli-Palestinian question and what Ahmadinejad is planning for the region and the world by pursuing a nuclear weapon."

Tough Dove, can you see why many of us here are impatient and frustrated by the failure of successive Israeli gov'ts to honor their committments to the US, all the while taking enormous sums of money from the US? After 40 years, and with US troops now in the ME, we just don't feel like listening anymore to all those smooth explanations.

A while back, Phil wrote a piece about 'The Tail Wagging the Dog'. He wrote that he takes the Walt & Meerscheimer position on this -- a brave, provocative statement. There's plenty of evidence in support, but I myself do not take this position. I reject also that 'The Dog Wags the Tail'. I think it is more a matter of 'quid pro quo'. Successive US Administrations have allowed Israel to get away with murder, not to mention grand larceny, but over the same period of time, these same US Administrations have presided over the degradation of the Republic and the rise of the American empire. This could not have been done without the collusion of the press. Most Americans have no idea that the empire even exists. And so the quid. What is good for Israeli expansionism in the ME is also good for US global ambitions.

It's true that I do have some pretty bitter feelings toward Israel, not so much for what Israel has done against the Palestinians as for what it has done against the US. Israel has been making fools of us here, has commandeered not only our Congress and our national treasure, but also our press. And last of all, Israel has, unfortunately, commandeered for its own use the best class of social activists this country ever had -- Jewish progressives. The civil rights legislation and everything that followed wouldn't have happened without you. I wish you were on our side on this one, and not on the side of Israel. If you could only get over that fatuous rhetoric about the Arabs driving Israel into the sea ....

[David]

"If you could only get over that fatuous rhetoric about the Arabs driving Israel into the sea ... "

This will never happen, Brenda. "Antisemitism" is what gives his life meaning. It is the religion of today's secular Jew. It means far more to him than all the deaths and all the suffering that have resulted from planting the tiny Jewish colony in the middle of the Arab world. He took it in with his mother's milk and he'll never give it up now.

I think we make a mistake to interpret the use of the "antisemitism" charge as politically motivated. It is that too of course -- it's a very potent political tool -- but first and foremost it fills a psychological need. It's all that's left of choseness. It's not hard to read Bill Pearlman's posts as subconsciously motivated by a desire to create "antisemitism."

It makes you appreciate the struggle and the bravery of people like Phil Weiss all the more.

[bill Pearlman]

Actually David I'm somehwat religious but I'm going to bounce back from your slashing rhetorical attack. And I suppose all the threats that emanate from the Arab world are what, Islamic hyperbole. You see unlike you, who look at this through a western paternalistic racist viewpoint. I take them at their word and don't look at them like children. The way you do. And you. much like the rest of your cohorts here have absolutely no concept of the chosen people designation actually means. Its not the idea of superiority asshole. It was about being the first montheists.

[Alan]

Bill,

I don’t understand why you keep repeating things over and over again, even after you’ve been informed they are not true.

The first monotheists were actually Akhenaten and his followers around 1300 BC (!), "a Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, especially notable for single-handedly restructuring the Egyptian religion to monotheistically worship the Aten."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

You might also be interested in Bible archaeology, which has discredited most of the Torah mythology. For example, no evidence of an Exodus has been found. Moses was probably an Egyptian priest. There are many doubts whether there ever was a Solomon's temple and there are many controversies regarding David and the 'United Kingdom of Israel'. Many scholars doubt there ever was such a united kingdom. Even William Dever goes so far as to say that David and Solomon may not have been historical figures.

"More fundamentally, the texts as they currently exist have been subject to revision and redaction over many centuries, notably during the reign of King Josiah of Judah at the end of the 7th century BCE. Many scholars think that Josiah (or rather the priests of the temple in Jerusalem) put forward the picture of David and Solomon as rulers over a united and far-flung early Hebrew kingdom in order to provide a rationale for his own plans for the conquest of the former kingdom of Israel, which had been abandoned by the Assyrians as that empire collapsed."

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

William Dever interview:
www.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/cover_jan04.html

[Rowan Berkeley]

Aha, but when my personal favourite among Biblical archaeologists argues this, he is accused of ... you guessed it ...
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm

[bill Pearlman]

I know Alan, Its all bullshit, a myth. Call it a scheme to displace the poor Palestinians and extort money from the world. Yah, I got it.
And wikipedia, which anybody can make entries to is of course the fountain of all knowledge.

[Alan]

Bill,

Why don't you read the interview of William Dever, in the San Diego Jewish Journal?

He is a mainstream, world-famous scholar. "A retired professor of archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and former head of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Dever has spent most of his life researching and studying archaeology in Israel".

Unlike you, there are people who are not guided by politics or religious beliefs when it comes to history or archaeology. Scholars tend to be that way. They search for the truth. You on the other hand only care about your self-serving dogmas, truth be damned!

Read the interview. It's not as bad as you think!

www.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/cover_jan04.html

[tough dove]

Brenda writes, after pointing out the Baker-Hamilton call for U.S. peacemaking:

"Here is the question, and I do truly believe that this question cuts through the Gordian Knot you are entertaining --

"Given that the peace process negotiations & agreements have already been completed and await only implementation by Israel (according to Carter), why would American pro-Israel activists and Jewish groups worry about putting pressure on Jerusalem?

"Isn't this exactly what they should be doing? What is holding them back? If not now, when?

"Is this reluctance on the part of American Jews to pressure Jerusalem coming from the Israeli position?"