This briefing takes a look at the geo-political "issue" raised by
anti-war nutcases centered on blaming America's ills and war mongering
on Israel. While they do have one thing right...it is our
friendship with Israel that in some part invokes hatred by
Jihadists, this particular line of anti-war thinking spirals down the
drain quickly after only token analysis. In this briefing I coin
the initials, AIN -
Anti-Israeli Nutcases and I use this to describe a small but very vocal
segment of the liberal intelligentia.
The main thrust of a reoccuring piece of fiction touted by so called
intellegentia is that the Jewish community in America,
catering to Israeli war mongering hatred of all things Arab, forms
American policy, especially in the case of the War in Iraq.
The idea has popped up several times, and most recently in an article
by a fellow named Jim Murary 1
of the Philadelphia paper, The Bulletin. Remarkably, and to our
great content, another editorial in The Bulletin jumped all over
Murrary for his fantasy.
Essentially, proponents of the theory say that we are in Iraq and more
generally engaged in the Middle East because
the Israelis want us there and for no other reason. Included in
this drival is the idea that if the Israelis didn't want us there,
there'd be no other reason to be there -- that there are no American
strategic or ideals forcing us to be in Iraq. Moreover, in the
same
breath, these same folk say that there is no need for America to be at
war -- the War on Terror is a sham. Similarly, they point to U.S.
intrangience with Iran and say Iran is no threat to the U.S. or Israel,
that it is Israeli paranoia at work.
Thus, the U.S. has no need to be involved in the Middle East at all,
wrapping up their case that we are there only to satisfy the base
desires of the Jews in Israel and because George Bush has bought into
this Israeli conspiracy.
Well, the theory is clearly a collection of wishful, if not poorly
constructed illogical thinking. For one thing, as Joseph Puter
2 points out in The
Bulletin, a Philadelphia, Jimmy Carter
demonstrated to the world that the U.S. was in fact a paper tiger with
the wrong leader at the helm. The Ayatollah's in Iran cheerfully
and successfully
set out to prove this was the case and we have been at war with Iran
in one sort of another since then. Today's conflict has
yet to reach the stages of conflagaration many have been predicting for
over a number of years, but it has been brewing a long time.
Those who claim Iran is simply misunderstood and no threat have hidden
their heads in the sand.
Also, Puder points out that Jihadists have been coming at the U.S. well
before 2001. Witness the first World Trade Center bombing.
MILNET has pointed out several times that this was the first wakeup
call that could not be ignored, yet was foisted off as a
once-in-a-lifetime experience for the U.S. WRONG! We have
also noted that it was a plot hatched out of Al Qaeda's early cells in
Yemen, with links to Pakistani Jihadist training and support (for more
information on the Pakistani effects on the Islamic Jihad, see the
MILNET briefing, Pakistani Export
of Militant Islamic Jihadists3,
July 21, 2005). Is that Israeli paranoia? Certainly not.
And if having Iran exporting its own terrorist impetus and Al Qaeda's
spread worldwide wasn't enough to concern us,
the AIN also seem to get it wrong in several
other important areas.
For instance, there is this cockeyed notion that Iraq has nothing to do
with the War on Terror and more to do with a President fixated on
making the Israelis happy or even more comical -- the notion the war in
Iraq is about revenge against Saddam Hussein. This goes along
with similar ideas proposed many other
anti-war dunderheads. The idea stems from the notion George W.
Bush was fixated on taking Saddam out of power and then once that was
"done", he found himself embroiled in a mess he could not retreat
from. While certainly exiting Iraq without giving the Iraqi
people the benefit of a nation that will at least seem to run itself is
what
keeps us in that country, there are far more important geo-political
issues at work. It is this intellentia derived notion that George
Bush and his neo-con advisors are too simple headed to have really
thought this thing out, and a total ignorance of Condy Rice's vast
intellect.
For instance, this nutty theory ignores the vast divide between Shia
and Sunni and that this divide
is not restricted just to Iraq. Making that divide apparent and
visible actually benefits the entire world. Certainly the
violence in Iraq is horrible and yes, deadly. But anyone who
believes that having Saddam in Iraq would have prevented this great
divide from erupting in the Middle East does not understand the depth
of conflict between the two factions. It has been racing along
for millenia. Sooner or later, the
fracture would have resulted in what we are seeing today...the War in
Iraq simply gave Jihadists and Separtists the opportunity to
demonstrate how deep the facture runs in Muslim society. Not to
mention Al Qaeda's almost gleeful help, always happy to contribute to
the chaos especially if it has the opportunity to provide trouble for
the Saudis, the Israelis or the Brits and Americans.
And of course the AIN ignore Syria and Iran when discussing this
issue. As if those two countries do not contribute in huge
degrees to the problems in Iraq.
Puder also points out that one proponent of the U.S.-Israeli conspiracy
theory even goes so far as to pop off with the dreaded "neo-con" label
and say that the neo-cons proposing the war in Iraq were Jews and
totally enamored with "Tel Aviv". Puder rightly points out that
even the use of the city Tel Aviv is a sort of liberal codeword for
Jewish war mongers. As he puts it, the capital of Israel is
Jeruselum, not Tel Aviv,
and the use of that city name appears to be used whenever the AIN wants
to carry on about how the Israelis are evil killers of Arab children,
especially when whining
about Israeli attacks into the Golan Heights or the Gaza Strip.
My opinion is that the AIN are so enthralled with their fiction that
they are gleefully spouting the anti-Jew rhetoric more usually found on
Arabic propoganda channels. Recently I was asked if I thought
this was intentional. I certainly don't know, but the idea that
liberal America is either witting or unwitting tools of Arab propoganda
is both fascinating and extremely frightening.
And Puder also takes a moment to debunk the Jews running Ameria theory
in another area. Murray says that the Bush Administration was
filled with members of a neo-con conspriacy...Jewish members of the
Project for the New American
Century (PNAC). Puder takes issue...he debunks the think tank
conspiracy with only a few
names...Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolvowitz. Those three, just to mention
a few, were all members of the think tank. Ooo.
Chilling! Unfortunately for the AIN, aside from
being sympathetic to the plight of Israel alone in the middle of the
Jihad AND fractures between Hamas and Fatah more recently, the leaders
of PNAC are far more interested in removing Jihadists from power and
preventing America from being a Jimmy Carter lovefest than
helping Israel. Indeed, as Puder points out, PNAC appears to be
more about making American leadership advocate "securing the tenets of
democracy - civil rights, human rights, religious rights, [and] freedom
of
the press" for the Middle East. Terrible things -- daring to expose
such things as democracy. Puder then goes on to reiterate that
PNAC's goals have been an American ideal since the late 1700s.
Duh! That's
well before a Jewish State in the heart of Arab
civilization.
In any case, the AIN's position that the War on Terror is a sham and
that there is no need to be in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East is
more about 2008 politics than anything else. By removing the War
on Terror from the list of things America must do, it becomes easy for
would-be liberal Presidential candidates to ask, "Why have you wasted
our time and resources on this stupid war!". It also allows the
liberal Congress to waste its time making pointless gestures at getting
the U.S. out of Iraq instead of doing real work that is
needed.
Without a War on Terror, the AIN can also point at the Homeland
Security and Department of Justics budgets and whine about wasted money
on securing the infrastructure or "all this anti-Muslim" hate based
regulations. It also allows them to side with organizations like
CAIR which appears to be the Jihadists of America's legal fund rather
than a bonafide legal aid foundation for Muslims. Poor
misunderstood ice cream vendors who are being prosecuted by George
Bush's Nazi Department of Justice. Bah! And finally,
without a War on Terror based on worldwide and more specifically for
American security, it allows the AIN to take the immigration and border
issues out of the homeland security arena and turn it into an
anti-Hispanic race issue.
In the end, the AIN are trodding along down a road that will expose
them for what they are...liberal apologists who simply hate Israel and
wish we could get along, even at the expense of appeasing the
Jihadists. Any non-liberal government is obviously corrupt and
full of dreaded conservatives, and damn it, they really have to go,
even if we have to trump up some phony charges. Fortunately, few
in America believe we can live
side-by-side with the Jihadists...few believe in the Bill Clinton/Jimmy
Carter
theory that they'll leave us alone if we simply ignore them. And
few are buying into this charade of picking on George Bush appointees
like they are the world's worst criminals. And finally, damn few
Americans believe in the Israeli conspiracy theory
nonsense. Rather than the U.S. government being full of
blind Jew followers, it is the AIN who are Jew haters, whether they
live here or in Israel.
