Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American Jews to a Universalist Ethos

Everyone in my community (opponents of the Iraq war who seek a more balanced American policy toward the Palestinians) has only one question about Walt and Mearsheimer's forthcoming book: Will it be ignored? For instance, James Morris, who I believe I once saw explode in the audience at an American Enterprise Institute program on Israel's secure borders (led by Richard Perle and Dore Gold), has been sending out emails about his efforts to get the book covered by '60 Minutes'. No dice.

I am a cockeyed optimist; I don't think it will be ignored. I don't think it can be. One fear we've have is that the LRB paper was such a tremendous sensation that the big media, having only grudgingly covered that, would now say, Oh well this is just an expansion of the paper; old news. One mainstream editor said as much to me a few weeks back in shooting down a proposal I made for an article about Stephen Walt's Jewish milieu (more about that later...). "Oh I think that moment is over," the editor said. Class dismissed.

I no longer fear as much. Making my way slowly to the end of the actual book (it's a dense read, esp. for someone who cares deeply about every issue they raise), I don't think anyone can argue that the book recapitulates the paper. The book expands the paper by a factor of 4 in pure numbers of words, and the book's tone is more exalted than the paper's. The authors are less tentative, and less emotional, qualities I remember in the original. The manner of the book is amazingly calm. The arguments are more solid, and go much further. As for solidity, I am simply awed by the field of reference. W&M have read every comment ever made by an Israeli official about U.S. policy, they have found every neoconservative crackpot comment about remaking the Middle East. They did this in little over a year. God bless the internet (or the coolie system in academic research!).

But the main reason the book cannot be ignored is that the arguments go much further, and are devastating. Simply put, the book proves that the tail has wagged the dog on the greatest foreign policy mistake of the last 40 years, a mistake that has caused incredible suffering in Iraq and the U.S., and blasted my country's image. The evidence the authors marshal is so compelling that it leaves me, as a progressive Jew, weeping with distress over what the fervid particularist imagination of rightwing Jews has done to my country. I applaud the authors for being cold. They don't seem to have any of my feeling. They leave it to the readers, and they trust educated Americans to be able to discuss these issues without setting loose the cossacks.

Again I say, it is progressive American Jews who as much as anyone ought to be morally and spiritually engaged by this book. I hope that the JJ Goldbergs and Dan Fleshlers and Seymour Hershes and Glenn Greenwalds and Jerrold Nadlers of the world (none of whom supported this war) will at last turn on the neocons openly and say, Your wrongheaded policies about Israel are a big reason our country is in Iraq, how do you answer? Progressive Jews must do this, a political/moral cleansing for the sake of the United States and Jewish tradition. And they will do it. The only question is how many of us there will be.

I would point to one sentence in the book that I found heartbreaking. The authors describe in detail the neocon vision of transforming the Middle East as democracies by starting with Iraq. The dream that peace in Jerusalem would begin with war in Baghdad, which has ended in such a miserable failure, grew out of the conviction that Israel was a great democracy and that its treatment of the Palestinians would be overlooked once the U.S. changed Arab societies. It is a complete delusion; and yet its power over Jews of even liberal stripe can be glimpsed this week in The New Republic, where, in further evidence that the prowar coalition is delaminating, Jonathan Chait turns on Bill Kristol and at one point cries out, Oh where is that dreamy neocon philosophy of yesteryear. "[T]here was something inspiring in their vision of America as a different kind of superpower--a liberal hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples, rather than mere self interest." I.e., we will decide who among you Arabs are subjugated, and then destroy that society...

But I still haven't gotten to Walt and Mearsheimer's sentence. In describing that neocon vision of the "wonderful future Israel [could] expect after the war," the authors say, you might think people would be more sophisticated and experienced than to believe such stuff. But they add, "The original Zionist dream of reestablishing a Jewish state where none had existed for nearly two millennia was nothing if not ambitious..."

That sentence is devastating because (while it refers to Israel's leaders) it describes American neoconservatism, accurately, as an expression of a great Jewish attribute, the prophetic ability to cast a vision of the future into the world and gain adherents for that vision. (Communism, Freudianism, globalism all have drawn on dreamy Jewish brains). As I have argued on this site before, this is why anti-Zionism is the new Zionism. American Jewish universalists (including assimilationists) must help to chart a different vision for Israel's future and the U.S.'s too, away from the militarized isms this book anatomizes so calmly and convincingly. We must accept our new status as principals in the U.S., and find a spiritual/political raison-d'etre that takes greater account of other peoples, for instance Arab societies and the American communities that have produced the foot soldiers of this war.

Comments

[Seth Roberts]

Great post. I didn't start off interested in this subject but you've made me interested by writing about it so well.

[David]

"Your wrongheaded policies about Israel are a big reason our country is in Iraq, how do you answer?"

I know what you're saying, but remember that the real crime the Lobby is being accused of is not of having wrongheaded policies. That's pretty common. It's of corrupting the system so that rightheaded policies can not emerge out of the democratic discussion. It's of abusing their position of great power. Ultimately, it's of having no respect for the host society.

[James Morris]

Dear Mr. Weiss,

Here is a link for the CBS '60 Minutes' email which conveys that the executive producer (Jeff Fager) is refusing to do a segment on the Mearsheimer/Walt book:

'60 Minutes' refusing to cover Mearsheimer/Walt book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77703

I don't think 'explode' was the most accurate description. The AEI moderator was trying to cut me off after I had responded to Dore Gold when I had conveyed that the US was tragically attacked at the World Trade Center on 9/11 (and earlier in 1993) because of US support for Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians and that such was also conveyed in James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book (simply look up 'Israel as a terrorist motivation' in the index). Ambassador Gold had earlier mentioned in his presentation that Israel had nothing to do with 9/11 (wording to that effect). In addition, I was trying to ask JINSA/PNAC associated Neoconservative Richard Perle why he had basically lied to Congressman Walter Jones when he had asked Mr. Perle about his association with the 'A Clean Break' document during a Congressional hearing (see the following URL):

http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-agenda.html

The 'A Clean Break' document is addressed on pages 261-269/321 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book (see the following URL):

'A Clean Break' (from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

The paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' includes an additional section about the ongoing AIPAC espionage case which the pro-Israel biased US press/media is hardly covering either. Stephen Green is mentioned in that additional chapter (his name in referenced in the index) as the FBI brought him in as a consultant after writing various books and articles to include the following one which mentions Mr. Perle as well:

Serving Two Flags:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-green.html

Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' is shown in the right margin of the following URL which includes the transcript of the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton about how 9/11 tragically took place because of US support for Israel (see the 'What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?' video which is linked at the upper left there):

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html

[Steven]

Truth in Palestine

Phil sympathizes with the Palestinians.

Me, too.

But differently.

The real rescue will come from a Palestinian leader with integrity.

Before gaining independence, the leadership must steer the society to an internal peace and moderation.

Like Iraq, which gained independence too early, and slipped into the tyranny Baathi style, Palestinian leaders have used all outside assistance for war and terror.

A pre-independence policy should create a just society, which gives up the revenge and terror.

The revolutionary Saddam Husseins of Palestine are not the right prescription for a peaceful Palestinian future.

Let us not support them.

Let us support the real Palestinian Abraham Lincolns.

[James Morris]

Just a footnote to my comment above.. The following article conveys how Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book had such an effect on Congressman Walt Jones in it was instrumental in turning him against the Iraq quagmire:

The Three Conversions of Walter B. Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/01/the_three_conversions_of_walter_b_jones.html

More on Mearsheimer & Walt:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800

[Oarwell]

Phil, sorry to cavil, but this sounds a little like noblesse oblige:

"We must accept our new status as principals in the U.S., and find a spiritual/political raison-d'etre that takes greater account of other peoples, for instance Arab societies and the American communities that have produced the foot soldiers of this war."

I view all hortatory statements (even my own) with suspicion. Let's just end the lies and demonstrate media complicity in disseminating agitprop (so that never again will lies lead us to war), and call it a day. But I know your heart's in the right place.

Also, describing the text as "exalted" makes it sound a bit like Holy Writ.

My prediction: The book will be largely ignored (other than a few obligatory denunciations), but will be read by its target audience. Mention of the book will be considered polarizing, and therefore anathema. Eventually it will be regarded in the same way Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy & Hope' is regarded: true, sobering, but largely irrelevant.

[lester]

as ron paul supporter, let me assure you there is a VERY good chance it will be ignored.

[David]

"Mention of the book will be considered polarizing, and therefore anathema."

My expectation as well. Which is odd, because "polarizing" is often exactly what the media finds profitable. But the particular situation of our media rules out any mainstream attention to this.

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11534

August 31, 2007
Showdown Over Iran
We can stop the coming war with Iran – but concerned Americans must act quickly
by Justin Raimondo

--------------------------------------------

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631

Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime

By Dave Lindorff
Created Aug 30 2007 - 9:26am

---------------------------------------

http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern08312007.html

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
By RAY McGOVERN

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American Jews to a Universalist Ethos

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com]

Sorry for the post right above this one as the following is what I intended to post:

Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind
As Walt-Mearscheimer book appears, efforts to keep military option open run counter to national mood:

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460

[David Seaton]

Phil,
One point I'd like to bring up in relation to Mearsheimer and Walt's book.

They both belong to the "realist" school of power politics. In this view of world affairs, nations have permanent "interests", not permanent allies. If a country is useful to the USA at any moment it is protected and if not it isn't. We support a military dictator in Pakistan because it useful to do so and we strangle Cuba because it opposes our policies. This attitude explains the "coldness" you detect in the book.

America's permanent interests in the Middle East are: access to oil at a reasonable price, free movement of goods and warships through the Suez canal and more recently that its regimes not export terrorists to the United States and its "clients".

During the Cold War, specifically after the Six Day war of 1967 where Israel thrashed, trashed and humiliated the Soviet Union's clients, Israel was seen to be valuable asset for the USA in the Middle East and much interest was shown in fostering the relationship. Perhaps the most important dividend of supporting Israel was to woo Egypt, the most important country in the region away from its alliance with the USSR. Israel then became America's "watchdog" in the ME.

What is more curious is Finkelstein's theory that these American Jewish elites themselves *only really became interested in Israel when the Jewish state became a major strategic asset for the USA*. (Before 1967, Zionists were seen to be too socialist for American elite taste) These Jewish elites, again according to Finkelstein, have used their role as "intermediaries" of Israel as a tool to pry open the doors of American power elites and join the WASP elites at the trough.

If the by any chance Israel were ever to be seen as a gross liability to US interests (as it seems to be now to many observers here and abroad), and that the for the Jewish elites being seen to promote Israel a handicap to their access to those corridors of power, than these Jewish elites might suddenly cool off toward Israel considerably. I remember an article written by Charles Krauthammer (sorry no link) during last summer's war in Lebanon where he bluntly and nastily (Krauthammer the antisemite?) warned the Israelis that military failure would have such an effect on the "special relationship".

This why I think that the book will not be "ignored", just as Mearsheimer and Walt's LRB article was not ignored. Because although the Jewish elites of America are very powerful and influential, they are not the only powerful and influential ones in America and I think that a lot of coldblooded, thin lipped, rich old WASPs of the Brent Scowcroft, James Baker variety have come to the conclusion that Israel far from being a strategic asset, is now a geopolitical millstone around America's neck. And these "old, white men" want these views fully aired and debated and the more effort Foxman and Dershowitz (to name two)make to *silence" the book, the more it will sell and the more people will talk about it. That is why the professors were encouraged to write the article and that's why the book is getting a top publisher.

As this collides with the neocon campaign to start a war with Iran, I think we are going to see one of the nastiest political seasons in Washington since the late 1850s.

[liberal white boy]

Have Mearsheimer and Walt even scratched the surface?

"Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing espionage charges have subpoenaed Ms. Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, and several others to testify at their trial next year.

If their testimony is allowed by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, the trial could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way American foreign policy is crafted.

Although Mr. Ellis closed yesterday's hearing to the public, the government's opposition to the subpoenas was outlined on a court calendar entry.

Documents filed by attorneys for lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman argue that the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Ms. Rice and others can confirm it.

"In other words, they'll tell us that back-channel disclosures are an everyday common practice?" Mr. Ellis asked in a hearing last year during a rare public discussion of the issue. That argument is a key to the defense."

http://www.nysun.com/article/61714

[Crimson Ghost]

Another excellent book on this subject published in 2006 is THE POWER OF ISRAEL IN THE US by James Petras.

Since Petras is a left winger his book has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media.

But Walt and Mersheimer -- being close to the traditional ruling elite-- cannot be so easily swept under the rug.

[Oarwell]

Good pull quotes from that Jewishweek article:

"Talking even indirectly about the war option is risky because “there is virtually no public support for an attack on Iran,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato."

(Refreshing honesty not seen in the NYT or WaPo)

“Flirting with the military option without understanding its meaning is very dangerous,” said Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). “I don’t think Jewish leaders are pushing the administration to war, but by not understanding the consequences, they are not making themselves look good; they open themselves up to a lot of criticism by being glib about going to war.”

(What else can they be but glib? Somber? Somber won't sell the war.)

"The dilemma for Jewish leaders is this: While almost none advocates preemptive military action to end the threat of a nuclear Iran, most believe opposition to new military commitments is growing by leaps and bounds — a new version of the classic “Vietnam syndrome.”

(Why, then, a dilemma?)

"And if Iran believes military action is unlikely, “you have no diplomatic leverage,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “I don’t think there is a great deal of understanding [among the American public] of the threat Iran poses to the United States and the entire region, including Israel.”

(Neither is there a great deal of understanding of the threat posed by Iceland to the United States. Because there is none.)

[liberal white boy]

AIPAC treason trial now continued to January.

http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/

[Paul E]

.
Phil --- I am very skeptical about the notion that the neocons "are the main reason our country is in Iraq". As Rumsfeld was quoted as saying, this seems to presume that he and Cheney just fell off a turnip truck. I would appreciate it if you would tell us what it is that you find so compelling in this thesis of the tail wagging the dog.

I do agree entirely that progressive Jews should speak out more against Jewish rightwingers and the passivity on this issue of the rest.

Oarwell --- I was sorry that Oarwell rejected so many of my ideas, because s/he generally seems to be very perceptive. It seems very possible that s/he was trying to goad me into being clearer, and in any case I am grateful for the help in seeing where I am failing to get across. I will try to respond as well as I can.

Obviously a lot of my ideas come from Freud. Some time ago I read most of his books, but by now I don't remember what I read, so I am not at all clear about the boundary between his ideas and my interpretation of them. Anyone reading this should keep that in mind.

Unfortunately, Freud's teachings are still essentially an esoteric tradition. There may be plenty of
scholarship on the subject, but to really understand it you have to learn to see the working of your own mind from that point of view. This cannot be communicated directly. It is kind of lame to say that, but that is how it is.

It can be described. The basic idea is the process of repression. This can be defined as denial carried to the point where all traces are totally erased from awareness. Certain feelings or desires or ideas cause a painful sense of guilt or fear or shame, so one learns to ban them from consiousness.

Repression is not healthy. A large part of ones mental energy is diverted into fighting with itself. The repressed material gains strength because of its banishment, so once established, the bind has a natural tendancy to grow.

Repression erects barriers against the mobility of conciousness.

Repression is the ground of neurosis, but it is not limited to neurotics. It is part of the process of socialization, and so almost universal, at least at this stage of our cultural evolution.

By definition, repression is obscure. It is not visable on the surface of things. It is not part of our common sense. Certainly people never think
directly about their issues. That is why the concept is a breakthrough idea.

When peoples repressions are threatened they tend to become angry and/or frightened. The best indication of the nature of the repression seems to be by inference from what agitates people beyond what seems to be called for. But you are able to see this only if you don't share in it.

Oarwell says that Americans are not afraid of terrorism. I have certainly seen such fear expressed, after the attack on the WTC, by some people in New York, mostly women. In our culture
women are more allowed to be afraid than men are. And how about the universal pronouncement that "everything has changed"? I like Oarwells reference to "the marketing of evil". You can't market anything without tapping into some motive that already exists.

Yes it was Truman who dropped the bomb. When Oppenheimer met him a couple of months later he said "Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands". Truman didn't like that, and afterward was heard to mutter "Dammit, he hasn't got half as much blood on his hands as I have, but you don't go around bellyaching about it." Later he told the secretary of state "I don't want to see that sonofabitch in my office ever again". Which sonofabitch?
.

[David]

I didn't know that the electronic media had ever paid any attention to the Lobby issue, but now (thanks to LibWhiteBoy's site) I see that Scarborough Country did indeed cover it last year--
http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=A842CC7D-F9D1-4B1B-AE76-5&action=10
I didn't think I could still be shocked by the state of our media, but this did it. We've still got a huge battle ahead of us.

[Alan]

*

The Jewishweek article is good because it shows the calmer voices in the Jewish community finally being heard. What it says in code to those zealous Jewish leaders who have completely lost touch with reality for quite some time now is: Stop pushing for war with Iran or risk a huge backlash.

Note however the ridiculous talk about keeping "all options on the table". This is another one of those soundbites that mean absolutely nothing yet all "serious" beltway pundits and politicians keep parroting it. In a very good article on (Jewish) "liberal hawks" and Iran, a wise reader gets to the bottom of the matter in the comments section:

"No one need worry the slightest, tiniest bit about leaving the military option on Iran "off the table", particularly because no one can find this table and tell scientifically whether something is "on" or "off" this table.

Scientifically, 'taking the military option off the table' with respect to Iran does not actually cause any military equipment or personnel to vanish, nor does it teleport them from their current locations. At any time, at any point, Congress could declare war or the President could do his usual unilateral Commander In Chief thing and order an attack, and it would matter zero whether or not anyone thought something had been "on" or "off" of "the table".

On table and off table are completely political terms. No table exists. No policies are on or off of one, particularly not with regard to military matters."

Indeed! Article - and some very good comments - here:

" Let's Get Serious - What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?" by Ezra Klein:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=lets_get_serious

[Paul E]

Joamhim ---

I think you have something to say, but I don't think you serve yourself well by dark mutterings about the Occult transnational askenazi conspiricy. Presumably you are being funny, but there are too many nuts on the internet for it to be smart to make that kind of joke.

Since you keep talking like that I suppose you mean something by it. I guess you have already explained it, but for those of us who missed it you might do it again.

[Kevin]

Wonderful writing, Phil, please keep it up.

Yes, you raise an excellent point in relation to the neocon dream (which it would seem W&M also pick up on) that by an interventionist policy in the Arab world, including occupation and invasion, the case for Israel's righteousness would somehow be accepted by people across the region and in the world at large (or the case against it would dissipate). But in fact, the ugly truths about Zionism and also about Israeli conduct only seem to have been brought in sharper relief, and this isn't just as a result of the 'mismanagement' of the war. In fact, around the world the case for Israel has grown weaker rather than stronger in the last few years.

[Alan]

Kevin wrote: "In fact, around the world the case for Israel has grown weaker rather than stronger in the last few years."

Judging from the quality of today's apologia and apologists and the fact that someone like Dershowitz had to be brought in to make the "case for Israel", this is certainly an understatement.

20 years ago it was a whole different story. Back then it was difficult to counter the official narrative of Zionist mythology because only specialists had enough knowledge, and even theirs was lacking. But then the New Historians showed up and started demolishing that mythology from within Israel. That was important, but still, how many people would actually buy or read their books?

And then the internet revolution started. With the internet, one does not have to be a specialist to see maps of the West Bank and the gradual progression of the settlement project. Today one can find and read all the UN resolutions regarding Israel with two clicks of his mouse. Incredible amounts of material are readily available to anyone. Just reading Haaretz for a few months is enough to get enough facts to demolish any Zionist apologist anywhere.

The last blow for a militarist Israel and the Israel-first crowd covering for her has been the neo-cons. In the information age, their style of networking and operating is too transparent. They still don't realise that if the US sustains enough damage they might end up in jail. Well, too bad for them. I can't say I will be too saddened.

What all of them (Israeli and US Zionist elites, "liberal" gatekeepers, misguided and brainwashed sentimentalists etc) have missed is that in the information age no nation can be run as an ideological relic of 19th century nationalism and militarism. Just as Rumsfeld realised that you can't really run Abu Ghraibs in the age of pocket digital cameras and camcorders and laptops connected to the internet. The days of Ben Gurion's prescriptions for "perpetual war" and "dynamic borders" are long gone. Israel will have to grow up and become a normal country or my long held conviction and prediction that today's Zionism will end up being bad for Jews everywhere will be proven right.

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

Just saw the following posted at www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\08\31\story_31-8-2007_pg4_2

New book challenges US support for Israel

NEW YORK: An upcoming book challenging whether diplomatic and military support for Israel is in the best interests of the United States is set to spark fresh debate on Washington’s role in the Middle East.

“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” written by two of the United States’ most influential political science professors, is set to hit the bookshelves next Tuesday and promises to break the taboo on the subject. Written by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt from Harvard, the book follows an article they published last year that stirred impassioned debate by setting out a similar position.

Their thesis is that US endorsement of Israel is not fully explained by strategic or moral reasons, but by the pressure exerted by Jewish lobbyists, Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives with Zionist sympathies.

The result, according to the book, is an unbalanced US foreign policy in the Middle East, the US invasion of Iraq, the threat of war with Iran or Syria and a fragile security situation for the entire Western world. “Israel is not the strategic asset to the United States that many claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War, but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over,” the authors said.

“Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism around the world, helped fuel America’s terrorism problem, and strained relations with other key allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia,” they added.

According to the two writers, “backing Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians has reinforced Anti-Americanism around the world and almost certainly helped terrorists recruit new followers.”

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, described the book as “an insidious, biased account of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the role of supporters of Israel in the US,” in an interview with AFP.

“Everything about American policy toward the conflict is presented in exaggerated form, as if America is completely one-sided in support of Israel and that those policies are simply the product of the Israel lobby.” He is countering Mearsheimer and Walt’s book with his own title: “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control,” due out on the same day.

Mearsheimer and Walt highlight the three billion dollars in US economic and military aid that Israel receives every year - more than any other country. They also point to Washington’s diplomatic support: between 1972 and 2006, the United States vetoed 42 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, while watering down many others under threat of veto. Foxman counters that the special relationship works both ways and that the United States has gained much out of its ally.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a public debate on the issue planned for September and featuring Mearsheimer and Walt when they were unable to schedule a time that Foxman could also manage.

In the conclusion of their book, Mearsheimer and Walt say that the United States must change its policy towards Israel. “The United States would be a better ally if its leaders could make support for Israel more conditional and if they could give their Israeli counterparts more candid advice without facing a backlash from the Israel lobby.” With just over a year until the 2008 US presidential election, however, they said the issue was unlikely to even enter the debate. afp

[Ravenhawk]

The exposure of the Israeli Lobby is a good and important thing in itself, but it doesn't go far enough. The Israeli agenda is an extension of the Jewish religion with all its warts, and there can be no apology for claiming that.

Since the advent of the online Zohar, anyone can search and read the ideas expressed within it, that mirrors the Israeli/Neo Con agenda perfectly. There is no "Vague Jewish Conspiracy" here. It is the words of Judaism itself, laying out their plans, and specifically their plans of genocide, dispossession of everyone except themselves.

From the Destruction of the 70 Idolatrous Nations

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate

To the Destruction of Ishmael

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate

To the Destruction of Rome

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate

To the Destruction of Edom, the White Race and the Christian Church,

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&where=verses&sort=rate

it exposes Jewish plans that have been laid out long again, and are in full swing as we speak, Israel driving and controlling America's foreign and defense policies, and indeed, the once great nation itself.

However in the endgame of God, it will not end as Judaism has planned, but in a great disaster for not only the non Jews of the world due to Jewish plans and plots, but also for Jews and Israel as well.

The real question is whether or not World Jewry will take a fresh look at these matters and decide if they wish to continue with their age old plans, or if they will decide to create something better, better for everyone, both Jew and Gentile alike. Judaism is not considered to a static religion, but a religion that changes overtime when new information and better ideas arise. So we can only hope for the best.

I will close with this passage from the Jewish Prophet Isaiah which seems to fit this situation perfectly:

"What need have I of all your sacrifices?" says the Lord. "I am sated with burnt offerings of rams, and suet of fatlings, and blood of bulls, and I have no delight in lambs and he-goats. That you come to appear before ME - Who asked that of you? Trample my courts no more; bringing oblations is futile, incense is offensive to Me. New moon and sabbath, proclaiming of solemnities, assemblies with iniquity, I cannot abide.

Wash yourselves clean; put your evil doings away from My sight. Cease to do evil; learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow.

"Come, let us reach an understanding," says the Lord. "Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white, be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece. If, then, you agree and give heed, you will eateth the good things of the earth; but if you refuse and disobey, you will be devoured [by] the sword." For it was the Lord who spoke.

Source Isaiah 1:11 - 20. in Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1985

Which path will the Jewish people choose; a path of life, unity, healing for all; or the path of war and destruction? Right now they’re on the path of war and destruction, but it is still not too late to change.

It is up to them to choose, though at some point it will no longer be their choice. It is the hope of many they will chose the path of healing and compassion for all; that they will choose to create a world living in peace and mutual cooperation for everyone.

[Ravenhawk]

Let me post the right links to the Zohar references above...something happened, I'm not sure what. But here's the right links I believe..

From the Destruction of the 70 Idolatrous Nations

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=RGVzdHJ1Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIDcwIElkb2xhdHJvdXMgTmF0aW9ucw==&where=verses&sort=rate

To the Destruction of Ishmael

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=SXNobWFlbA==&where=verses&sort=rate

To the Destruction of Rome

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=Um9tZQ==&where=verses&sort=rate
To the Destruction of Edom, the White Race and the Christian Church,

http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/search&pattern=ZWRvbQ==&