George Soros on AIPAC

George Soros has written an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC." He calls on Israel and the US to deal with Hamas. He says:

AIPAC's mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It became closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel's existence, has endangered it.

He takes on the American Jewish Committee's attacks on critics of Israel, which were praised by Bill Clinton, as I noted earlier. On behalf of the AJC, Alvin Rosenfeld attacks as anti-Semites Jews such as Tony Judt and Richard Cohen, and gentiles as well. Soros says:

Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.

The opposite is the case. One of the myths propagated by the enemies of Israel is that there is an all-powerful Zionist conspiracy. That is a false accusation. Nevertheless, that AIPAC has been so successful in suppressing criticism has lent some credence to such false beliefs. Demolishing the wall of silence that has protected AIPAC would help lay them to rest. A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it.

Hooray for Soros! I don't know that it will have much effect. It's interesting that Bill Clinton is already undermining Soros, who has been one of the main benefactors of the Democratic Party through Move-On.org and other contributions. So, Soros' concern about whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC is well founded.

AIPAC supporters are already returning fire, see for example this article in Forward.

Bill Clinton Attacks Jimmy Carter for Jew Money

The following is from an email from the AJC:

President Clinton Thanks AJC for Efforts on New Carter Book

Former President Bill Clinton, in a handwritten letter to AJC Executive Director David Harris, voiced appreciation for his efforts to expose the inaccuracies in President Jimmy Carter’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Thanks so much for your articles about President Carter’s book. I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from …” said Clinton. “I’m grateful.”

Normally, one ex-President does not attack another, but apparently Bill and Hillary need money, and Jews have a lot of it. Bill is a smart guy, but he has the morals of a snake. His successor is stupid and has no morals at all. Poor America!

Jimmy Carter was intelligent and had morals. He would not negotiate for hostages. His undoing was that Ronald Reagan, unlike Carter, was willing to deal with Iran to get the hostages back and win the election. (Remember Iran-Contra?) Carter chose principle over being re-elected. And although he negotiated the Camp David accords, the Jews hate him because he is even-handed. Just like they hate Franklin Roosevelt, who liberated the surviving Jews from the concentration camps, because he was not willing to kill more Christians to save the Jews earlier. No one is likely to call Clinton or Bush even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Jews. Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of a felony for Iran-Contra, is one of Bush's senior national security advisers on the NSC.

Israel's Answer to Kristof

The Jerusalem Post has an op-ed replying to Nicholas Kristof's column on Israel. The bottom line is that Israel wants peace, but nobody else does. Sure, Israel wants peace if you call "peace" unconditional surrender by everybody else in the region. Israel wants peace about as much as Osama bin Laden does. Call a spade a spade! Israel hates all of its neighbors. It's not interested in peace.

Reagan's Courage Or Lack Thereof

Reading over VP Cheney's speech to AIPAC, I noticed that he mentioned the terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. As he said, the US under Reagan withdrew from Beirut -- pulled out immediately; it did not "stay the course." That certainly qualifies as cowardice under today's definition by the Republicans of what Iraq withdrawal means. Yet, today Reagan is praised as a courageous leader who defeated Communism. Which is it? Is Reagan a courageous leader (in Europe) or a coward (in the Middle East)?

The Economist on AIPAC

The Economist magazine reports on the recent AIPAC meeting. AIPAC got every politician who counts to come kiss its feet. Cheney was particularly prominent in paying obeisance. Its violently right wing attitudes opposing Middle East peace on any basis expect complete surrender to Israel are its most identifiable characteristic, but The Economist points out that many American Jews are considerably less hawkish. And as I've mentioned earlier, many Israelis are less hawkish. Nevertheless, it says this is the best of times and the worst of times for AIPAC. Because of AIPAC's predominant position in Washington, it appears to be the spokesman for all American Jews. The article says that George Soros is considering starting up a liberal counterpoint organization to AIPAC, but so far he hasn't done so. He has written an excellent article in the Financial Times calling on the US and Israel to deal with Hamas. The Economist says:

The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the “soundest” on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.

Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in....

But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.

An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as “acting increasingly on behalf of Israel”. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could “be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state”. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a “sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed”.

Cowardice on Israel

Nicholas Kristof's column in yesterday's NYT was right. American politicians avoid criticism of Israel, no matter what Israel does. He correctly touts Jordanian King Abdullah's speech to the US Congress. And he correctly points out that there is much more criticism of Israeli policies in Israel than there is in the US. Kristof said:

One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an “even-handed role” for the U.S. — and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A second reason may be that American politicians just don’t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.” Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.

He points out that last year while Palestinians killed 17 Israelis, of whom one was a child, the Israelis killed 660 Palestinians, of whom 141 were children.

It's ironic that Americans, especially American politicians who fear AIPAC, are so much more conservative in their support for oppresive Israeli policies than Israelis are themselves.

Too Bad Kahlid Sheik Mohammed Didn't Confess with Constitutional Protections

It's too bad that Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed under the undemocratic conditions in Guantanamo. It makes the confession less believable and deniable by those who don't want to believe it, although it probably is true, at least part of it. The fact that he confessed to almost everything bad that's happened in the last 10 years are so, seems questionable, but he probably did at least some of them. The confessions to the ones he didn't do are probably due to torture, which makes you confess to almost anything whether you did it or not, or due to the fact that he wants to take the heat off of those who actually planned the other attacks.

In any case, the administration would have greatly aided its case in the court of world opinion by adhering to the rule of law in the treatment of its prisoners.

Listen to King Abdullah

King Abdullah of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress and appeared on the PBS Newshour. He made an eloquent plea for peace in the Middle East, which he said should start with the Israel-Palestine issue. Here's the comment by James Zogby on the Huffington Post; not surprisingly Zogby liked the speech.

Review of Jimmy Carter Book on Israel

See this review of Jimmy Carter's book on Israel from the New York Review of Books.

Israel Gets More Foreign Aid from the US than the Continent of South America

Earlier I noted that the 2008 foreign aid budget for Israel, which Tom Friedman says has one of the strongest economies in the world, was about $2.4 billion. This USA Today article dealing with Bush's trip to South America says that aid for all Western Hemisphere countries, where tens of millions of people live in poverty, is slated to be $1.45 billion for 2008, cut from $1.6 billion this year.

Rice Mismanages Relationship with Russia

Despite Robert Gates' protestation in Munich that "One cold war is quite enough," we seem on the verge of a second one. Gates' remarked were prompted by Putin's speech in Munich, including statements such as, "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force - military force - in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." And "We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law."

So how did Condi Rice let us get into this mess? She made her career, academically and politically, as an expert on the Soviet Union. If there is one relationship she should be able to manage, it's the one with Russia. Yet, we stay silent while Russia is straying far from the democratic ideals we once saw taking root there, and it wins international sympathy when it accuses the US of failing to respect international law. What's wrong with this picture?

When Bush looked into Putin's heart and saw a good man, did he consult Condi? I think Condi, based on her study of the old Soviet Union, looks at Putin and sees another Stalin or Brezhnev. These divergent view have produced stalemate, while the Pentagon coasting along on orders from its old boss, Rumsfeld, is planning anti-ballistic missile (ABM) sites in Poland and Czech. Interestingly, one of Bush's first affronts to international law was his decision to unilaterally leave the ABM treaty. A better man would have proposed to renegotiate it, not just dump it. The ABM treaty was intended to avoid the very problems now straining the US-Russian relationship. Do something, Condi!

For a different take, but one which doesn't really blame anybody much, see this Washington Post column by Fred Hiatt.

Giuliani & Vietnam

Giuliani seems to be leading the polls as the leading Republican candidate for President. Much of the enthusiasm for him seems to come from people who want a strong leader on national defense, and like him because of his actions during 9/11. As noted below, most of his support probably comes from fellow draft dodgers who feel guilty about avoiding the draft during Vietnam.

As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not happy about people who avoided the draft being touted as strong leaders on national security. Look at the mess we got with George Bush II (& Cheney) who ran on exactly that basis. This article links to several other articles about how Giuliani avoided the draft. I suspect that if he pushes 9/11 too hard, it will come back to haunt him; he talked a good game, but he didn't really do much. The World Trade Center is still basically just a hole in the ground. That may not be Giuliani's fault, but he didn't solve the problem either. Casualties of 9/11 got Federal money; I don't know that New York City did much for them. We'll see how it plays.

The strength of Giuliani's campaign has got to be embarrassing to Bush because the main reason that Giuliani gets so much credit for his performance after 9/11 was that Bush and Cheney were essentially missing in action immediately after the attacks.

Obama's Speech to AIPAC

Here's a link to Obama's speech to AIPAC. I haven't read it, yet, but I'm guessing it's better than a lot of Republicans' speeches to AIPAC, but probably not as tough on Israel as I would like. Can't offend those big contributors!

Walter Reed No Surprise

As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not surprised at what happened at Walter Reed Hospital. This country has not respected its veterans since World War II. The difference between World War II and subsequent wars is that almost everybody served in WW II, but fewer and fewer served in subsequent wars. The Korean War was close enough in time to WW II that some of the same respect carried over to Korean veterans, but they did not rate the "Greatest Generation" profusion of thanks that the WW II vets got. Of course, many Korean vets, like my father, were also WW II vets.

In essence, WW II vets looked out for each other. There were enough of them to dominate politics, business, and most other sectors of local and national life. Plus the war had come close enough to home, beginning in Hawaii and affecting every household with rationing, defense jobs, and other direct impacts, so that no one could ignore it, even if they didn't fight. Korea was less intrusive; Vietnam even less, and Iraq, with no draft, almost not at all. How many households today are making significant sacrifices because of Iraq? Outside of military families, not many. And those profiting the most -- Halliburton, and other unscrupulous defense contractors -- seem to represent the very worst of America.

While Vietnam vets were off in Asia, their draft avoiding cohorts were getting ahead in life. But, especially because of avoiding the draft, they felt guilty about it, and therefore tended to do whatever they could to bring down the returning veterans, such as calling them war criminals, baby killers, etc. The draft dodgers tried to make the returning veterans into second class citizens, in order to make themselves feel better about not serving. This was especially harmful to the lower class soldiers, often poor and black, who came back and found it harder to get jobs and re-integrate into society. When I was working at the State Department in Washington, I was struck by the fact that there were probably more Vietnam vets sleeping on the steam grates outside of the State Department than there were working inside of the building.

Iraq is probably somewhat better for the veterans because there is no draft. Thus, their cohorts can feel less guilty about not fighting there, especially if they go around saying they support the troops. Saying they support the troops has the additional benefit of encouraging someone else (besides them) to go fight in Iraq. So, Iraqi veterans are probably treated somewhat better than Vietnam veterans were, despite abuses like Abu Ghraib and the various murders and rapes currently under investigation, which probably surpass the atrocities committed in Vietnam. These things happen; war is hell, but compared to Vietnam, the Iraqi vets pretty much get a pass in the atrocity department. Again, partly because to reduce these atrocities, you need better quality troops, college educated from good families, exactly the type that are avoiding going. But despite all the talk about supporting the troops, Americans really don't. They go on about their lives. Hence, the atrocities at Walter Reed. And Iraqi vets should not think that once the war is over, having "veteran" on their resume will help them get a job; it will probably work against them.

Aid to Israel

In his February 28 column in the NYT, Tom Friedman wrote about Israel:

''The economy is blooming, growing in the last quarter of 2006 by almost 8%,'' said Sever Plocker of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, who is one of Israel's top economics writers. ''Foreign direct investment is flowing in at unprecedented rate -- $13.4 billion in 2006. The high-tech sector exports are approaching $18 billion, and the stock exchange is at an all-time high. The shekel is stronger than ever, the inflation nonexistent. Interest rates are lower than in U.S. or Britain, the budget deficit less than 1% of G.D.P., and the balance of payments is positive, which means Israel achieved its economic independence and is actually a net creditor to the rest of the world.

''In short, we never had it so good in the economy.''

Yossi Vardi, one of the founding fathers of Israel's high-tech industry, told me that in the last month alone, four start-ups that he was an investor in were sold: one to Cisco, one Microsoft, and two to Israeli companies. ''In the last nine months I've probably invested in at least nine new companies,'' added Mr. Vardi, all started by ''kids 25 to 35 years old.''

Meanwhile, the US continues to send billions in "foreign assistance" to Israel, which according to Tom Friedman has one of the most vibrant economies in the world. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report on Israel (page 18):

Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since 1976. In 1998, Israeli, congressional, and Administration officials agreed to reduce U.S. $1.2 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) to zero over ten years, while increasing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion. The process began in FY1999, with P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998. Separately from the scheduled ESF cuts, Israeli has received an extra $1.2 billion to fund implementation of the Wye agreement (part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) in FY2000, $200 million in anti-terror assistance in FY2002, and $1 billion in FMF in the supplemental appropriations bill for FY2003. P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2006, provided $240 million in ESF, $2.28 billion in FMF, and $40 million for the settlement of migrants to Israel. H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, FY2007, passed in the House on June 9, 2006, appropriates $120 million in ESF, $40 million for migration and refugee assistance, and $2.34 billion in FMF (of which $610 million may be spent for defense acquisitions in Israel), for Israel. The Senate has not yet passed a bill....

Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. Since the 1980s, ESF and FMF have been provided as all grant cash transfers, not designated for particular projects, and have been transferred as a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in periodic increments. Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States. Finally, to help Israel out of its economic slump, P.L. 108-11, April 16, 2003, provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008 and may be extended further. As of September 2006, $4.5 billion of the guarantees remain unexpended.

According to State Department budget documents, for 2008 the budget requested $2.4 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel out of a total budget of $4.536 billion, or about 53% of all of this assistance for the entire world. On the other hand, the budget includes no funds for Israel from the Economic Support Fund, which also totals over $4 billion worldwide.

Names from the Past

Larry Pezzullo, the subject of this book by his son Ralph, worked in the same suite of offices I worked in when I was working on the Brazil desk early in my State Department career. I think he was preparing to go to Uruguay as ambassador.

Chas Freeman, who was DCM (#2) at the embassy in Bangkok when I was assigned there, and went on to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia among other things, has written several articles;
--A talk to new members of Congress entitled, "National Security in the Age of Terrorism," and
--A series of articles on "Diplomacy and Empire."

Terri Jones and her husband David have written an article on global warming, "The Zen of Global Warming." I worked with Terri in the State Department's OES (Oceans, Environment and Science) bureau in the early 1990's.

No Jewish Stereotype

On the same day, the New York Times ran a story about how a Jewish family running a junk business in Michigan is educating and broadening the vision of the Protestants managing the business for them, and this IPS article appeared on the internet about how Elliot Abrams is controlling US foreign policy according to Israel's dictates.

The people who actually started the Iraq war were all Anglo Protestants, as far as I know: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Franks, Powell. But behind them, pushing hard were many Jews: Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Perle, Adelman, Kristol, Abrams, and others.

The problem is that the Jews appear to reap benefits for Israel, which calls into question their loyalty to the US. Did they want this war because it was good for America or for Israel? Do they believe that America's best interests are always the same as Israel's? Bush's motives, of course, are questionable: Did he take Baghdad and capture Hussein to show up his father? If so, it was his own hangup; he wasn't doing another country's bidding.

Jews can be a power for good when they have a broader vision of the world, but many of those in power in America seem to have a vision that puts Israel first. Sadly the state of Israel has distorted the role of Jews in America. The fact that Israel seems to be more and more corrupt and unjust, both internally and in its foreign affairs, makes this Israel-first policy more harmful to America's image abroad. Israeli officials are on trial for rape and various types of corruption. It's not a state that I would want to be associated with, but Bush, perhaps under Jewish pressure, has remade the US more and more in the image of Israel, instituting torture, violation of human rights, privacy, etc. On the other hand, other Jews -- Senator Feingold for example -- are in the forefront of the movement to protect citizens from these affronts.

I object that Jews do not appear to be pulling their weight in the war in Iraq, unlike World War II, where they did. But in general the war in Iraq is being fought by poor people from small, rural towns, where there aren't many Jews. Wealthy, big city dwellers aren't fighting the war, whether they are Jewish or Christian.

Religion of Veterans

This information about the religion of military service members in 2001 comes from the Population Bulletin for December 2004, page 25. It states that "Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are underrepresented in the military relative to their share of the civilian population."

Religion

When sociologist Morris Janowitz
reported on the social origins of soldiers
in 1960, he was able to identify
general patterns and trends in their
religious affiliation, albeit from fairly
poor data. He found an overwhelmingly
Protestant majority, disproportionately
Episcopalian, but with an
increasing representation of Catholics
and a small percentage of Jews. Soldiers
were less likely to be Catholic
than the general public, but the military
reflected the general range of
religious diversity in America.33
While Janowitz was writing about
the conscription-era military and his
data on religion were weak relative to
other variables, his findings provide a
baseline for studying the religious
affiliation of today’s volunteer military.
There are few comprehensive
statistics on religious affiliation in the
civilian population, in part because
the principle of separation of church
and state precludes federal statistical
programs, such as the decennial census
and current population surveys,
from collecting data on religion. We
do know the civilian American population
has been moving away from
the traditional Christian religions and
toward other religious groups or
eschewing any religious affiliation.34
This latter trend is particularly pronounced
among young adults, exactly
the age groups most likely to enter
the military. In general, the armed
forces show lower religious affiliation
than the civilian population, even
among civilians ages 20 to 39 (see
Table 5). A larger share of military
than civilians reported they are Christians
but are not Roman Catholic/
Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, or
do not specify a denomination. This
category includes such Christian
groups as Mormons, Seventh Day
Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses,
as well as the Christian and Missionary
Alliance, Church of God, Seventh
Day Adventist, and Assemblies of
God. Smaller Protestant groups have
been increasing since the 1960s,
while the older, larger Protestant
denominations such as Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Lutherans, and
Methodists have declined. But religious
affiliation data are often inconsistent
because of the different ways
the data were collected and analyzed:
Religious affiliation for military personnel
is recorded regularly by the
Department of Defense, while religious
data for civilians is obtained
from surveys such as the results from
the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS)
conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center reported in Table 5.
About one-quarter of the American
population considers itself to be
Roman Catholic, according to the
GSS survey. Catholics are slightly
underrepresented in the armed
forces, as are almost all other traditional
religions.
There have been indications of
increasing religious diversity in the
armed forces, including growing
numbers of Muslims.35 However,
Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are
underrepresented in the military relative
to their share of the civilian
population. The number of American
military personnel who claimed to be
atheists or to have no religion was
slightly higher than the GSS estimate
for civilians ages 20 to 39, the age
range for about 80 percent of military
personnel. About 11 percent of military
personnel did not provide religious
affiliation data or claimed affiliation
with other religions, almost
four times as high as the GSS data for
the 20-to-39-year-olds. Other recent
surveys also have reported greater
identification with no religion or
other nontraditional religions than
the GSS, but results vary greatly
depending on how data are collected.
Recent data suggest that military personnel
generally have a lower affiliation
with mainstream religious
groups than the general population."

Jews Served in Greater Numbers in World War II

Although the above article indicates that Jews currently serve in the military in numbers smaller than their general share of the American population, they appear to have served in greater numbers in World War II.

A Jewish publication, JewishJournal.com, states that Jews served in World War II in greater numbers than their portion of the general population. The article says:

"Approximately 550,000 Jewish Americans served in the armed forces during World War II, about 4.23 percent of the total number of troops. Both Roosevelt and General Douglas MacArthur praised their bravery specifically. During the war, 52,000 Jewish soldiers received an award or decoration of some kind and 11,000 were killed."

Another article says:

"When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the United States declared war on Japan and Germany, American Jewish men and women responded to their country's call for the armed forces. More than 550,000 served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II. About 11,000 were killed and more than 40,000 were wounded. There were three recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 157 received the Distinguished Service Medal and Crosses, which included Navy Crosses, and 1,600 were awarded the Silver Star. About 50,242 other decorations. citations and awards were given to Jewish heroes for a total of 52,000 decorations.

"Jews were 3.3 percent of the total American population but they were 4.23 percent of the Armed Forces. About 60 percent of all Jewish physicians in the United States under 45 years of age were in service uniforms."

From a JTA article about Jewish veterans buried in Arlington Cemetery:

"Poch, a conference planner who has made it his hobby -- and mission -- to chronicle the cemetery's Jews, has cataloged the location and history of the 2,500 Jewish dead buried at Arlington.
"Poch, who twice crisscrossed the cemetery's 250,000 graves looking for Jewish veterans, frequently returns to the cemetery with interested Jewish tourists.
"For Poch, who performed two years of non-active, stateside duty during the 1960s, this has become an imperative.
"'There's a myth that Jews don't fight and don't serve,' he said during a recent visit to the cemetery.
"'I want to know who these people were,' he said, pointing to one of many graves he has catalogued."

It's not scientific,but 2,500 Jewish graves of 250,000 total Arlington graves is only 1%, half of the 2% of the population that is Jewish.

However, a page on the Arlington Cemetery web site says there are 1996 Jewish veterans buried there; the other 500 or so are apparently family members of veterans. More than 300,000 people are buried at Arlington, according to the web site. Again, it looks like less than the 2% of the general population.

Another Jewish web site lists 1,633 Jewish veterans of World War II buried in American cemeteries overseas run by the American Battle Monuments Commission, and 519 veterans of World War I. The Commission says its cemeteries hold about 125,000 total war dead. This would be almost the 2% general Jewish population (about 1.7% of graves versus about 2.2% of population).

Jews in Congress

I wondered how many Jews there were in Congress, and then I found this nice list on the Internet from JTA, whatever that is. There are 11 Senators and 26 Congressmen. Here is the list:

U.S. SENATEBarbara Boxer (D-Calif.)Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)Carl Levin (D-Mich.) *Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)**Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) **Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.)Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.).

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESHoward Berman (D-Calif.)Susan Davis (D-Calif.)Bob Filner (D-Calif.)Jane Harman (D-Calif.)Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)Howard Waxman (D-Calif.)Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.)Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)**Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)Ben Cardin (D-Md.)Barney Frank (D-Mass.)Sander Levin (D-Mich.)Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)Martin Frost (D-Texas)Eric Cantor (R-Va.)Bernard Sanders (Ind-Vt.).

However, my Congressman, Ed Perlmutter, is not there. He is an evangelical Christian, but I read that his parents are both Jews and that they helped his campaign by raising a lot of money from their Jewish friends. So, I'm guessing that there are more members of congress who would be listed if "Jew" were defined more broadly, and because of the sympathy of many perhaps secular Jews for the state of Israel, for my purposes, it should be broadly defined.

Forward counts 13 Senators and 30 Congressmen:

Senate (13)
New Members: Ben Cardin (D-Md.); Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Re-elected: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.); Herb Kohl (D-Wis.); Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Returning: Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.); Norm Coleman (R-Minn.); Russell Feingold (D-Wis.); Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Carl Levin (D-Mich.); Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.); Arlen Specter (R-Pa.); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

House (30)
New Members: Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.); Paul Hodes (D-N.H.); Ron Klein (D-Fla.); Steve Kagen (D-Wis.); John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
Re-elected: Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.); Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.); Howard Berman (D-Calif.); Eric Cantor (R-Va.); Susan Davis (D-Calif.); Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.); Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.); Bob Filner (D-Calif.); Barney Frank (D-Mass.); Jane Harman (D-Calif.); Steve Israel (D-N.Y.); Tom Lantos (D-Calif.); Sander Levin (D-Mich.); Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.); Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.); Steven Rothman (D-N.J.); Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.); Brad Sherman (D-Calif.); Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.); Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
Gary Trauner, the Democratic nominee for Wyoming’s single House seat, narrowly trailed incumbent Rep. Barbara Cubin at press time, and had not conceded the race.

Jews make up about 2% of the American population. In the Senate, at 13 of 100, they make up 13%. In the House, at 30 of 435, they make up about 7%.

Now, the question for me is how many of these are military veterans, and of those, how many served in combat?

American Jews' Indifference to Holocaust

An op-ed in the New York Times reveals that as World War II approached, American Jews were often indifferent to the fate of European Jews threatened by Hitler's final solution. Jews often blame gentile Americans and Brits for being indifferent to the fate of Jews in Hitler's concentration camps, but new letters found from Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, pleading for help from American Jews before World War II, show that they were also indifferent.

The op-ed by Daniel Mendelsohn says that Otto Frank's letters were much like his uncle's. He says that a large number of Jewish Americans "found themselves the often helpless objects of poignant entreaties by old friends and relatives trapped in Europe as the cataclysm approached."

Mendelsohn says that after his grandfather died, he found "a cache of desperate letters from an older brother in Poland, written throughout 1939, begging for money, affidavits for visas, anything to save him and his family.... That my grandfather never mentioned this correspondence to us was an indication of the shattering guilt he must have felt at not having been able to help his family. It is a feeling shared by many Jews in America after the war, who are likely to have kept such feelings similarly hidden from their children and grandchildren."

Of course, Mendelsohn expresses his hatred of gentile Americans toward the end of his op-ed, noting: "the appalling failure by the United States to do more for would-be immigrants. (Among other things, Frank's letters are a concrete reminder of the crushing diplomatic obstacles facing would-be immigrants, a fatal Catch-22 that even American diplomats at the time were shamed by.)" The implication is that Jews, who are always looking for a bargain, would have saved their relatives if the US government had set the price for visa processing at something less than $5,000.

The US government has done almost exactly the same thing regarding Iraqi refugees, until recently making it extremely difficult for Iraqis, even Iraqis who have risked their life to help Americans, to come to America (a total of about 400 up to now, according to the Washington Post). The Iraqi deaths come on neighborhood streets, rather than in Auschwitz and other death camps, but the deaths are just as permanent. Where are the Jewish voices lamenting this immigration policy? They criticize Roosevelt for not invading France earlier, which would have caused the deaths of more Christian soldiers, and they are happy to have Christian soldiers dying in Iraq to protect Israel from Iraq and Iran. You didn't, and don't, see a high percentage of Jewish soldiers fighting for Jewish interests in World War II or in Iraq. They only fight in Israel. It would be interesting to compare the number of American Jews fighting in uniform in Iraq and the number of American citizens in uniform in the Israeli military. This information is hard to come by; I think it's because it would show Jewish loyalty to America and to their own relatives in a harsh light, as the Otto Frank letters do.

An earlier NYT news article on the Otto Frank letters says that he wrote to his college friend Nathan Straus, Jr., who was the director of the federal Housing Authority, a friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, and the son of a co-owner of Macy's. He had the money and connections to help Otto Frank if he had wanted to.

The latest example in the news of an American fighting for Israel is Michael Oren, the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present. Born in America, with four degrees from American universities, he was a paratrooper in the Israeli army. I don't see anything in his Wikipedia bio about serving in the US army.

Arabs and Jews Can Live Together

For me, an example of how people of different backgrounds can live together is illustrated by Ralph Nader's appearance with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. Nader is Arab; Stewart is Jewish. They are both liberals, but don't agree on everything. Stewart gives Nader a hard time for helping defeat Al Gore. But they do it in a friendly fashion. If people like them could become Americans, and not Arab-Americans or Jewish-Americans or Anglo-Americans, we could be an example to the world.

Jews Accuse Liberal Jews of Anti-Semitism

Just for the record, here's a NYT article about internecine fighting between Jews about whether criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

The defenders of Israel have to remember that some people, like me, consider the war in Iraq to be a Jew war started on behalf of Israel, which unlike America, was threatened by Saddam Hussein. The fomenters of the war were almost entirely Jewish: Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Krystal, etc. Granted the people who actually went to war -- Bush and Cheney -- were Christian, but I consider them greedy for Jewish money. While Cheney is not stupid, Bush is, and probably did whatever his handlers told him to do, despite his claims to be the Decider. It turns out that Cheney's main adviser on the War, Scooter Libby, who is now on trial. is also Jewish.

Jews are split, as the article says. Senator Feingold is against the war, but Lieberman is a staunch supporter of it.

Israel Descends into Mire

Just for the record, I noticed that the President of Israel is accused of rape and other heinous crimes, and that many are calling for his resignation, according to the Washington Post. Meanwhile Prime Minister Olmert is accused of corruption, using his office to financially benefit friends.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that many Israelis are fed up with the government.

We had Bill Clinton, but at least that appeared to be consensual sex. One would think that a religious state would have higher standards. Don't Jews have any regard for the Ten Commandments? Of course, in the US, many religious leaders (Ted Haggard) don't pay much attention to the Ten Commandments either.

Robert Joseph Resigns

Robert Joseph, the Under Secretary of State responsible for nuclear non-proliferation has resigned. The spate of resignations seems to indicate that all is not well in Condi Rice's State Department. At least Joseph waited until Rice had filled the Deputy Secretary spot by bringing back John Negroponte.

This administration has almost completely mishandled the non-proliferation issue, first under John Bolton, and then under his successor, Joseph. Iraq turned out not to be a threat; Iran has largely ignored our holding our breath and stomping our foot until they give up their nuclear program; and the Washington Post says one reason Joseph may be leaving is because he does not like what is happening with North Korea.

Jewish Greed for Eastern European Holocaust Reparations Stirs Up Anti-Semitism in Return

This Christian Science Monitor article picked up by Reuters points out that there is a backlash to the never ending Jewish litany of "Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust!"

The article says:

"Six decades after World War II, the once-dormant pursuit of Holocaust-related justice is forging ahead in newly democratic central-eastern Europe. Yet the hunt carries a price: It has stirred resentment among a financially struggling populace, which bristles at the multimillion-dollar property claims by their Jewish communities, and sees the harassment of nonagenarians as unnecessary or even cruel."

"For those stalking war criminals, though, time is running out. To speed the process, Mr. Zuroff and the Simon Wiesenthal Center launched 'Operation Last Chance' in 2002, offering $10,000 rewards for information leading to convictions, while ratcheting up the rhetoric against reticent governments. That has made some local Jews squirm. In Lithuania, where nearly 95 percent of its 220,000 Jews were killed and fewer than 5,000 remain today, many Jews say that each time a Holocaust-related issue hits the media, it sparks a backlash. 'I understand it's the right thing to do,' says one young Jewish woman in Vilnius, the capital. 'But I sometimes wonder whether it's worth it, since it'll cause another conflict with the people.'"

As the article points out, one problem is that the Holocaust is increasingly being used to make a few people rich (or richer). I don't have any figures, but I would guess the vast majority of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust did not have world class art works, real estate or life insurance worth millions of dollars. Yet, increasingly the Holocaust issue is being used to help a small number of families recover hundreds of millions of dollars. That puts a small value on the lives of the millions who died, and one could say that it brings out the very worst stereotypes about Jews and money.

Man Who Fought for Holocaust Restitution Resigns in Scandal

Just for the record, New York state comptroller Alan Hevesi had to resign after admitting that he illegally used state chauffeurs to drive his wife and pleading guilty to a felony. Hevesi, the great-grandson of the prewar chief rabbi of Budapest, was one of the most outspoken advocates of restitution for victims of the Holocaust, and he was an advocate of greater investment by New York in Israel, according to the Forward. It just takes some of the luster off the whole Holocaust cause.

Jews on Center Stage

Just a note of three recent articles:

"Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?" from the NYT Magazine yesterday, which says, "...Colin Powell ... links President Bush's Middle East policy more to Jewish-neoconservative influence than to principle." And Foxman says, "One out of three people in these United States believes that the Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the U.S.... That's a classic anti-Semitic canard." The article's author says, "I asked [Foxman] isn't slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism at people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Judt and Mearsheimer and Walt really a way of choking off debate? 'No, it isn't,' Foxman said.... I asked if it was really right to call Carter, the president who negotiated the Camp David accords, an anti-Semite. Foxman replied, 'I didn't call him an anti-Semite.' 'But you said he was bigoted. Isn't that the same thing?' 'No, "Bigoted" is you have preconceived notions about things.'"

"Fury Over Delegate's Remarks on Slavery" from the Washington Post. Virginia state delegate Frank Hargrove criticized a proposal for the state to issue an apology for slavery, likening it to requiring Jews to apologize for "killing Christ." The ADL (Abe Foxman) condemned Hargrove's comments about Jews.

"The Neo-Cons Route to Disaster," from the Financial Times, which says, "The neo-cons stand accused of many errors: imperialism, Leninism, Trotskyism (New York school), militarism. Some believe that the real problem is that so many of them are Jewish – this is an alarmingly popular theme, to judge by my e-mails. But the problem with the neo-cons is not that so many of them are Jews. The problem is that so many of them are journalists."

Record Number of Jews in Congress

I wasn't looking for this. It just appeared in the Washington Post, so presumably it is newsworthy. According to the article about 2% of Americans identify themselves as Jewish, but there are 30 Congressmen and 13 Senators who are Jewish. Clearly there is no prejudice against them. The article says that in the midterm elections 90% of Jews voted Democratic. I should like that.

The Economist on Jews and Israel

The Economist magazine has a long article on young Jews' attitudes toward Israel. It makes a number of interesting points:

-- Although Chaim Weizmann, the head of the World Zionist Organization, told President Truman that the choice for Jews was "between statehood and extermination," Jews who had fled eastern Europe's pogroms for America two generations earlier already felt safe and established there.

-- When Israel was founded, Jews felt they had only two options: assimilate in the countries where they lived, or identify very closely with the new state, if not migrate there.

(The Economist article routinely cites "assimilation" as an evil for Jews outside of Israel. While there should be no pressure for Jews to give up their religion, why should it be good for Jews not to assimilate, but rather to think of themselves as Jews first and Americans second? Many do think of themselves this way, and particularly because of older Jews' love for Israel, it means they put Israel first and America second, although they are American citizens.)

-- Currently, however, Jews face the question of how should a conscientious Jew react to Israel's new image as military giant and flawed oppressor. (Can you say Jimmy Carter?)

-- The article says, "Most diaspora Jews still support Israel strongly. But ... their ambivalence has grown. Many are disturbed by the occupation of the Palestinian territories.... The most radical say, as the Palestinians do, that the idea of an ethnically based state is racist and archaic." (Can you say Jimmy Carter?)

-- "In November, Ze'ev Bielski, the head of the Jewish Agency ... got in hot water for saying that one day American Jews 'will realize that they have no future as Jews in the US due to assimilation and intermarriage." (Can you say Israel first and America second for American Jews?)

-- "Nonetheless, Jewish Americans have long been Israel's strongest supporters.... The main Jewish lobby groups have tended to back right-wing Israeli governments."

-- "The pro-Israel heavy guns still predominate.... In the long run [Mr. Cohen] predicts a polarization of American Jewry: a small group growing more pious and attracted to Israel, while a larger one drifts away."

-- "In Britain, even more than in America, Israel is an anchor of Jewish identity."

-- "Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sachs, ... has cautiously criticized Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and recently chided it for lacking 'a Jewish sense of ethics permeating the great institutions of society."

-- "France, by contrast, has more Jews than anywhere else in western Europe.... They are less attached to France.... Young French Jews ... are also likely to more anti-Arab and right-wing. I think that Bibi [Netanyahu] is more popular in France than in Israel." (So America is not the only country where Jews put their ethnicity ahead of their loyalty to the country of which they are citizens.)

-- Most Jews in Germany have come from Russia recently. "Young Jews in Germany ... are less likely to go to Israel than to England.... But Zionist activism ... gets very little response."

-- "The world's least-expected Jewish revival, however, is going on in Russia itself.... As many as 100,000 Russian-Israelis have gone back to Russia."

(The article does not mention than many of the billionaire Russian "oligarchs" are Jewish. Although many of the oligarchs have left Russia, except for jailed ex-Yukos head Khodorkovsky, their success and financial help have no doubt encouraged other Russian Jews to return.)

According to a graphic in the article, there are more Jews in North America (5,650,000) than in Israel (5,314,000).

More Jewish Hate Mail for Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter continues to get blasted by Jews for his book on Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Dennis Ross' op-ed in the NYT is not the worst, but represents the depth and breadth of the attack, because Dennis Ross is a pretty reasonable guy. His op-ed does not really push the issue of the maps that Carter is supposed to have lifted from Ross' book, which makes me think that maybe there is not much legal basis for a plagarism claim. Ross' main point is that Carter has mischaracterized Clinton's old, failed Middle East proposal. I'm guessing that Ross went public mainly because of pressure from the American Jewish community.

Besides Dennis Ross, there is also the matter of mass resignations from the Carter Center, reported by the NYT and others. Those resigning appear to be almost all Jewish. Interestingly, one, named Berman, said "the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision." Sure, and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. These people might believe in what they are doing by resigning, or they might, like Ross, just be giving in to pressure from other Jews, which the article said included the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Furthermore, there was a full page ad taken out against Carter in the December 28, 2006, NYT by camera.org. Camera has a list of articles attacking Carter, interestingly almost all written by Jews.

The sad thing is that this debate, like the debate over the scholarly article written by Mearshimer and Walt, has illustrated the racist of hatred of Jews for gentiles. I don't think that all Jews hold such racist hatred, but like Dennis Ross and some of those who resigned from Carter's board, they allow themselves to be pressured by the more radical Zionists, who used terrorism before World War II to create Israel, and who do hold such views.

Thank You Jimmy Carter

It takes someone with courage to criticize Israel. You will be branded an anti-Semite and get full page attacks in the New York Times. The NY Times book review of Jimmy Carter's book on Israel and the Palestinians didn't get quite that personal, but it was certainly defensive about Israel. Many of the criticisms of Carter's book have been somewhat nit-picky, but touted as if they meant that the whole thrust of his book was wrong. The NYT review followed that tack.

American Jews should welcome Carter's book, as well as the critique of the Jewish lobby by the two professors, because Israel is in danger of going off the deep end. It has serious international, domestic, and religious problems. It is perceived by many, with justification, as an evil state. It doesn't have to be, but it needs to make changes, just as America has to make changes. I worry that America's decision to embrace torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, and other places is built on the Israeli model.

Israelis and American Jews should be thanking Carter, rather than criticizing him, because if they don't make changes now, they will pay for it later.

Israel Doesn't Like Baker/Hamilton Iraq Report

Jews must be feeling under siege. Israeli Premier Olmert has spoken out against the Iraq Study Group report, according to the Christian Science Monitor. He says Iraq's problems have nothing to do with Israel's, despite the fact that Bush originally said that the road to peace in Jerusalem lay through Baghdad. Now, the Baker commission says that the road to peace in Baghdad lies through Jerusalem, which Olmert does not like. President Bush is welded at the hip to Israel. We started the war in Iraq because of pressure from Jews -- Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Feith, and Adelman chief among them. Now that Baker and company say that this Jewish war has created problems for the US, Israel and American Jews take offense.

International Jewry Attacks Carter for Palestine Book

A former director of the Carter Center, Kenneth Stein, has attacked former President Jimmy Carter's new book about Palestine, according to The New York Times. It sounds like Carter's book is critical of Israel, and therefore Israel will gin up its global propaganda machine to oppose it. I don't know, but Ken Stein sounds Jewish. On CNN or some news channel, I saw that he has also enlisted Dennis Ross, the State Department's old Middle East negotiator, who is definitely Jewish. They claim that Carter lifted maps from Ross' book. I could be, but I'm sure that if it is so, Carter did not do it deliberately. One of his researchers may have found the maps and thought they were in the public domain, which in fact they may be, depending on where they came from originally. The NYT article also carries criticisms from Alan Dershowitz, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (surprise, surprise). Wouldn't it just be easier to run some kind of joint statement like, "Jews hate Jimmy Carter for his book on Palestine."

What Next in Iraq?

I suppose that I ought to get on the bandwagon with all the Democrats who want us to start leaving Iraq soon. But it we were a responsible nation, we would not do it. The problem is that we have created a monster in Iraq, as this report from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates. The Iraqi people are suffering greatly as a result of the bungled invasion by the US. If we just leave ("cut and run"), things are likely to get worse for the average citizen. Perhaps eventually some strongman will come along to replace Saddam, perhaps al-Sadr. But in the meantime, things will be bloody.

If the US were a responsible nation, we would follow John McCain's advice and increase our troop presence. It would probably require us to reinstate the draft, as proposed by Cong. Rangel. I support bringing back the draft, if only to bring the military up to a higher moral standard, because if a draft were truly imposed across class lines, we would get some higher class troops who would be repelled by Abu Ghraib and other atrocities. But the main reason for a draft would be to allow us to bring troop strength in Iraq up to 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops, putting an American on every street corner if necessary in order to curb the violence.

But I don't think we'll do that. Americans are selfish and lazy. They only bought off on the Iraq war because Bush and company promised it would be cheap and easy. If we are not going to make any sacrifices to do the right thing in Iraq, we may as well leave tomorrow and close our eyes and ears to the carnage that will follow, because it's going to come sooner or later if we don't do something extreme to prevent it.

Hooray! Bolton Is Leaving

Glad to see that Bush and company will not try to get John Bolton confirmed by the Senate. He's gone when his recess appointment runs out. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. Why should someone who hates international law be our ambassador to the UN? We've had enough arrogance and hatred. Let's get somebody who will try to use the UN for whatever it can do.

Litvinenko's Jewish Connection

The Washington Post reports Russian allegations that poisoned KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko was connected to Boris Berezovsky, one of the most wealthy Russian billionaires, who now lives in Britain. The book The Oligarchs by David Hoffman says that Berezovsky, like imprisoned Yukos billionaire Mikhail Khordokovsky, was Jewish and suffered from anti-Semitic discrimation during his career as a scientist in Russia. An article in the British Independent newspaper reports that after he moved to Britain, Litvinenko "was quickly submerged into Berezovsky's circle of influential emigrés."

The same Independent article reports that Alex Goldfarb, who was seen being interviewed on several TV reports about Litvinenko, is a biochemist who is the director of a human rights group set up by Berezovsky in 2000. Goldfarb sounds pretty Jewish. Furthermore, the article states that public relations for Litvinenko were being handled by Lord Tim Bell, who handles public relations for Berezovsky (and Margaret Thather). While Tim Bell doesn't sound Jewish, he was a big shot at the Saatchi & Saatchi public relations firm, which was founded by Maurice Saatchi, a Jew born in Baghdad, Iraq, and a current member of the British Conservative Party's shadow government. After leaving Saatchi, Tim Bell founded his own public relations firm. He has recently been an adviser to Iraq on the promotion of democracy.

Impact of US Recognition of India's Nuclear Status

The Senate has passed legislation implementing the agreement reached by the Bush administration to legitimize India's nuclear program and allow nuclear cooperation. One the political side, it helps align India with US policy vis-a-vis China and possibly Iran One the non-proliferation side, it abandons the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which should penalize countries that develop nuclear weapons capability outside the international framework. The BBC reports that while there is strong bipartisan support for the agreement, there is also strong opposition from the non-proliferation community.

In related developments, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Israel may follow India's lead and have its nuclear program legitimized by making one of its facilities open to inspectors while retaining the secrecy of another as a military facility. Meanwhile, China and Pakistan are negotiating Chinese assistance to Pakistan's nuclear program, according to the Financial Times. This would be China's balance of power move to offset America's nuclear alliance with India.

Judith Miller's Bias

It never occurred to me until I read this recent article in the Washington Post that Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who went to prison to protect her sources, most of whom leaked information favorable to the Bush Administration, was Jewish. This posting by Alfred Lilienthal indicates that she is and that she was inclined to push an Israeli line in her reporting:

New York Times columnist Judith Miller has been known to direct her considerable reportorial skills to support the perceptions of some of her co-religionists in the US Jewish mainstream. It was she who printed Solarz's reference to a "Middle East Munich, " after having reported a change of mind by President Bush "in trying to cajole the man he had called 'Hitler revisited'." Her articles seldom ignore an opportunity to conjure up the Nazi spectre. Recently, she authored a lengthy book, One by One by One: Facing the Holocaust, based on interviews with European survivors of the Nazi horrors. Describing her book as not about the Holocaust, but "only how it is remembered, " Miller readily admits in her preface that "American Jews have a practical stake in keeping memory of the Holocaust alive, as a way of maintaining American support for Israel."

She apparently has a stake herself in incessantly pricking the Christian conscience so as to bring about what, for her and her newspaper, is the correct perspective toward the Middle East conflict. Undaunted by the prospect of a war in which thousands of Iraqis and her fellow Americans might die needlessly, she, like Kissinger and Solarz, is set on a violent solution. For her, no Holocaust would be good enough for Saddam Hussain or for the Palestinians!

Unfortunately, stuff like this reinforces my belief that the war in Iraq was a Jewish inspired war. In trying to find out more about this allegation, I also ran into reports (particularly this from the Jerusalem Post) that Lewis Libby, presumably her main source of information favorable to the Administration and the war in Iraq, is Jewish.

Adding Judith Miller and Lewis Libby to the mix that already includes Richard Perle, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and many other Jews, the Iraq war really begins to look like it was started by a Jewish conspiracy. But if Jews are so smart, why did they start a war that in the short to medium term appears to strengthen Israel's enemies? So far the main beneficiary of the war in Iraq is Iran. It's possible that if the internecine bloodletting among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds becomes more severe, it could make the whole Muslim world forget about Israel, or weaken them so much that they present less of a threat to Israel, but that seems like a big gamble.

Bush did not come in as a foreign policy President or a military leader. So, maybe for the Jewish hawks (or Vulcans) Iraq just presented itself as a target of opportunity after 9/11. Bush felt he needed to do something strong after 9/11, and he already wanted to one-up his father on Iraq by getting rid of Saddam, which his father had failed to do. Rove told him that wars are good for getting re-elected (which was true). The Bush 41-Saddam failure may have been the hook for the Jews' getting Bush 43 to invade Iraq, while there was no similar hook for Iran, although Iran may have posed a greater threat to both Israel and the US. That assumes, of course, that there was some real conspiracy or cabal, which there may not have been. But the vaunted influence of AIPAC and other American Jewish political groups and think tanks, which appear more prone to hawkish group-think than Israeli Jews, lends some credence to the idea.

The Washington Post article that prompted me to look into Judith Miller's background said:

Miller testified that she flew to Israel in 1993 after reading about Salah's arrest and contacted aides to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, whom she described as a longtime friend....

Defense attorneys repeatedly tried to portray her as biased in favor of Israel.

"Have you ever been used as a Mossad asset?" asked Salah's attorney, Michael Deutsch, referring to the Israeli intelligence service.

Miller said no.

Is Condi One of the Good Guys?

This article in the NYT gives the impression that Condi Rice and SecDef Rumsfeld were not able to work together, but maybe she and Defense nominee Bob Gates can. I think that's a false interpretation of history, although one that Condi would certainly like. As National Security Adviser she almost always took Rumsfeld's side against SecState Colin Powell. Now that she is all dovey at State, she would like everyone to think that she has always been one. But she was a vicious hawk at the NSC. Iraq is her baby as much as Rumsfeld's.

I'm pleased she has had a change of heart, but I worry that it's not genuine. She can tell which way the wind is blowing, and she's going along with it. When a little wisdom and backbone would have been important, two or three years ago, she didn't have it. It would be interesting to know what role she played in stabbing Rummy in the back. She certainly has turned out to be the survivor of the various Vulcans (named for her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama) in the administration. It's not because of how well she ran the foreign and defense policy of the US at the NSC, but rather how well she played the game of bureaucratic infighting. She has the blood of more than 100,000 dead Iraqis on her hands, not to mention that of more than 2,000 US troops.

Jews Not Monolithic

Because of my concern about Jews role in instigating the Iraq war, I may have been too hard on Jews in general. My main concern is for Republican Jews, e.g., William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. I worry that they are more loyal to Israel than to the US. They think they are loyal to the US, because they think that Israel's interests and America's interests are identical, but I don't think they are.

Democratic Jews, Robert Rubin, George Soros, for example, have been a force for good. So, maybe it's more important whether they are Democrats or Republicans, rather than whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Rubin did a good job as Treasury Secretary under Clinton. I expect that Henry Paulson, a Gentile, will also do a good job, but he takes over after a poor job by Snow, and in the face of poor economic policies, e.g., huge deficits and unwarranted tax cuts for the very rich, carried out for years by this administration.

Rumsfeld Defender Is Prominent Jew

The PBS Newshour had a discussion of Rumsfeld's tenure as Defense Secretary on Thursday night. The two discussants were Dov Zakheim and Lawrence Korb. Dov Zakheim, who was comptroller of the Pentagon, is also a Jewish rabbi. Interestingly, when you search for Rabbi Zakheim on Yahoo or Google, links come up to his Wikipedia entry, so that at some time the entry contained the word "rabbi," but when you look at the entry now, it no longer contains the word. So, somebody has taken "rabbi" out. But Aljazeera and some other web sites devoted to worrying about Jews in government, like me I suppose, also have it. According to the latter web site, he is a dual Israeli-American citizen; so, how did he get the security clearances necessary to work at such a high level in the Pentagon?

Anyway, my point is that the Rumsfeld Pentagon has been so dominated by Jews that the best person PBS could find to defend him was Zakheim, an Israeli rabbi. Couldn't they find a Protestant American to defend him, since Rumsfeld is, as far as I know, a Protestant American? I am concerned that Rumsfeld just turned the Pentagon over to Israeli interests (Perle, Wolfowitz and company), who started the war in Iraq to help secure Israel and sent a bunch of Christian soldiers to fight it. Now that it may have actually decreased Israeli security, Perle, Adelman and company are distancing themselves from the war in the upcoming Vanity Fair.

MTCR White Paper

This is a background paper on the MTCR, which interests me since I used to work on the MTCR, and was one of the creators of it (maybe in the same sense that Al Gore created the Internet). Anyway, when you go back to the 1980s and the early 90s, I was there, for better or worse. It would have been a better agreement if not for the opposition of Richard Perle's offices. But since it is about the only non-proliferation agreement around covering missiles, it's still in use.

Neocon Regrets

In the new issue of Vanity Fair, several neocons come out with their regrets about the war in Iraq and their contempt for George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Interestingly all the neocons interviewed appear to be Jewish, except perhaps for Frank Gaffney, an acolyte of Perle's, who apparently writes a weekly column for Jewish World Review.

This appears to be an example of, "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." I find it particularly galling, that the person most responsible for the Iraq debacle, Paul Wolfowitz, goes on leading the World Bank. This is much better for him than the Presidential medals that his colleagues Tenet, Franks, and Bremer got, while he deserves much worse.

In a way, I feel sorry for Bush, because he is such a midget in the job of President. He has neither the education nor the moral character for the job. If he is not stupid, then he is lazy, which is worse. However, he didn't want to the war on terror President, he wanted to be the education president or the tax-cut president. The first real war he ran into, Vietnam, he ran from. We should not have a coward leading America when it is attacked by anybody.

Of course, I don't really believe that there is a "war" on terror, any more than there is or was a "war" on poverty or a "war" against organized crime. We did start a war against Iraq, and we appear to be losing it.

We'll see what happens in tomorrow's elections. While it may be something of a referendum on the war, it does not allow people to vote on those who might be the best leaders to get us out of the war -- Chuck Hegel, John McCain, Joe Biden, John Warner. We don't need a plan so much as we need intelligent, courageous, well intentioned, patriotic leaders. They are sadly lacking in this our hour of need. Of course, Iraq is a little war, and we can walk away from it without too much loss to the US, although it will have been devastating for Iraq.

Draft Congress

This Rosa Brooks column in the LA Times straightens out some details about where our troops in Iraq come from. I may have been too pessimistic about their educational status. She says almost almost all are high school graduates, although this is not too great a recommendation in these days of poor high schools. Furthermore, she says most come from families with more than average income, but that there is an almost complete cutoff at $60,000. None come from families with incomes of more than $60,000. And although many, mainly officers, have college educations, almost none come from elite universities, like Harvard.

As a draftee in the Vietnam war, I think a cross-section is important to the military. It would help prevent torture, and other evils sometimes committed by today's troops who come from less advantaged backgrounds. Of course, this administration encourages them to torture, but now torture is delegated mainly to CIA agents, who are probably even better educated than military troops.

I am hoping that this election will be something of a political earthquake that will return us to traditional American values. I would be very pleased to see Rumsfeld go. For one thing, Rumsfeld hates the troops. He loves Star Wars missiles and stuff like that, and he likes special forces troops, but hates regular GIs, who bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq and almost every other war.

Rumsfeld's Surrender

In hindsight, SecDef Rumsfeld surrendered to the Iraq insurrection way back, when just after the US reached Baghdad and the looting started, he said "Stuff happens." That was the beginning of the end. The US should have cracked down right then, hard. Our failure to do so was a sign of weakness that led us to the morass we are in today.

When we heard about what was going on then -- looting antiquities, burning files in ministries, stealing office equipment -- it didn't sound right. The invasion should have been accompanied by law and order. Instead, law and order broke down right away. And it's only been getting worse since then. What was anybody in power thinking when that happened? We were supposed to be introducing democracy. Democracy doesn't look like anarchy. The generals, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, they all should have known that something was wrong. The mission had not been accomplished.

Are US Troops Top Notch? Send the Bush Girls!

Kerry is trying to back away from his remarks about the educational level of US troops, according to the Washington Post. Kerry claims he was talking about Bush's poor education, not the troops, but Bush had a good education -- boarding school, Yale, Harvard MBA. Either he is stupid and graduated because of his family connections, or he's not stupid, but acts like he is. On the other hand, because of difficulty filling the ranks, the Pentagon continually reduces the standards for accepting new recruits.

The poor educational and cultural level of the troops is no doubt linked to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and the various murders and rapes that are being investigated. We have the best troops that our trailer parks and Wal Mart customers can supply.

If Bush thinks the war in Iraq is so crucial to US survival, why haven't his own daughters joined one of the services and gone to Iraq? If that's the highest calling there is, as he claims, why shouldn't they go? He can't even convince them that the war is important.

Jews Suppress Debate of Jewish Lobby Pressure on US

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), under ADL president Abe Foxman, has blocked debate of the extent to which the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC) influences US foreign policy, according to the New York Review of Books. The ADL pressured the Polish Consulate in New York to withdraw its permission to hold the debate on the Consulate's premises.

The letter of protest in the NY Review is signed by many people, a number of whom appear to be Jews. So, many Jews are on the correct side of this issue, and might be accused of anti-Semitism for permitting criticism of Israel. Jews are individuals just like everyone else. But the question remains: Are we engaged in a horrible war in Iraq because of the Jewish Lobby?

MIT Worries about War in Space

MIT's Technology Review worries about America's proclivity for war in space. The idea has been around a while, as I noted earlier.

Jews Behind War in Iraq

According to the LA Times, the Karen DeYoung biography of Colin Powell says that he was upset at the role of Jews in starting the Iraq war. The LA Times review says:

There is one bit of malice at work in the Powell-DeYoung version of these now familiar events that should not pass unremarked upon. According to the author, the then-secretary went out of his way to identify the pro-war neoconservatives as affiliates of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think-tank with decidedly hard-line views on Israel's security. "Powell referred to Rumsfeld's team as the 'JINSA crowd.' " Later in "Soldier," readers are told that the neoconservatives in the Defense Department --— nearly all of them Jews -- supported war against Iraq as the first step to replacing Arab despots with democratic governments that would sever their ties to the Palestinians, thereby enhancing Israel's security. In explaining why he did not resign over his profound differences with the White House, Powell cited the example of Gen. George C. Marshall, who refused to quit as secretary of State even though he opposed President Truman's recognition of Israel as a quest for "Jewish votes."

The problem for Jews is Israel. Jews would be loyal to America if they didn't feel like they owned a firsallegiancece to Israel. Not all Jews do put Israel first, but many do, which makes them all suspect. This book reviewer is naive in believing that it is somehow racist to identify Jews as being the main force behind the Iraq war. It's like saying (as many people do) that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. He should read the paper on the influence of the Jewish Lobby in America.

Of course, the main people behind the war were Bush and Cheney, but Cheney is a madman, and Bush is an idiot. The Jews took advantage of this vacuum in the remnants of the Anglo power structure to start their own war.

War in Space

When I went as an ACDA officer under Reagan and Ken Adelman to a UN meeting on space law about 25 years ago, our delegation's marching orders were to avoid anything that would restrict or prevent the US from any type of military use of space. According to this article in the Washington Post, nothing much has changed. That was the same job in which I had to write an arms control impact statement on space for the year in which Reagan announced the Star Wars initiative. From what I was allowed to write -- censored drastically by Richard Perle and his minions at the Pentagon -- you would have thought that Star Wars had almost no effect on space arms control.

All Holocaust All the Time 6

I've never understood why it is a good idea to criminalize denial of the Holocaust, although there have been several high visibility trials in Germany. Anyway, France's decision to criminalize denial of Armenian genocide emphasizes the problems with such limitations on speech. This NYT editorial recognizes the free speech problem, but makes an exception for the Holocaust.

North Korean Framework Agreement Was Not Worthless

This op-ed in the NYT explains that the nuclear framework agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration worked to put a cap on North Korea's plutonium production. It was not worthless as the Bush administration claimed. It was less than perfect, but Bush replaced something with nothing.

North Korea Nuclear Test

This article from the New Scientist explains the difficulties in evaluating an underground nuclear test like North Korea's. So far, it seems as if the test was less than completely successful, but if there was any nuclear component to the explosion, it is confirmation that the North Koreans have achieved one of the most difficult elements of the process of building an atomic bomb, separating out the plutonium.

A bomb made of enriched plutonium is easier to build and explode, but the uranium is harder to produce. Plutonium is not easy, because it is made from the highly radioactive waste products of a nuclear reactor. But the reactor and the separation facilities are easier to build than the temperamental centrifuges or very energy intensive processes needed to produce highly enriched uranium.

So, if the North Koreans have produced enough plutonium to use some to test a nuclear explosive device, then they are well along in the process, even if they don't have a deliverable bomb. It is possible that some of the Pakistani nuclear tests were also less than 100% successful.

The fact that North Korea has reached this level, whatever it turns out to be exactly, is a grave indictment of Bush's nuclear non-proliferation policy. The Clinton administration had an agreement in place the capped North Korea's plutonium production capability. When some evidence turned up that North Korea was working on uranium enrichment, we (the US) threw as hissy fit, and abandoned the cap on plutonium. So, now North Korea is close to having a plutonium bomb, although there is no indication that they are making much, if any, progress on a uranium bomb. We threw out the baby with the bathwater, and now we will reap the whirlwind, to mix some metaphors. The incompetent architect of this policy is UN Amb. John Bolton, who was Under Secretary of State for non-proliferation for years before he went to the UN.

This is a failure for which the administration should be pilloried. It was unnecessary and shows gross incompetence. It was brought to you by the same incompetents who brought you the Iraq war. We are less safe, but we didn't need to be. Abandoning the Clinton initiatives has brought us closer to nuclear war in Asia, which could spread to the US. Or, North Korea, which tends to sell anything it has on the black market, may sell nuclear weapons, or perhaps just components to terrorists or to other rogue regimes.