Why Don't Republicans Support the Troops

If the Republicans really cared about our troops in Iraq they would get them some help, not just send the same troops back to Iraq again and again. No doubt a lot of the troops believe in what they are doing in Iraq, but I doubt that many of them want to do it 52 weeks a year, year in and year out. They want and deserve a break. But with the current Army and Marine Corps, there are not enough of them to hold down Iraq and have sufficient stateside downtime. Actually there are not enough of them to hold down Iraq as it is; that's why Iraq is descending into chaos and anarchy. We ought to have 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops there for a while, maybe a year, to re-establish order.

It's clear now that we lost the war when we allowed looting to break out after the US troops first took Baghdad. Ministries were destroyed; key records were lost; key personnel disappeared; archaeological treasures were stolen. The country was disintegrating before our eyes, and we did nothing. Now we reap what we sowed then.

So, if we're serious about Iraq, we must re-establish the draft. But I don't think we are serious; so, if not, then it's time to leave. We can try to leave gracefully and leave as many Iraqi police and army troops in place as possible, but it's likely to be a bloodbath.

As an American, I feel awful every time I see or read about a suicide bombing, or a beheading, or an assassination. As Colin Powell told Bush, the Pottery Barn principle applies, "If you break, it you bought it." We bought it big time. Terrible things happened before we invaded, but then it was Saddam Hussein's fault; now it's our fault. We are not murdering too many people (although a few according to press reports), but we are failing to maintain order and a civil society. George Bush blames Maliki, but Bush is responsible. It's his war. He failed. America failed. Why would he start a war, and then lose it? It's total incompetence and cowardice.

Iranian Invasion When We Pull Out of Iraq

One possibility, of many, is that when the US leaves Iraq, Iran will step in and annex Iraq either formally or de facto. Iran and Iraq have already fought a bitter war in which Iraq used chemical weapons and we, under Reagan's guidance, sided with Saddam Hussein. If Iraq descends into chaos after we leave, can we expect Iran to keep hands off? If the Shiites are unquestionably in power when we leave, Iran might stay out. On the other hand, if there is the least chance of the Sunnis taking over again, why should Iran risk it. It would be foolish for Iran to take that risk. The US intervened strongly in Central America during Reagan's presidency when we thought the Communists were coming to power there. There is likely to be an Iranian Ollie North who will push for invasion, maybe using some weapons supplied by the real Ollie North.

Should that possibility keep us from leaving? Maybe, but only if staying could change that outcome. If staying just keeps the lid on anarchy until we finally leave, what's the point? Iran could take over in 2008 or 2010 or 2020; it still takes over. We could hope for some kind of revolution in Iran, but it's unlikely to happen.


I think that we need to beef up the troops and re-establish order in Iraq, but Bush and the Republicans are too cowardly to do it. They won't re-establish the draft, which would be the only way to raise a sufficient number of troops to do the job. They'll just keep sending the same troops over there again and again for longer and longer tours with shorter and shorter stateside tours.

New Gilded Age and the Military

The New York Times says this is the new gilded age, and it looks like it is. The are a lot of similarities to the beginning of the 20th century. Why didn't the US move into a new gilded age after World War II. Financially we were in even better shape than we are today, because almost every other industrialized country around the world was in shambles. The article asks why now instead of the 1960s or 1970s. One answer that keeps coming up is changes in regulatory and tax structure. Taxes today are lower; Glass-Steagall was removed from the books, allowing nationwide banking, etc.

Something the article doesn't mention is World War II. WW II is so far unique in our history in pulling the country together. Unlike Vietnam and Iraq, almost everybody served in the military and fought. Men from the upper classes and the Ivy League spent years with men from the farms and factories. There was a brotherhood and a sense of shared responsibility. Today there is none of that. The privileged classes don't fight in Iraq. There is less social mobility within American society.

After WW II men who served as officers and returned to run the business world felt a kinship for and obligation toward the less fortunate enlisted men they had fought with. Some of the elite, rather than going into business, went into politics and ended up passing some of the laws leveling American society, making taxes more progressing, limiting monopolistic practices, etc., the kinds of things that have been undone in the last 20 years.

While these men ran America, we had a somewhat golden (as opposed gilded) age where management and labor worked more or less together to make life better for everyone. Today there is very little of that. The head of FedEx is a Vietnam veteran, and while Vietnam was a very different war, FedEx probably espouses more social responsibility than most other corporations whose managers only know the brotherhood of business school at Harvard or some other elite university.

Checking Wikipedia for military service by some big business names, I found:

• Bill Gates (Microsoft) - No service
• Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) - No service
• Sandy Weill (Citicorp) - Did Air Force ROTC; wanted to be a pilot, but apparently could not qualify and did not serve in the active military.
• Leo Hindery (AT&T) - No mention of service, but less than complete biographies.
• Sumner Redstone (Viacom) - Worked in the predecessor to NSA during WW II.
• Kenneth Griffin (Citadel hedge fund) - No mention of military service; sounds like he went straight from Harvard into managing hedge funds.
• Lew Frankfort (Coach) - No mention of military service in Business Week bio.
• Sheldon Adelson (Gambling/Las Vegas) - No mention of service in Forbes bio.
• Larry Ellison (Oracle) - No mention of service in Forbes bio.
• Paul Allen (Microsoft) - No mention of service in Forbes.
• Jim Walton (Wal-Mart) - No mention of service in Forbes.
• Robson Walton (Wal-Mart) - No mention of service.
• Sergay Brin (Google) - No mention of service.
• Larry Page (Google) - No mention of service
• Michael Dell (Dell) - No mention of service.
• Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) - No mention of service.

Enough!

Condi Rice Is Paris Hilton of State Department

Condi Rice is supposed to be a foreign policy professional, but things have gone to hell in hand basket on her watch as Secretary of State. Arguably things have not gone as badly 0n her watch as they did on Colin Powell's. We haven't gotten into any new wars. We've reached an agreement with North Korea on nuclear issues, rather than breaching one. But Condi was in the White House fighting against Colin Powell on these issues during Bush's first term.

Condi has turned out to be a light weight when it comes to foreign policy. She basically lets herself be pushed around by whomever she's with. At the White House, it was the war mongering neo-cons, and she backed them. Now, at State, she to her credit is taking a more statesman-like position, but due to the people around her, not to any good sense of her own.

She dresses nicely and is telegenic, but like Paris Hilton, there's not much "there" there, unlike Robert Gates who appears to be personally moving the Defense Department in a more reasonable direction.

Military Service Unimportant in Election

Reuters reports that few of the candidates for President have served in the military, and says that is no problem, because the general populace also has avoided serving and doesn't care about military service. All people care about today is money, not service. That's reflected in the makeup of the candidates, most of whom are millionaires, or billionaires, if you include Bloomberg.

This country has changed a lot. I think it's sad, but maybe when history looks back on it, it won't be so bad. Who it is bad for are the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This report shows more clearly that average Americans won't fight for their country. They let somebody else, probably somebody poorer who needs the money, do it. Families of New Yorkers in particular got millions from the government if they were killed in 9/11; now they party and profit from the stock market, while their poorer fellow citizens from southern and western states that New Yorkers spit on, die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Families of soldiers who die in combat, and families of victims killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, have gotten nothing close to the millions that New Yorkers got for 9/11.

US Not Serious about Iraq

The Washington Post article about the unwillingness of the government to staff the embassy in Baghdad adequately is to me the nail in the coffin for the future of Iraq. The US just does not care enough to try hard to win the war in Iraq. They send Crocker to be Ambassador and then they don't support him. Instead, when he gives his best judgment of what the embassy needs, he gets characterized as a panicky crybaby. What he is asking for is does not sound ideal for the State Department; it sounds like every Arabist and Arab speaker would be in Iraq, putting a hardship on other posts in the Middle East, but hey, is this a war we want to win or not? Not, apparently.

It convinces me that America got the government it deserved, a bunch of cowardly, inept, greedy SOBs. The best and the brightest declined to serve in Vietnam, as George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney did. Al Gore went to Vietnam, and had the election stolen from him as a reward. Now the best and the brightest refuse to go to Iraq. Hey, they can stay here and make billions in the hedge fund or private equity business. Look at Mitt Romney; he didn't serve in the military (apparently his Mormon missionary service exempted him), and when he made his millions in private equity, he avoided a large share of his taxes by taking much of his income as capital gains rather than salary, unlike the families of the ordinary people who died in his place in Vietnam, and now in Iraq.

This is a government that knows how to make OTHER people sacrifice, and like it. However, whatever they have been doing is now working in Iraq. It's a huge mess, but they will just walk away from it. The Republicans who are so concerned about saving babies from abortion are responsible for the deaths of many more thousands of babies in Iraq. They don't care, as long as they get their money.

Wall Street Despises Troops

I am increasingly upset that Wall Street's bull rally continues to set new records, while US military deaths in Iraq continue to set new records. Does Wall Street know we are fighting a war and losing? Do stocks keep going up because the war is irrelevant? Because they are confident that we will soon be leaving Iraq? Because they think we are going to win? I don't get it. Losing a war is bad for a country, but apparently not bad for Wall Street.

The odd thing is that according to George Bush, the boys and girls in Iraq are fighting for them. Bush says this war is in response to Saddam Hussein's attacking the World Trade Center in the New York City financial district. These soldiers are dying to get revenge for the deaths of New Yorkers, and New Yorkers don't give a damn. Of course, neither does Bush, the US Congress, or the American people in general. The soldiers and their families care, but in general the soldiers need the money and don't have other options, or they would probably be out of there, too.

Maybe those rich Wall Streeters could do something about providing jobs for soldiers leaving the military. They they wouldn't have to keep fighting in Iraq until they die.

Hooray for Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter's criticism of President Bush was completely justified, even if he toned down some of it later, as the Washington Post reports. Maybe it's debatable whether Bush is the worst president ever, but he is certainly one of the worst ones.

With all his talk about fighting the war in Iraq or the war on terror, Bush is a coward. He dodged the draft during Vietnam, and when the US was attacked on 9/11 he went missing. He quit reading My Pet Goat and started flying around the country, to Louisana, Nebraska, and who knows where else. A real man would have returned to Washington, stepped before the TV cameras and said "I'm in charge; I will protect you." He showed up in New York several days later and did the PR thing long after the all clear had sounded.

His position on the Iraq war was, "I'm right, and everybody else (the UN, old Europe, etc.) is wrong." It turned out that Bush was wrong. There were no WMD; we were not greeted as liberators. What really irks me is that Bush did not attempt to be polite or work with other countries. He basically stuck his finger in the eye of anybody who didn't agree with him. So, he and Tony Blair went to war together with a few token troops from some little countries trying to curry favor with the US for whatever reason, in most cases having nothing to do with the war on terror.

In the process, Bush turned his back on US (and British) legal protections like habeas corpus, and instituted torture as an instrument of the US government. He turned the US into one of those outlaw states that we had criticized for the last 50 years. Why? Because he was scared. Many bullies are cowards, and Bush seems to belong to that group. He's a bad, bad man.

Diego Garcia Cigar

The BBC is reporting that US occupation of the island of Diego Garcia is being challenged in British courts. I remember when the US was planning to set up a base on Diego Garcia and sent a cable to all embassies around the world asking what their host governments thought of Diego Garcia. In a classic cable, one of the embassies replied that its government thought Diego Garcia was a cigar.

Lt. Col. Accuses Generals of Failure in Iraq

The Washington Post reports that a scathing attack on military leadership in Iraq will be published in the Armed Forces Journal. This is what happens when you have a war started by two cowardly Vietnam War draft dodgers, Bush and Cheney, who pick yes-men as their generals. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs Myers and Pace were picked by Rumsfeld because they did as they were told and did not talk back. And look what they got us into! The one general who was brave enough to speak his mind, Shinseki, got fired for his efforts.

Ironically, the author of the article, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, got a masters degree from the University of Chicago, the home of the neo-cons.

Russia, Neo-Cons and Jews

Chrystia Freeland writes in the Financial Times today that Russia needs the neo-cons, because it needs someone to help fight for its liberty, but that the neo-cons have been reigned in by their failures in Iraq. Then she goes on to say, "Most damaging [in Russia] was the creation of the oligarchs - an act based partly on an extreme, Chicago-school-inspired faith in the power of private ownership, no matter who the owner was or how the property was acquired." What she doesn't say is that most of the neo-cons were Jews, and that most of the Russian oligarchs were Jews. Furthermore, many of the neo-cons came out of the University of Chicago, where they studied politics under Leo Strauss, rather than economics under Milton Friedman. I think it's a good thing for the US and Russia that the neo-cons' wings have been clipped. Democracy is in much better shape in Europe than in America, where George Bush is following some sort of Stalinist model embracing torture, restrictions on civil liberties, and other un-American attacks on the Constitution; let Europe help the Russians.

Greedy Bush

I've had it with Bush. I now believe that Bush and Cheney were put into the job by the "powers that be" to reduce taxes and otherwise make it easy on the rich. I don't really know who the "powers that be" are, but they are rich. There is a columnist in the Denver Post, Ed Quillen, who writes humorously about the "Committee that Really Runs America," which is I'm sure connected to the "powers that be."

Bush's job was to reduce taxes and give government subsidies to the rich who elected him. He got thrown off his agenda, however, when the terrorists attacked the US. As a cowardly draft dodger, responding to terrorists was not in his nature. So, he and Cheney, on the advice of a bunch of Jews at the upper levels of the administration, decided to invade Iraq to show how brave and resolute they were. The problem was that they were neither brave nor resolute and walked into a giant tar pit that threatens to keep America mired in combat for years.

Meanwhile, though, they have continued to carry out the task for which they were elected (or almost elected and then selected by the Supreme Court, which also usually answers to the "powers that be"). So, there is no sacrifice called for to support the war in Iraq, because Bush was elected to reduce sacrifice, not increase it. He has betrayed America for money. I think a lot of it is Jew money, but who knows. Certainly a lot of it is gentile money -- the Wal-Mart and Mars candy people, who want to get rid of the estate tax, for example. A lot of the gentile money, however, does not support this effort -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and a lot of old money, like the Rockefellers, for example. Some Jews don't either, like George Soros and some of the other big Jewish contributors to the Democratic party.

But George Bush has stuck to his guns, giving tax cuts despite the terrorist attacks, and America is the worse for it. I'm sure that Bush expects in return to be cared for by these fat cats for the rest of his life, but it seems like you don't really have to sell your soul for money after being President. Clinton and Bush I have made plenty of money from speaking engagements, and Bush II could, too. Maybe he is worried that he is so stupid that even the fat cats wouldn't pay to hear him speak. Basically, as President he only speaks to people in uniform who are ordered to go listen to him, and they don't make much money.

Bush's Hypocrisy

Bush is going to call up more National Guard troops and send them back to Iraq. The hypocrisy in doing this is so gross that it's almost unbearable.

Bush, in theory, was in the National Guard. For him, during the Vietnam War, it was his hiding hole, like the one he found Saddam Hussein in. It kept him out of combat. Now he, as commander in chief, takes people in the same position he was and instead of exempting them, sends them into combat. It's so unfair that it boggles the mind.

It really rankles me as a Vietnam veteran who was in effect drafted, although not actually, because once I became 1-A under the draft, I volunteered, rather than wait to be drafted.

Bush's partner in crime is Dick Cheney, who also avoided the draft. And what about most of the Republican candidates. Except for John McCain, did they serve? Particularly what about Rudy Giuliani, who is running on his heroism on 9/11? Was he heroic during the Vietnam War? And what about the veteran who ran last time? John Kerry may not have been the best candidate, but he did not deserve to be Swift-boated and dragged through the mud because he actually served in Vietnam.

This country hates its veterans. The current Iraq veterans will find this out in a few years, after this war is over one way or another. John McCain has not experienced this because he came back as a POW under extraordinary circumstances, and gets a lot of bowing and scraping now because he is a Senator. Chuck Hagel seems more like a real veteran, a fact that will probably be used against him if he ever really gets into the public spotlight.

Impact of Paliament Blast in Iraq

The blast in the Iraqi Parliament building inside the Green Zone in Baghdad was intended to be a propaganda blow against the US, and it was. So much for George Bush's surge, and for John McCain's run for President. I'm also surprised that the stock market went up after the blast. Clearly New Yorkers have forgotten about 9/11 and don't care about the American troops threatened daily in Iraq, much less about the poor Iraqis who have suffered many more casualties than New Yorkers did on 9/11 or since. They don't care! New Yorkers got their millions from the government after 9/11, unlike the Oklahoma City victims. And what about the Iraqis? They can't even get visas for the US when they are threatened with death because they helped Americans in some way.

Holocaust Survivor Favors Starving Children

A story in the New York Times about the US slowing delivery of food aid, reverses the usual cast of characters. Republican President Bush wants to liberalize laws regarding food aid to allow purchasing food overseas near where it would be delivered. Democratic Holocaust survivor Congressman Tom Lantos opposes the idea. He wants to retain the current system in which all food aid comes from the US and is delivered by US carriers. If we continue to use Lantos' old, slow way, the Times article says tens or hundreds of thousands of children in Africa may die.

Wolfowitz Problems at World Bank

According to the Financial Times, Paul Wolfowitz is being criticized by World Bank officials for his handling of his "partner's" job at the World Bank. It's not explained, but apparently Shaha Riza is living with him, but not married to him. When he took over the World Bank, she could not work under his supervision and thus was seconded to the State Department, where she works for Dick Cheney's daughter. Reports are that Wolfowitz influenced her getting a promotion and raise at the World Bank.

Maybe he'll get canned, but it's unlikely until Bush gets the boot in the next US election. Scandal couldn't happen to a more deserving person -- the failed architect of the Iraq war, the butcher of Baghdad!

Jews Profit from Holocaust

The NYT reports that Israel Singer, the head of the World Jewish Congress, which got billions for Holocaust victims, improperly used money from the fund for his personal benefit. The Jews tell everybody else that they have to fall down and worship the Holocaust and speak of it only in hushed whispers, but for the Jews themselves its just a big moneymaker, a way to shake down the gentiles. While what Singer did was apparently illegal, or improper if not illegal, many Jews have benefited in less questionable ways. As I've said before, Jewish lawyers for Holocaust reparations have taken huge fees, Jewish big shots who headed up these groups (Former Secretary of State Eagleburger) have taken huge fees, etc.

I can't find anything on the Internet that says Eagleburger is Jewish, either ethnically or religiously, but he certainly seems to be with his close connections to Kissinger, his appointment as one of the chief Holocaust restitution bosses, etc.

Is There a Correction in Our Future?

The New York Times and the Financial Times have both warned recently of a possible stock market (and economic?) correction in our future.

The NYT said on March 24, "Investors who fail to take a hard look at the vulnerability of the American economy are courting tremendous risk. The fact that after years of profligacy the federal government is fiscally ill prepared to respond to a destabilizing downturn only increases those risks."

William Rhodes, CEO of Citibank, wrote in the Financial Times on March 29:

The low spreads, the tremendous build-up of liquidity, the reach for yield and the lack of differentiation among borrowers have stimulated both dynamic growth and some real concerns....

As lenders and investors inevitably become more discriminating, liquidity will recede and a number of problems will surface....

I believe that over the next 12 months a market correction will occur and this time it will be a real correction....

Today, hedge funds, private equity and those involved in credit derivatives play important, and as yet largely untested, roles. The primary worry of many who make or regulate the market is not inflation or growth or interest rates, but instead the coming adjustment and the possible destabilising effect these new players could have on the functioning of international markets as liquidity recedes. It is also possible that they could provide relief for markets that face shortages of liquidity.

Either way, this clearly is the time to exercise greater prudence in lending and in investing and to resist any temptation to relax standards.

My own view of what's going on is that interest rates price both inflation and risk. When inflation was higher and interest rates were higher, they more or less incorporated the risk factor, i.e., it was relatively small in comparison to the inflation factor. As inflation fell and interest rates fell with it, the risk portion shrank in tandem. However, if anything the risk has been going up, not down, as hedge funds, private equity, and derivatives have played a more and more important role. In addition, the entry into the world economy of new major players such as China and India, who have kept inflation artificially low by depressing wage costs, has also kept the risk factor artificially low while actually increasing risk.

As Rhodes said, someday investors will begin to notice this underpricing of risk, maybe not until something happens to highlight the risk factor. The sub-prime mortgage sector is probably not big enough in itself to do this, but if some other bump comes along while sub-primes are still a problem, that might do it.

Politically, it should be noted that while interest rates have fallen for big investors, they have risen for small consumers. In addition to the sub-prime mortgage scandal, which came to light because the interest rates on these mortgages increased dramatically, credit card issuers are raising rates far above the prime rates they charge wealthy individuals, as well as adding all kinds of fees and penalties. This doesn't represent risk pricing so much as it does hucksterism and usury. Lenders are taking advantage of people who have gotten themselves in trouble by borrowing too much. This is illustrated by the fact that people in credit trouble often get more offers from lenders ("loan sharks," even if they are big, fancy banks) than people with good credit histories.

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.