Facebook Badge

13 May 2007

Iraq: It's Not Just "The Jews"

With excellent commentary on the "opposition" party's craven and cynical pose on the war, 2002-present (some excepted, but virtually none in the "leadership"). Vietnam all over again. See Pilger below on the RFK and the Kennedy Myth (now being reanimated by Gordon Brown).

The only thing that enrages me more than neocons are supposedly opposition Democrats (Kerry, Clinton, et al), and those that slavishly swallow their propaganda.

And I'm sick and tired of the obvious rightwing "pro-"Israeli neocons (or whatever) constituency for the Iraq (and now Iran) war from being fully outed without shrieks of "anti-Semite"!

However, this article, despite many good points, overplays its hand. Like most searches for One Big Cause, this one also must edit out huge pieces of evidence. For example, this article avoids the obvious role of oil interests of all kinds in the war, annoyingly lists only Jewish members of the administration, and even insinuates that Cheney and Rumsfeld had no clue what the goals were.

I think that last point shows up this analysis: you gotta be close to blind (from what cause, who knows?) to think that two of the most powerful, long-standing, and savvy political insiders in the past 40 years in DC didn't "get it." They hired all these yahoos: Feith, Wolfowitz, et al. They allowed in Kissinger, Perle, et al. They were both involved in the PNAC. Yes, Virginia, life is complex, and the answer is usually "both/and" not "either/or." Poor, helpless, non-Jewish Cheney and Rummy being steamrolled by a Jewish cabal? Please. Those poor, mostly non-Jewish, oh-so-weak oil companies and interests in Texas just got stabbed in the back? Give me a fucking break!

The real question is how did the convergence of interests -- "pro"-Israel, oil-resource-controlling, post-Cold-War hegemony, and others -- arise, congeal, and triumph over any opposition, principled or not?

Simply listing Jewish last names doesn't cut it, and, frankly, does open the lister up to potentially accurate accusations of anti-Semitism. And thus gives cover to AIPAC types. Irony of ironies.

7 comments:

  1. thanks for the links you posted at ICH. Yes, indeed, that site is very dated and hammering on one point only. Could be 'cause the management fosters antisemitic comments. They've identified the "enemy" and it's Israel, conveniently leaving the U.S. out of it or as an innocent party to all the debacles.
    ICH is mainly composed of disgruntled posters usually with one issue in mind: to bash Israel when not bashing the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, actually, I enjoy most of what ICH posts, and it plays an important role in presenting other viewpoints.

    I have no objection to "bashing" Israel, the US, or any other nation-state or group when it does stupid or immoral things. What I object to is simplistic monocausal "explanations" -- in this case, it happened to involve Israel lobbies, etc. But the point I was trying to make is that while it is undoubtedly true that the Israel lobbies played a large role in the Iraq War, they were not necessarily the only, or even the most important factor or interest group.

    It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for many (most? -- don't know) to strike a reasonable position on this. I've been called everything from a racist Zionist to a self-hating, anti-Semitic Jew -- depending on the audience. My position hasn't changed since before 9/11, but nuance (if I may say so myself -- and it's not particularly nuanced to argue for multicausality!) seems to fly out the window on all sides when Israel is mentioned.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, ICH is a magnet for every Jew hater in the planet. They disguise it under "Zionism" but I've seen posts there that have turned my blood into ice.
    Maybe the articles aren't antisemitic, but the people who own or at least collect the $ from its posters, they sure are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The articles are usually good; the comments (on Israel-Palestine, etc.) are sometimes loony. It's usually the same commenters who make yahoo "points."

    This from a big fan of Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc. There is a major point to be made about Israel, the US, Palestine, the Israel lobbies, Iraq, etc. It is often squelched (or the attempt is made to do so) by throwing around "anti-Semitism." However true that is, there are also some yahoo-anti-Semites out there.

    Hence the title of my comment at ICH: "Thanks for helping AIPAC." Raw meat for them -- keeps the focus off the specific problem, which is US support for Israeli crimes in the OTs since '67.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, one other thing: ICH is free. Anyone can post, sign up, etc. I don't know that any money's being made: it's all donation-driven.

    But there are some yahoos commenting there, that's for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doug, yes ICH is free but every so often the founder asks the posters/readers for monetary contributions. The webmaster a fellow named Kastelin gets a cut of whatever the members send.
    In my estimate this is wrong because there's no accountability and no protection. The site is frequently hacked and some posters are subjected to ridicule if they disagree with the 'main line of thought'. Case in point: Amilcar's barrage of posts to prove the error of your ways.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eh, Amilcar's barrage is no big deal: free speech. I mean, there's no way I'll change his mind, but there are those on ICH who don't dig that line. Maybe it will sink in for others...who knows?

    Thanks for stopping by!

    ReplyDelete