Will Israel Take Bush Down the Tubes?

Maybe joining itself at the hip with Israel will finally begin to work against the Bush administration. This article in the WP indicates it may, as does this article from the Christian Science Monitor. An article in yesterday's NYT, however, indicated that the confrontation may have some downsides for Iran, which would be a plus for Bush. In general, though, it looks like Iran is winning the battle for hearts and minds around the world. Bush is responsible for this, mainly by having poked his finger in everybody's eye around the world for the last five or six years, then by invading Iraq on false pretenses, and now by supporting Israel no matter what atrocities Israel commits.

It's true that Hezbollah is worse than Israel in terms of how it is fighting the war, but Israel is supposed to be a civilized country like the US, while Hezbollah gets a pass because it's a known terrorist group; so, everybody expects it to act like a terrorist group. People do not, and should not, expect the US and Israel to act like terrorists, although they have done so in Iraq and Lebanon. The US needs to return to its former law abiding self, and begin to treat Israel as it treats other countries.

Of course, the US position in support of Israel points out the fact that the administration has sold itself to big Jewish contributors, to AIPAC, and to evangelicals looking for the Rapture, who are poorer but vote in larger numbers for Republicans than rich Jews.

Would the Mid-East Be Different Without Israel?

Israel seems to be the focus of unrest in the Mid-East, as the Jewish state in midst of a sea of Arab and Muslim states. If it weren't there would the Middle East be calmer? Of course, we don't know, but probably not. Zionist Jews were fighting for the creation of the state of Israel for decades before it was created by the UN after World War II. Jews introduced terrorist tactics into the Middle East with the Stern Gang and other Jewish terrorist organizations. Their terrorism was mainly directed at Britain as the colonial power ruling the Palestine mandate. But Jewish terrorists were also responsible for killing the first UN envoy after the creation of the UN and Israel, because they so violently opposed his mission of looking into the possibility of a right of return for Arabs evicted from Israel.

If Israel had not been created, Jews would still be fighting in Palestine for the creation of a Jewish homeland. However, they would probably be the aggressors attacking Arab states instead of the current situation where Arabs attack the Jewish state created from formerly Arab land. But the fight long predated the creation of Israel and would no doubt be going on now because both groups want the same piece of land.

However, the Jews in the Middle East would probably not have nuclear weapons, F-16s with laser guided missiles, and other US supplied weapons if Israel did not exist.

Who Are We Supporting in Israel?

Why is the US more supportive of Israel than any other nation in the world? I feel like I am going to be called anti-Semitic for my concerns about Jewish influence on American foreign policy, but it is a problem. The article by Mearsheimer and Walt shows that my concerns are not unique.

There are at least three main kinds of Jews with differing views on Israel and American foreign policy. First there are the religious Jews, most of whom are also ethnic or racial Jews. Of course, they fall into different categories, too, from orthodox to reform. The closer they are to Orthodox, probably the more strongly Jews support Israel. Then there are secular Jews, Jews by race or ethnicity who are not religious. I understand that many of the Jews in Israel are secular Jews, although many others, particularly in the occupied territories are very religious. Finally there are the Zionists, Jews of all backgrounds who strongly support Israel.

Israel confuses the whole Jewish issue and the anti-Semitism argument. If you don't like Israel, many Jews take that as meaning that you don't like Jews, when that is not the case. When we lived in Poland, I thought Poland did a good job in discriminating between the Nazis and the Germans. They may not have been totally successful, but they tried to direct their dislike at the Nazis, rather than at all Germans. It should be possible to dislike or disapprove of a state, in particular because of its government and rulers, without disliking or disapproving of all the people who live there.

So, Jews who take disapproval of Israel as disapproval of all Jews take that weight on themselves. If that were true, it would mean that all Jews are loyal to Israel first, and then to whatever country they happen to live in, e.g., the U.S. I don't believe that all Jews are disloyal Americans, but rabid Zionists would have us believe that they are.

No Arafat

One player missing from the current Middle East crisis is Arafat. Israel and the US couldn't wait to be rid of him. Israel kept him prisoner in his office for the last few years of his life, which may have shortened his life. But he could control the Palestinians better than anyone else when he wanted to. Abbas is not his successor. Although he holds the same position, he doesn't have the same power. If he were around there would be someone meaningful to negotiate with, although Bush and Olmert wouldn't talk to him.

Leo Strauss and the Neo-Cons

A recent New York Times Book Review article on a new book about Leo Strauss says that his conservative disciples who promoted the Iraq war as members of the Bush administration do not reflect his thinking. His neo-con disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, among others. (Perle has recently written an op-ed for the Washington Post and conducted an on-line discussion.)

They were among the most outspoken advocates of war with Iraq and had enormous power because they held important government positions or because they were well connected politically with senior administration officials. I don't know enough about Strauss' political philosophy to argue the point of whether he would have favored invading Iraq or not, but there is one element of his background in the review that is connected to Iraq: Strauss' embrace of Zionism. It may not be an accident that his disciples who were most ardent in arguing for war with Iraq were also Jewish. Perhaps the main thing they took from him that influenced their feelings about Iraq was his Zionism, rather than his political philosophy. Israel was a big promoter of the war with Iraq, just as it is now a big promoter of war with Iran. (While Israel is trying to get the US to go to war with Iran, it is engaged in its own war with Lebanon.)

Was it the Zionism of the influential Jews in the administration -- learned from or reinforced by Strauss -- which led them to lead the charge for war with Iraq? We'll probably never know, but it could well be. There certainly seems to be some link between Leo Strauss and the war.

Rich Get Richer

All of the papers, including the NYT, report a rise in tax revenues that will reduce the budget deficit. It looks like the wealthy are getting wealthier.

The NYT reports:

Corporate tax payments are expected to exceed $300 billion, up from $131 billion three years ago. The other big increase is an extraordinary jump in individual taxes that were not withheld from paychecks, usually a reflection of taxes on investment income and executive bonuses.

So, the taxes are being paid by rich people who do not get paychecks, but get dividends, stock options, live off of their investments, etc.

We know that Bush's tax cuts predominately went to wealthy taxpayers; therefore, the tax revenues would have been even higher without the tax cuts. Bush, of course, claims that the increased income of rich people is due to his policies, but that's not clear. The fact that wage earners' incomes have not increased indicates that wages have not increased in sync with the dividends and capital gains received by the wealthy. Unemployment is around 4 percent, which is pretty close to full employment. With a booming economy at full employment, why is there no wage inflation? It's because of globalization. Manufacturing and services jobs are both being outsourced for much lower wages than those prevailing in the US. In addition, illegal immigrants tend to depress American wages even further for those jobs still remaining in the US. Because lower end wages are being kept so low, the upper end CEOs , other senior executives, and investors are reaping even greater profits, and thus paying more taxes. It is not because they are investing in America, creating new jobs, etc. They are profiting from the selling of America.

North Korean Missile Test Failure

A lot of politicians and talking heads have taken solace from the failure of the North Korean Taepodong-2 missile shortly after its launch. They have not mentioned that the rocket sat on the launching pad for days, possibly being fueled and unfueled. Then, it looks as if the rocket was launched on a very short deadline, just after the Shuttle launched on July 4, which means that the technicians may have been under a lot of pressure to launch it quickly. They may have being doing this on the political orders of Kim Jong-Il, rather than the rocket scientists who built the rocket. If the test were done on political orders and on a political schedule, then we can take less comfort in its failure than if the test had been a purely technical one. On the other hand, because of that, the scientists may have gotten less useful data than if they had run the test on their own schedule.

State Deputy Sec Zoellick Leaves for Goldman Sachs

Bob Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of the State Department, is leaving to join Goldman Sachs, the State Department announced. This is probably bad for the State Department. Zoellick was a serious official, unlike the second rate Texans and Republican hacks serving in most of the posts in the Bush administration. It's unlikely his replacement will be as good as he was. It's also a sign that Bush is unable to keep good people when he manages to get them. It will be interesting what see what happens with Hank Paulson, who is going in the other direction -- from Goldman Sachs to the administration as Treasury Secretary.

Here is the Washington Post's take on his departure. There's a little bit of dissatisfaction that comes throught the interview about the second, third and fourth tier issues that Zoellick got stuck with under Rice.

American Embassy Cable on Iraqi Difficulties

The Washington Post published a telegram from the US Embassy in Baghdad about the problems Iraqis who work in its public affairs section have. It's personal vignettes rather than policy analysis, but it is very revealing.

Here is the Washington Post intro to the cable.

American Embassy Cable on Iraqi Difficulties

The Washington Post published a telegram from the US Embassy in Baghdad about the problems Iraqis who work in its public affairs section have. It's personal vignettes rather than policy analysis, but it is very revealing.

Here is the Washington Post intro to the cable.

The Economist on Nuclear Disarmament

This link goes to the article in The Economist magazine on the long term failure of the nuclear powers to disarm and what consequences this has for the future of nonproliferation and the security of the world. As usual with The Economist, there is a lot of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand," but kudos to them for raising this important issue, which affects Britain, as well as America, Russia and the other big five nuclear powers. America for years has pretended that the issue does not exist.

Hans Blix WMD Commission Report

This link will open up the final report of Sweden's WMD Commission, chaired by Hans Blix, for many years the head of the IAEA, and then the head of the UN's inspection of Iraq before the the Iraq war. I think Blix is a good man, dedicated to disarmament, and George Bush lowered himself by personally attacking Blix before the war.

Zarqawi Killing: US Conduct

A report in Forbes raises questions about US conduct when Zarqawi was killed. It says an Iraqi at the scene saw US soldiers beating an injured man. It's probably a case of "he said, she said," but it gets more credibility because of the allegations of US misconduct at Haditha and other places. The other bad precedent is the bloody carnage that occured when US troops found Saddam's sons Udai and Qusai. In the light of all the problems with Saddam Hussein's trial, it would be understandable if the US did not want to nurse Zarqawi back to health, and then try him. But that's the way it should be.

In any case, I am not a big fan of using air strikes to kill individual people. It is difficult to limit "collateral damage." I still remember an old Mad Magazine report that in Chile, Salvador Allende committed suicide by a "self-inflicted air strike."

Zoellick Threat to Resign

According to the New York Times, Bob Zoellick, the Deputy Secretary of State, has threatened to resign. His threat came before Hank Paulson was nominated to be Secretary of Treasury, and Zoellick's threat may have been part of a campaign to get himself named Treasury Secretary. Or, it may signal genuine unhappiness at State. His main portfolio seems have been Darfur, which is a political tarbaby with little chance of success, while his main expertise lies in economics. If he should leave State soon, it would be a bad sign for Rice. Zoellick is a serious, intelligent official, who has held senior positions in several administrations. If he's uncomfortable working with Condi Rice, it says something bad about her.

Iran Deal Is No Big Deal

Whatever we were doing to try to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons was running into a dead end, where we were either going to have to invade Iran or let it go on about its proliferating business, as we have allowed North Korea. Since North Korea poses relatively little threat to Israel, we have allowed it to continue its nuclear program, with only a few lackadaisical, desultory meetings to give the appearance of concern, regardless of what threat North Korea may pose to US troops on the peninsula or to the South Korean population.

Israel, however, is much more concerned about Iran than North Korea; so, to please the American Jewish Lobby, we have to at least look like we are trying harder than we are with North Korea. Thus, this latest gambit of America's apparent willingness to join face to face negotiations with Iran. But, there are so many conditions with the Iranians, and so many disagreements with the Russians and Chinese, that it seems unlikely to go anywhere. Which is what hardliners like Cheney and Rumsfeld want. What the hardliners and the Jewish Lobby want is to blast the Iranian nuclear sites to smithereens. This "negotiation" offer is just a speed bump on the way to invasion, just as going to the UN before invading Iraq sort of appeased American doves and European "allies." The hawks are still looking for an opening. Fortunately, the US invasion of Iraq has become such a disaster that it will make invading Iran more difficult politically than invading Iraq was.

Full UN Report on Torture Criticizing Guantanamo

This link opens the full pdf version of the UN report criticizing the US for Guantanamo.

Article on Jewish Lawyers

This is an interesting article on how Jewish lawyers moved from small, Jewish law firms to large, mainstream, Protestant "white shoe" law firms representing large corporations.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

This article gives a good background on one of the pro-Israel think tanks influencing US policy, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

I discovered this article while looking up articles written by Richard Speier, my old nemesis when I was working on missile proliferation issues. This LA Times article says he was one of the authors of the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime MTCR), which is true. However, if he had not been involved, the MTCR would have come into force sooner and probably would have been stronger. He was an acolyte of Richard Perle at the Pentagon, who held up formulating a US position on the MTCR in an effort to make it ban missiles absolutely. This, of course, is impossible, but it is a characteristic of politically right-wing, conservative approaches to arms control. In essence it means they don't like arms control (or international law) at all, because it doesn't make them feel absolutely safe. It's like saying that you should not outlaw murder because you can't be absolutely sure that no one will commit murder if you do outlaw it.

While looking to see what articles Speier has written since those bad old days when I was at the State Department feuding with him at Defense, I found that he has written for WINEP. It shows that if you are pro-Israel in Washington, somebody will look out for you. No wonder, AIPAC, WINEP and other Israeli lobbies are so successful! Interestingly, he also wrote an article on the dangers of the Iraqi al-Samoud missile in February 2003, before we found that Iraq didn't have any WMD. Another WINEP article dealt with the Israeli Arrow ABM missile which was a problem for us when I was working on the missile proliferation issue. To his credit, he continues to oppose the Arrow, which the US proposed during the Bush I administration to avoid the constraints on the US of the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty, which the US has since renounced. Thus, the treaty is no longer a restraint on the US, and the US has less need of an Israeli proxy to do prohibited research.

Gergen Article Follow-Up

I've now read (somewhat quickly) McCullough's description of Truman's decision process for recognizing Israel. I don't see the quotation cited by Gergen, but it might be there. McCullough treats the subject in great detail, over fifty or so pages.

Truman may well have claimed, and might even have believed, that he did not decide to recognize Israel for political purposes, but we'll never know. If politics were not important, why did he think it was so important that the US be the first to recognize Israel?

Furthermore, McCullough says one of the most important considerations was whether Secretary of State George Marshall would resign over the issue. If Marshall had resigned, Truman thought he would be doomed politically because Marshall was so highly respected. It was only after Marshall said that he would not resign over the issue that Truman felt that he could go further, pushed hard by the Jewish lobby.

Marshall told Truman that if he recognized Israel, it would be a reason for Marshall not to vote for Truman, because he felt that Truman was doing it for domestic political purposes. This was a strong rebuke to Truman, but toothless, because Marshall never voted. He felt that it would inhibit his ability to carry out his duties to his country if he chose political sides.

Unfortunately there is no one in government today with the character and stature of General George Marshall. Marshall was in large part responsible for the Allies' victory in World War II. Then he was largely responsible for the US positioning itself to eventually win the cold war in the post-war world, sponsoring the Marshall Plan for the recovery of Europe, and perhaps avoiding a shooting war with the Soviet Union.

Gergen Article on Jewish Lobby Paper

David Gergen says in a 4/3/06 web-posted US News article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm) that according to David McCullough, Truman recognized Israel "in spite of pressure from Jewish groups, not because of it." I don't have McCullough's book, but I don't think history supports this claim. Truman's Secretary of State, General George Marshall, opposed the recognition of Israel, because he thought that Truman was doing it for election year politics, and not because it was the right thing to do from a foreign policy perspective. The primary advocate for recognizing Israel was Clark Clifford, who was then Truman's advisor for domestic political affairs.

One detailed reference to Truman's domestic political concerns is the following:
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/marshallclifford.htm

Perhaps a more reliable description of Marshall's position is this posting by the Truman Presidential Library. See the entry for May 12, 1948, and the subsequent entries. Note that it says Marshall had send a special envoy to the UN to prevent the entire American staff at the UN from resigning over the Israel issue:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm

I will have to find McCullough's Truman book to see why he thinks Truman's recognition of Israel was motivated by foreign policy considerations when his Secretaries of State and Defense both opposed it strongly. I don't think Gergen should accept McCullough's characterization without question. That he does, seems to indicate that Gergen, for whom I have much respect, is under the sway of the Israeli lobby, and may not know it. He is living proof of the allegations made by Profs. Miersheimer and Walt.