Neumann: Protect me from my friends.
My response: protect me from Neumann's twisted logic.
Neumann: But if America doesn't share Israel's goals, what does it get out of supporting Israel? The left has become a contortionist in its efforts to explain that. Oil politics, they say. This explanation assumes too much about the role of oil in American foreign policy, and would make little sense even if those assumptions were accepted.
My Response: Professor Neumann, it is interesting that you used the word 'contortionist', the very same word that I was looking for to describe your own logic. Please understand that I have nothing personal against you, I don't even know you. Your position is the exact opposite of Chomsky, right? Chomsky said don't blame his tribe, blame the Americans, you say all the blame is on the Zionist state. Yes indeed, oil does not explain the devastation of an Arab country that was in support of the Palestinians. You sir need to read again and again and again the document, 'Israel's strategies for the 1980's' by Oded Yinon. See footnote 2.
Neumann: Why then does America support Israel? There is the pro-Israel lobby, I guess, and (a distinct factor) the support of ordinary American Jews for Israeli policies. More important may be the enormous prestige of Jews and Jewish culture in American life. But most important of all is probably a force never to be underestimated--plain old inertia. America supports Israel because it once had a reason to do so, or thought it did, and because it has done so in the past. Intellectuals may feel cheated by such banal explanations, but offer no viable alternatives. Whatever the reasons for American support, US interests aren't among them.
My Response: Yes sir, Mr. Neumann sir, you almost got it when you barely touched on the 'Jewish Lobby', but you took it away again with your, 'I guess'. There is no room for playing a guessing game in the face of overwhelming evidence that Jewish groups do intimidate and influence American foreign policy. My favorite source is the Edwin M Wright interview, which is officially posted at the Truman online library. We learn that Jewish groups told Truman, pounding angrily on his presidential table, that they would throw him out of town if he did not take the Jewish money and help them steal Palestine, which he did. (See footnote 3). You mention 'the enormous prestige of Jews and Jewish culture in American life'. What is 'Jewish culture' and how does it influence American foreign policy? 'Plain old inertia'? Because there used to be a reason in the past to support the Jewish state (cold war era) that it does so out of 'plain old inertia'? But sir, as soon as the cold war was over, many countries around the globe, which had strategic importance to the United States lost their values overnight and with it any American funding. So why didn't the Jewish state fall out of grace like the rest of the other countries? You almost go it at the opening of your paragraph, sir, The Jewish Lobby!
Neumann: This has large implications. The whole Palestinian strategy of the left is in urgent need of drastic change. First, the left's demonization of the US is excessive and obsessive. America's current support for Israel is a world away from its carefully contemplated, viciously evil support for its cold-war client regimes. Today America is the puppet, not Israel.
My Response: Sir: The support the Jewish state receives from the West is for viciously evil purposes, for domination and mass murder of the Palestinians. It is a demented terrorist state like no other. You must understand that the Jewish State is a plague not only to Arabs and Muslims, but to all people of color around the globe, if not to the entire gentile world. You say, 'a world away'? I guess that means that America's support for the Jewish states fades in comparison to what was spent on its cold-war clients? Do you have numbers and statistics to support your claim, sir? Which cold-war client countries had powerful lobbies urging or rather putting a chokehold on the US Government to support their countries or else suffer consequences?
Neumann: America is not using Israel to fight against communism or for economic advantage. Israel is using America to fight a race war, and America is too much of a dummy to understand. It fawns on Israel, mostly because it is befuddled, and partly because its politicians fear offending Jewish voters. But America is not the enemy here; it is aiding the enemy. The left is so fixated on American sinfulness that it treats present US support for Israel like past US sponsorship of true proxy regimes like Pinochet's Chile, and all but lets the real culprit off the hook. American weapons inflict huge harm on the Palestinians, but it is not America that is inflicting the harm: 'it's the Israelis, stupid!' Even without American arms, plucky little Israel would still manage to oppress the Palestinians and intimidate their reluctant allies.
My Response: What 'race war' sir? Can you tell us what race Europe's Ashkenazi Jewry is? They are not the same race as the Arab Jews that came from the various Arab countries nor the same race as the Falasha Muras of Ethiopia, are they? Is there such a thing as the 'Jewish race'? What race? And what race would you say you belong to, sir? What is your race sir, since you mention 'race' and 'tribe' so often in your writings? What race are the Ashkenazi Jews? Are they not a European people, and more specifically KHAZARS? The following statements make no sense to me:
. America is too much of a dummy to understand
. It fawns on Israel, mostly because it is befuddled
Neumann: and all but lets the real culprit off the hook. American weapons inflict huge harm on the Palestinians, but it is not America that is inflicting the harm: 'it's the Israelis, stupid!'
My Response: I don't think there are any stupid people that stupid not to understand the above statement, sir.
Neumann: Even without American arms, plucky little Israel would still manage to oppress the Palestinians and intimidate their reluctant allies.
My Response: How do you know that sir? You make it appear like all the billions of the American tax payers' money that these former European Ashkenazi Jews have been draining away is not playing a major role in the Palestinians tragedy.
Neumann: Though America is not the central villain of Israel's drama, a change in American policy is still essential to helping the Palestinians. The left is far more interested in complaining about that policy than in changing it. Yet the basis for a real strategy can be found in the innocuous leftist belief that American policy is determined by America's strategic and economic interests. If leftists really wanted to restrain Israel rather than moralize about American complicity, they would make clear that US policymakers are more stupid than evil, because Israeli policies run entirely contrary to America's strategic and economic interests. A genuinely pro-Palestinian strategy would stress that backing Israel undermines not only to America's war on terror, but also its oil politics. And a genuinely pro-Palestinian strategy would not be anti-American for the sheer joy of it. Instead it would emphasize that American foreign policy, however reprehensible, has improved since 1975, and that America squanders the political benefits of this improvement with its robotic support for Israel. This is not flag-waving or apologetics; it is a matter of making the appeal most likely to strike a chord with the US government and public.
My Response: 'US policymakers are more stupid than evil'. They are not stupid but clever politicians who recognize the fact that they can't be policy makers if Jewish groups do not approve of the candidate. You say American foreign policy has improved since 1975? What happened in 1975 to bring up the change? The cold war did not end till early 1990's. What are the improvements - I am scratching my head to think what they might be - when I think of so many bombs that fell on people of color all over the world since 1975, the punitive sanctions on Iraq that span a whole decade. You are making me feel like I live on a different planet than you do, sir.
Neumann: If one insists on a moral judgment here, the obvious one would be that the anti-American hysterics of the left are an inexcusable indulgence of prejudice, for which the Palestinians are paying a terrible price. According to CNN polls, as many as 43% of Americans have thought the US was too pro-Israel. It is not without ingenuity that such a powerful undercurrent of opposition to American policy has been left untapped.
My Response: 'inexcusable indulgence of prejudice'? Who is prejudiced against who? That phrase has certainly gone over my head. Did I miss something? But the fact that only 43% of the American public could clearly see the obvious speaks volumes about the power of the Jewish owned media to sway opinions in its favor.
Neumann: A genuinely pro-Palestinian strategy would stress that backing Israel undermines not only to America's war on terror, but also its oil politics. And a genuinely pro-Palestinian strategy would not be anti-American for the sheer joy of it.
My Response: What is 'America's war on terror'? Isn't that a 'War on enemies of the Jewish state'? You say: 'For the 'sheer joy of it'? Do you really believe that? Why not dump all that American money on poor Africans for 'the sheer joy of it?"
Professor: Has it ever occurred to you why 'the left' is more inclined to blame the suppliers of the killing machines rather than the shooters? Those who compromise 'the left' are controlled by the abundance of Jewish money. Have you heard of UFPJ (united for peace and justice)? They caused major problems for the anti-war movement because they did not want any Arabs or Palestinians to have a say in the movement. Have you heard of Moveon.org? A very pro-Israel group.
Professor: You don't like items 'the left' has failed to do or should be doing to achieve your kind of results. Do you have a list of what should and should not be done?
In addition to your recent articles that you posted on Counterpunch in regards to the one state vs. two state where you claim to be the guru on the matter, wher your convoluted thinking travels with you wherever you go, I will be addressing two prior old posts. W h e w! I will then be done.