Timeline of Zionist Terror

[Mr. Premise]

If oil alone drove U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. would ditch Israel so fast it would make your head spin. The main reason the U.S. is now hated in the Arab world is the U.S.'s support of Israel's genocidal policies. Israel gives the U.S. very little in exchange for this. What it gives is mostly negative: 'if you don't support us we will overthrow you.'

Why do you think Bush II lets Israel do whatever it wants? Because the last president who stood up to Israel was Bush I when he held up loan guarantees to Israel to try to get them to suspend construction of illegal settlements. Within a year he was voted out of office. How do you think Bush I went from 70% approval rating to losing an election? This is someone, after all, very skilled at stealing elections, and he lost to Clinton? Bush II vowed not to make any of the mistakes his father did. And he got reelected without really winning two elections!

hmm. So what about "Oil"? What do the same senators and presidents do about oil interests, and wider economic and political interests?

I just don't see that the operation of AMERICAN interests works any differently in regard to the MidE as compared to anywhere else.........

 

[the_last_name_left]

Israel controls the U.S. in all matters that relate to Israel's interest. In other areas, they let the U.S. do what they want.

Thanks for being clear. I have never seen anyone iterate that perception as clearly as you have - tho countless people evidently tacitly hold that opinion.

It just doesn't hold up imo. Read the sentence again? IMO it just doesn't make any sense. One example -

Why, if one had the power to do so, would one not exercise it? Such questions are hardly within the realm of provable fact, are they?

From your argument - we could say that Indonesia controlled american policy with regards to indonesia - and let USA do what it liked elsewhere. Similarly for almost any other nation on earth.

The logical extension of that is that EVERY country controls the USA with regard to its own affairs - and let's the USA do what it likes with other nations?

But from that we have to extract WHY did Indonesia have control over american policy over indonesia and E Timor, and NOT E timor? And why does Israel control american policy such that israeli policy dominates palestinans, but palestine doesn't have control over american interests in palestine?

There is a difference? Where from? How can it be explained by the "It's israel!" approach?

The ADL may not have directly influenced your opinion but it has severely filtered the fact that you are able to see.

How have they done that more to me than anybody else might have done it to you? :) I could say you have a false class conciousness and have therefore missed your own natural affinity with the working class WITHIN Israel who are under threat of terrorist attack borne out of a misplaced response to american imperial aggression?

Chomsky is a lifelong admitted Zionist.

I didn't think so, and after reading that I don't. Would I be called a zionist for expressing a wish that jews (like anyone else) should be allowed to live in peace?

Personally I think I agree with chomsky - from what I already know of his views. This for instance:

"Furthermore, there is no need for it [sanctions on israel]. We ought to call for sanctions against the United States! If the US were to stop its massive support for this, it's over. So, you don't have to have sanctions on Israel. It's like putting sanctions on Poland under the Russians because of what the Poles are doing. It doesn't make sense. Here, we're the Russians".

I can only agree with him. Israel is a client state - until that relationship is addressed, little else will matter.

I have seen things from that article before - none of it undermines my generally benevolent view of chomsky as a very very smart dude.

from that article on C

I was convinced that while, ironically, having provided perhaps the most extensive documentation of Israeli crimes, he [chomsky] had, at the same time immobilized, if not sabotaged, the development of any serious effort to halt those crimes and to build an effective movement in behalf of the Palestinian cause.

An exaggeration? Hardly. A number of statements made by Chomsky have demonstrated his determination to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the very monumental transgressions of decent human behavior that he himself has passionately documented over the years. This is one of the glaring contradictions in Chomsky's work. He would have us believe that Israel's occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky's world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine.

If you can find anything which even suggests chomsky thinks all that absolves Israel of responsibility for those crimes I'd like to see it?

otherwise you are absolutely right - I DO agree with chomsky's view, tho over Israel et al I have to draw a qualification - that I don't know that much about the internal machinations within Israel/zionism. I don't feel I need to know much tbh.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I guess you just don't get it, then. Read more about PNAC and the "Securing the Realm" document. What Israel wants is to be the sole superpower and is using whichever imperial power has power at the moment to achieve its goals, goals that may be thousands of years old, by the way. Once U.S power declines (this should be a matter of months, years at most, not decades) Israel will start manipulating the successor power (China? Russia?).

This again relates to our discussion on another thread about how Marxism or lleft historical materialism serves the Powers that Be by steering people away from the real issues. I think you have illustrated my point perfectly.

What if there is more going on on the planet than just class based material self interest? That has its place, I think, and I do like to read Marx when I want to know about how capitalism really works, but these things we are discussing go way deeper. What if there are beings on higher densities that actually eat negative human emotions? Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But what if such a view actually explains way more than material class self-interest?

 

[Mr. Premise]

This shows that you aren't getting it. Indonesia does NOT control U.S. in matters that relate to Indonesia. The U.S. (for the most part, this could change with China getting more powerful) controls Indonesia and doesn't care what it means for Indonesia. That is because Indonesia is a client state of the U.S. The United States, however, is a client state of Israel for all practical pursposes.

As for the fact that the sentence about Israel controlling the U.S. in all matters that relate to Israel's interest not making sense to you, I don't know what to say. Look at it this way, the United States controls, say, Indonesia (or a typical client state) in all matters that affect U.S. interests and gives the local ruling elite some latitude in matters that affect the client state's or it's ruling elite's interest that don't affect U.S. interests one way or another, say, subjugating some island-based ethnic minority in the archipelago. This is why the U.S. is a client state of Israel, and U.S. actions in Latin America doesn't affect that fact one way or another.

Israel controls the U.S. in all matters that relate to Israel's interest. In other areas, they let the U.S. do what they want.

Thanks for being clear. I have never seen anyone iterate that perception as clearly as you have - tho countless people evidently tacitly hold that opinion.

It just doesn't hold up imo. Read the sentence again? IMO it just doesn't make any sense. One example -

Why, if one had the power to do so, would one not exercise it? Such questions are hardly within the realm of provable fact, are they?

From your argument - we could say that Indonesia controlled american policy with regards to indonesia - and let USA do what it liked elsewhere. Similarly for almost any other nation on earth.

The logical extension of that is that EVERY country controls the USA with regard to its own affairs - and let's the USA do what it likes with other nations?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Israel controls the U.S. in all matters that relate to Israel's interest. In other areas, they let the U.S. do what they want.

Thanks for being clear. I have never seen anyone iterate that perception as clearly as you have - tho countless people evidently tacitly hold that opinion.

It just doesn't hold up imo. Read the sentence again? IMO it just doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. In fact, it's pretty simple, obvious, and reflective of reality. What is it you don't understand? As an example, in the 90s Israeli politicians formulated a policy for Iraq, saying it needed to be 'destabilized' into ethnic divisions, as a unified Iraq would be a 'danger' to Israeli aggression. Through their influence in American politics, the Israeli lobby groups, and the Israelis and Israeli firsters in American Policy (the Defense Policy Board, for one) planned a war for this purpose, fabricating numerous phony 'reasons' like WMDs, "Saddam was evil", etc. In essence, Israeli controlled US foreign policy in a matter that directly involved Israeli interests, but had little to no importance to Americans.

One example -

Why, if one had the power to do so, would one not exercise it? Such questions are hardly within the realm of provable fact, are they?

From your argument - we could say that Indonesia controlled american policy with regards to indonesia - and let USA do what it liked elsewhere. Similarly for almost any other nation on earth.

No, this has nothing to do with it. Is there a world-wide network of billionaire Indonesian lobbyists? Does Indonesia have the most notorious intelligence agency on earth? Are a disproportionately large number of Indonesians and their lobbyists in the American government writing war policy? In short there is NO significant Indonesian lobby. Donald pointed out that the Israeli leaves matters not related to Israel alone, but you are IGNORING that they violently and obsessively push for their own interests, and they ALWAYS get their way. Do you not see the the Israeli lobby is responsible for taking a nation to war?! Hundreds of thousands are dead as a result, and all you can do is sit there wisacering about "well if one has the power to do so, why not?"

The logical extension of that is that EVERY country controls the USA with regard to its own affairs - and let's the USA do what it likes with other nations?

You cannot be serious... This is not "logic", it is fantasy, and doesn't follow in ANY way from what Donald said.

But from that we have to extract WHY did Indonesia have control over american policy over indonesia and E Timor, and NOT E timor? And why does Israel control american policy such that israeli policy dominates palestinans, but palestine doesn't have control over american interests in palestine?

There is a difference? Where from? How can it be explained by the "It's israel!" approach?

And here's your problem. You aren't even thinking. Your whole post was illogical and meaningless. To simplify it for you:

1) Israel, through the Mossad and its control over such groups as the ADL and AIPAC smear, slander, blackmail, threaten, kill, and terrorize ANY public official that speaks out against Israeli terror. As such, and after 60 years of these tactics, American politicians are terrified of speaking out against the "official Israeli policy" and rubber stamp any proposal influenced by "the lobby".

2) As a result of this control, American politicians adopt ANY policy influenced by israeli lobby groups. No other country has this influence over American politics.

Is it not obvious?? And it is not GLARINGLY obvious that your thinking on the matter is COMPLETELY in line with what the ADL wants you to think? Do you really think that because you have no associations with the ADL that they don't control your thinking?

 

[Joe]

Last name left, I suggest you read two articles, one short, one long, form two sources who would appear to know of what they speak:

The first:

"The Israel Lobby"

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The second:

"War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser"

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23078

In fact, in this second short one, a quote suffices:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

Also, FYI, Zelikow is no ordinary "advisor" to Bush because, as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he was given the task of carrying off the greatest White Wash in political history, and his bio would seem to justify it:

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, "public myths" or "public presumptions," which he defines as "beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene

Now, think about everything that has happened since 9/11 and realise that all of it could not have happened without 9/11. Use your imagination and think about where the world is likely to be in 10 years if things continue on as they are at present.

Think about Zelikow, himself a Zionist, and his "creation and maintenance of public myths" and the fact that he has stated that the Iraq invasion was by the USA, FOR Israel, and it only happened because 9/11 happened, the official story about which is clearly a "public myth".

Joe

 

[the_last_name_left]

Again, try to imaging going on network television or running for office saying that Israel has no right to exist as a "Jews only" state.

I don't get on TV saying anything - nor have I ran for office, so I don't know. I do know that very little of my worldview gets on TV, and certainly never has a serious chance of running for office.

Does that mean my worldview is wrong? You seem to take that as meaning your worldview must be right - but imo my views are largely invisible and unrepresented too. So we have equal claims on that score?

In fact, I would say my view is MORE invisible so has greater claims. The same argument would suggest that the "Monster Raving Loony Party" were really telling important truths?

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

If oil alone drove U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. would ditch Israel so fast it would make your head spin.

I never said OIL ALONE. It's ONE aspect. Anyway, why would USA ditch israel under such a scheme?

The main reason the U.S. is now hated in the Arab world is the U.S.'s support of Israel's genocidal policies. Israel gives the U.S. very little in exchange for this.

That might be the main reason - likely it is. It isn't the ONLY reason tho? Likely in Iraq right now, and Iran, and Saudi, and kuwait and whatever - US occupation of Iraq is a more pressing concern?

And what the US gets back for this might not be much in your opinion - but in others' opinion it might be a lot?

Strategically Israeli support might have been a central part of american efforts at control over iraqi oil and regional dominance by america through her proxies? Where did the iraqi recon funds go? Halliburton, et al.....THAT is american interest TODAY and yesterday, let alone tomorrow. Where WILL iraqi oil proceeds GO? THAT is another aim of american interests - to deny that as a massive viable pertinent american interest is self-deceit?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Slow down, LNL, you're not thinking clearly here. You're mixing everything up. Of course they don't let many leftists run for office, but there are a few. And those few, unless they are in predominanly African-American districts have to support Israel. A large percentage of donors to left causes are Jewish and Zionist. The fact that the right-wing corporatocracy supresses left politics is unrelated to the supression of anti-Zionism in this context.

Again, you are proposing false dichtomies or either/or reasoning. Both can be taking place at once. As I said, the ruling elite in the U.S. can do what it wants in areas that don't affect Israel.

Bottom line is the only time the U.S. has acted against it's ruling class's interest has been when it supports Israel.

Again, try to imaging going on network television or running for office saying that Israel has no right to exist as a "Jews only" state.

I don't get on TV saying anything - nor have I ran for office, so I don't know. I do know that very little of my worldview gets on TV, and certainly never has a serious chance of running for office.

Does that mean my worldview is wrong? You seem to take that as meaning your worldview must be right - but imo my views are largely invisible and unrepresented too. So we have equal claims on that score?

In fact, I would say my view is MORE invisible so has greater claims. The same argument would suggest that the "Monster Raving Loony Party" were really telling important truths?

 

[Mr. Premise]

I thought of another thing looking at the title of this thread. Why do you think it is that we all know far more about U.S. terror than we do about Israeli terror? I am not talking about the average Joe, here, but those of us who think we are well informed and read the news and such. Most of those events Henry listed were not known to me (although I knew the general story).

 

[the_last_name_left]

Last name left, I suggest you read two articles, one short, one long, form two sources who would appear to know of what they speak:

I'll go read them. in the meantime:

Think about Zelikow, himself a Zionist, and his "creation and maintenance of public myths" and the fact that he has stated that the Iraq invasion was by the USA, FOR Israel, and it only happened because 9/11 happened, the official story about which is clearly a "public myth".

I appreciate the point, I think - but from my perspective I just quote zelikow back - and say he is apparently self-acknowledged at "creation and maintenance of public myths" whatever - and say how does that ADD to your argument and not detract from it? The idea that "It's Israel!" is one such myth imo. Zelikow himself apparently said it:

I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,

Why isn't that a myth? for me it is - maybe it is for zelikow too? For you and so many others it looks the other way?

IMO nothing else attracts such opprobrium as this issue - and I don't see why it deserves it. I don't deny israel has AN influence - my point is only that Israel is a client-regime of america and that it is foolish to imagine such a client state can 'control' its imperial master. There is NO historical precedent - there is nothing definitive - nothing conclusive to say it is any different today - APART from the overlapping of Israeli and american interests in this instance and that is what confuses people imo.

My concern is hardly for israel - I care no more for zion or everyday israelis any more or less than islamists or fulan gon or whatever. SFAI care, they are ALL religious nutters - I acknowledge that. My point is only that it is vastly overstating the case to say "Israel controls america!" or anything like it. It is self-exculpatory - and lets us shrug off our responsibility for the wider and more pernicious and destructive imperialism. THAT is my concern.

DJHunt:
You have not responded to my main points, either.

Sorry - if you want to make them clear I can try, if you want?

Indonesia does NOT control U.S. in matters that relate to Indonesia. The U.S. (for the most part, this could change with China getting more powerful) controls Indonesia and doesn't care what it means for Indonesia. That is because Indonesia is a client state of the U.S. The United States, however, is a client state of Israel for all practical pursposes.

But you simply state that. I say Israel is a client state of America. ALL of history would support such a view? ALL events support such a view? The future WILL support such a view? If it doesn't I WILL change my mind - but until the point I am convinced otherwise I will stick to my (much more reasonable and realistic) view. :)

As for the fact that the sentence about Israel controlling the U.S. in all matters that relate to Israel's interest not making sense to you, I don't know what to say. Look at it this way, the United States controls, say, Indonesia (or a typical client state) in all matters that affect U.S. interests and gives the local ruling elite some latitude in matters that affect the client state's or it's ruling elite's interest that don't affect U.S. interests one way or another, say, subjugating some island-based ethnic minority in the archipelago. <b>This is why the U.S. is a client state of Israel, and U.S. actions in Latin America doesn't affect that fact one way or another.

</b>

How come?

One could just as easily say the same of indonesia - that is my point. There is nothing inherently different in the argument.

How does israel's relations with USA betray Israel's controls of america, as opposed to the SPECIFIC instance of Indonesia?

Why does american coalescence in israeli destruction of palestine imply "Israel controls america!" yet Indonesia destruction of ETimor is greeted with the EXACT SAME coalesence by america, and yet ONLY in one case does that show the client state is controlling the imperial hegemon?

What EXACTLY is the difference? I say there is NO difference whatsoever. So what is that difference that I cannot see?

No, this has nothing to do with it. Is there a world-wide network of billionaire Indonesian lobbyists? Does Indonesia have the most notorious intelligence agency on earth? Are a disproportionately large number of Indonesians and their lobbyists in the American government writing war policy? In short there is NO significant Indonesian lobby. Donald pointed out that the Israeli leaves matters not related to Israel alone, but you are IGNORING that they violently and obsessively push for their own interests, and they ALWAYS get their way.

Those are ALL inferential items? I never said Israel has NO INFLUENCE. The issue is HOW MUCH influence Israel has - and whether it can realistically be claimed "It's Israel!"?

My point is that in terms of ON THE GROUND FACTS - how did Indonesia fulfill a client state role, and yet under the same circumstances it is claimed Israel controls america?

Because of the Israeli lobby?

Hmm. Ok. But that leaves us with the issue of WHY in Indonesia america was culpable - but in Israel it is Israel that is culpable?

American actions are the SAME in either tale - total betrayal of a subjugated people (palestinians/e timorese). TOTAL support for muderous regimes (Israeli/Indonesian) in the face of massive public criticism.

If one is to say the USA has a qualitatively highly different relationship with Israel to what it had to Indonesia then you surely have to explain how the behviour of america is THE SAME in EACH INSTANCE. Likewise for every other place of american intervention with client state apparatus etc...........el salvador, chile, afghanistan, ukraine, georgia etc.........

Is the suggestion that American behaviour over Israel exactly mirrors that over Indonesia that it is just coincidence? That despite Israeli "control" over americqan policy in the ME, it follows the exact methodology as america pursued in Indonesia? That is sheer chance? The claim is that Israel MAKES america behave JUST LIKE AMERICA ALWAYS DOES and largely always has done in the past?

So what difference does that make?

If one was to remove Israel from the equation, then ( the argument runs) we would see no difference as america would simply return to its previous client-state/hegemonist relationship with the ME - and NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. The argument suggests America would go back to its more traditional and historically recognised imperialist behviour, as with Indonesia for instance? But what would change? IMO - nothing - and that saysto me the "It's Israel!" line is fallacious. It just doesn't mean anything imo.

LNL: The logical extension of that is that EVERY country controls the USA with regard to its own affairs - and let's the USA do what it likes with other nations?

hkoehli:You cannot be serious... This is not "logic", it is fantasy, and doesn't follow in ANY way from what Donald said.

Well, I didn't see much logic in the argument in the first place - my example only shows how illogical the original argument was - I wasn't suggesting such a thing reflected reality.

Your point should be addressed to the original posters comment? WHY should Israel alone have power over american policy regarding Israel, but no other nation does? Remember - that argument was originally made on the premise that american policy in no way contradicts Israeli policy - that it is subservient to Israeli demands. My point is that american policy in regard to Indonesia at THAT TIME showed the exact same thing - onlyt nobody made the argument than because it would have been ridiculous. Personally I think the arguments that Israel controls america are AS FLAWED as anybody who suggested Indonesia controlled america policy over indonesia.

I'll be clear - I oppose the iraq war and wish USA to withdraw. I oppose any other nation interfering in Iraq, or anywhere else too. I abhor israeli actions against Palestinans - the whole thing is despicable. IMO it is simply fallacious to believe Israel controls america - and it is dangerous too because it obviates any sense of AMERICAN responsibility, and it also fails to address the deeper drives of american policy. Saying "It's Israel!" totally fails to address american atrocity elsewhere in the world. Saying "It's Israel!" provides absolutely NOTHING as explanation for america's wider behaviour and policy - FSD for instance, anti-socialism in general, pro-fascist/capitalism etc etc.........and even if Israel issue could be settled at all - we would STILL be left with imperial america and her brutal system of imperial hegemony. Saying It's israel fails to address ANY of that?

 

[the_last_name_left]

the only time the U.S. has acted against it's ruling class's interest has been when it supports Israel.

An important point - but is it true? What are the examples, if any? [Such discussions have to acknowledge the various views of what constitutes American interests too - as even american ruling class will disagree amongst themselves about somethings - on policy and strategy etc?]

During SUEZ the american attitude to Israel was quite different? What is the explanation? That Israel hadn't yet managed to subvert America? But if that is so, how come British troops were in iraq early last century doing much the same thing as america is now? Israel didn't even exist when the British were in Iraq. Surely the similarities are greater than the differences? [I don't really see ANY differences tbh]

I'm very interested in examples of where american inerests have been sacrificed in favour of Israeli interests. What are the examples? Are they qualitatively any different to other examples that could be found in other regions about different allies in which Israel has no/far-less interest?

 

[the_last_name_left]

And it is not GLARINGLY obvious that your thinking on the matter is COMPLETELY in line with what the ADL wants you to think? Do you really think that because you have no associations with the ADL that they don't control your thinking?

They don't control my thinking. I can't see how they would manage to. :)

As an example, in the 90s Israeli politicians formulated a policy for Iraq, saying it needed to be 'destabilized' into ethnic divisions, as a unified Iraq would be a 'danger' to Israeli aggression. Through their influence in American politics, the Israeli lobby groups, and the Israelis and Israeli firsters in American Policy (the Defense Policy Board, for one) planned a war for this purpose, fabricating numerous phony 'reasons' like WMDs, "Saddam was evil", etc. In essence, Israeli controlled US foreign policy in a matter that directly involved Israeli interests, but had little to no importance to Americans.

If the ME was of no interest to america (israel aside) how do you explain mossadeq and Saddam Hussein, the Fauds, etc etc?

Likewise, what about british involvement in Iraq last century when Israel did not even exist? Britain had "no interests" there either? Who was making the british act in accord with Israeli interests then? If Israel had existed then the same argument could be made?

Just as the same argument can be made about saddam hussein: did Iraq 'control america' because american policy favoured Iraq through 70's + 80s?? what's the difference? I contend none.

Joe = one of those articles is dead.

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23078

I read the other one - the long one presumably? Didn';t change myt mind any.

from the article:

One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

But that's just an OPINION about a cost/benefit analysis. My opinion over whether strategic interests are served by american foreign policy over israel is that very clearly there IS a strategic benefit to america. It's simply a matter of opinion - and I believe the weight of evidence suggests my view is correct. That's just my opinion - and imo it really is NOT glaringly obvious or any other sort of obviousness that my opinion is wrong - imo, of course. :)

 

[Mr. Premise]

LNL, your brain isn't working right now. You are completely misunderstanding everything you are reading. This, for example, shows no understanding:

Just as the same argument can be made about saddam hussein: did Iraq 'control america' because american policy favoured Iraq through 70's + 80s?? what's the difference? I contend none.

The difference is that Saddam Hussein never was able to tell Bush I or Reagan what to do. Israel can and does order U.S. presidents around. This is part of the historical record if you wanted to do some research with an open mind instead of clinging to your "opinions" for dear life.

Why are you so invested in your opinion? Why is it so important to you in this case? No one says this excuses any crimes committed by the U.S., again you are engaging in faulty either/or thinking. Are you really open to thinking in different ways?

You might want to read the thread on Opinions in the forum. Opinions are pretty useless. Here is the link: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925

 

[nf3]

my point is only that Israel is a client-regime of america and that it is foolish to imagine such a client state can 'control' its imperial master. There is NO historical precedent

Actually there are many: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

My opinion over whether strategic interests are served by american foreign policy over israel is that very clearly there IS a strategic benefit to america. It's simply a matter of opinion - and I believe the weight of evidence suggests my view is correct. That's just my opinion - and imo it really is NOT glaringly obvious or any other sort of obviousness that my opinion is wrong - imo, of course.

Opinions are not facts. No matter how much you believe in your opinions they will not stand up to the facts others here have presented to you.

They don't control my thinking. I can't see how they would manage to.

I totally agree that you can't see.

 

[Joe]

Last name left, I suggest you read two articles, one short, one long, form two sources who would appear to know of what they speak:

I'll go read them. in the meantime:

Think about Zelikow, himself a Zionist, and his "creation and maintenance of public myths" and the fact that he has stated that the Iraq invasion was by the USA, FOR Israel, and it only happened because 9/11 happened, the official story about which is clearly a "public myth".

I appreciate the point, I think - but from my perspective I just quote zelikow back - and say he is apparently self-acknowledged at "creation and maintenance of public myths" whatever - and say how does that ADD to your argument and not detract from it? The idea that "It's Israel!" is one such myth imo. Zelikow himself apparently said it:

I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,

Why isn't that a myth? for me it is - maybe it is for zelikow too? For you and so many others it looks the other way?

It isn't a myth because there is a wealth of objective evidence to back it up. What IS a myth is the 9/11 Commission finding over which Zelikow presided and it is a myth because there is a wealth of objective evidence to dismiss it.

Joe