When someone like Ron Paul or Deepak Chopra cites American foreign policy as a cause of Muslim hostility, they are accused of ‘blaming America for terrorism’, as in this article by Wall Street Journal editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz. If policy on Israel is specifically cited, as Pat Buchanan has, it is labeled as ‘anti-semitic’
Now, it appears the US military is ‘blaming America first’ and ‘anti-semitic’ as reported, not in our media of course, but in the UK Independent:
One explanation canvassed in Israel for Washington’s tough stance is that pressure is being exerted by the US military for early progress in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as means of reducing Muslim hostility to the US.
How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery, though the answer may have something to do with his emergence in the recent presidential campaign as a thinker of advanced political views. Also commending him, perhaps, is his well known capacity to cut through all sorts of complexities to make matters simple. No one can fail to grasp the wisdom of a man who has informed us that “If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules.”
Yeah, I guess only Jews can be an “authority on terror” since they inspire so much hostility.
They really love their appeals to “expertise” as argument!
After reading that UK Independent article, one wonders whether we should expect some big “events” in the future that serve to get America back in line with Israel on foreign policy …
Perhaps some sort of terror attack that gets “traced back” to Iran and rallies the cattle behind Israel and the US military to annihilate Iran and thus serve one of Israel’s biggest current priorities.
Smythe, what do you mean get back in line with Israel? We never left the que. Nothing significant has happened since the regime change in Washington other than being a little more low key so as not to arouse people’s attention. Israel still gets billions in foreign aid and they do whatever they want to do. The administration might protest some settlement houses but they won’t do anything to stop them. It’s all part of the act to make people think that Washington and the Obama aren’t controlled by the demon seed.
Rodger,
You’re absolutely right. I guess what I mean is something that will maintain and elevate public opinion and support. While public opinion is still generally in favor, there is fatigue setting in, and support for aggressive military action against Iran for example wouldn’t be as enthusiastic as public support 8 years ago.
Right. This is just the usual, Washington-Jerusalem dog-and-pony show. The only “real” aspect is that there are a few military officers who are having second thoughts about attacking Iran while still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Won’t matter though; what Zion wants, Zion gets. When the Iran War does begin, however, and oil goes sky high, collapsing both the dollar and the US economy, ZOG will finally have bitten off more than it can chew.
The recent story about Petraeus’ Power point seems a least a bit different that business as usual. It is probably more to do with ZOG liberals here vs. the hard line Likudniks in Israel.
The fact that the military is openly discussing Israel as a problem for us in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq is quite a new development.
I assume that AIPAC is going to be very generous in their support of pro-war Republican candidates going into the next elections, since the Democrats have put even some mild pressure on Israel. The Republican party is generally more Zionist than the Democrats.
I can remember in the seventies when America still had some control over the government that relations with the Arab world were cordial. These terrorist attacks started in the eighties when Ronald Reagan pursued an openly zionist agenda in the Middle East.
“Nothing significant has happened since the regime change in Washington other than being a little more low key so as not to arouse people’s attention. ”
Not sure if this is True.
Some think that Obama is fronting for the Trilateral Commission.
What we are seeing is a low-level war betwixts Trilateralists and neo-cohens.
“These terrorist attacks started in the eighties when Ronald Reagan pursued an openly zionist agenda in the Middle East.
To be fair to Reagan when American soldiers got bombed in Beirut in 1983 he realized he had been fooled by a Jewish Conspiracy and immediately pulled out troops out! Imagine if W. Bush had realized this at some point during the current Iraq quagmire!
A few years later Reagan attacked the Zionist Occupied Goverment at Bitburg by praising Waffen SS soldiers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg#Controversy
Test?
>Some think that Obama is fronting for the Trilateral Commission.
Health, interesting, I would suggest that may be the influence of Brezinski, and perhaps some of the Mearsheimer-Walt/Chas Freeman style rebellion from the remnants of the white establishment we have seen recently. As ed says above, the US has not always been taking direct orders from Tel Aviv, and there are plenty of reasonable establishment figures that realize it would be far better for the US to simply play nice with oil-rich towelheads than deal with fanatical Jew settlers. The Democratic party is interesting in this configuration because Jews are the ruling class and the black-mestizo Democratic coalition understands this perfect well – even if the average whites do not.