Wouldn't you love to see Marty Peretz and Pat Buchanan locked in an elevator?

Perhaps the saddest element of Israel's struggles is the siege mentality that has overtaken not only Israel but many of her supporters. One begins to wonder if the experience of defending Israel against what can only be described as a literal siege has so damaged them that they will not be able to function normally even absent external threats.

Marty Peretz seems to have suffered a complete and total meltdown. He has indeed become the ultimate self hating Jew -- so much that if I were a loved one I would certainly advise him to seek psychiatric help.

He is showing classic psychosis in this article. He is paranoid. He believes himself to possess special knowledge which others can not or in this case refuse to see. Finally he ends in his final paragraph in an act of rhetorical immolation that is so earnest one wonders if the authorities should be contacted.

The special knowledge that Peretz claims to have is that found in the quote "I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim." Like most paranoid delusions the quote has kernel of truth. Some terrorist are Muslim and any percentage is alarming.

But, the supposed heightened Muslim propensity for terrorism is mostly a dangerous illusion that harms American safety. Were the Tamils secretly Muslim. Is FARC a terrorist organization? If so is are its members secretly Muslim. Were the members of the Shining Pat Muslim. Are the Mexican narco terrorist Muslim, if so what's with the Our Lady tatts? Are the Moaist terrorist in India Muslim, if so they seem to get along suspiciously well with their Hindu comrades in arms.

Muslims carried out the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, the second deadliest not Muslim. By focusing on Islam we open ourselves to attacks from the numerous foreign and domestic non-Muslim terrorists. There are many more reliable indicators of terrorist activity than religion. Peretz secret knowledge is actually a dangerous delusion.

What is truly scary is the last two paragraphs. The majority of immigrants are Mexican. Does Peretz somehow believe that Mexico is a non-western culture. It isn't even a non-American culture. If America has the right to remain America, at what point do we freeze it in time. And, why not freeze it at the point where Jews fleeing the Holocaust where turned away? Why does Peretz hate Peretz so much? And what can be done to help him?

in reference to: "I Do Not Say That All Muslims Are Terrorists, But I Have Noticed That An Alarmingly High Proportion Of Terrorists Are Muslim" | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

Trevor Norwitz's letter to read.

Though, I find much to disagree with in this letter, it shows the type of writing that should be coming from conservative supporters of Israel, but isn't.

Writing from such authors as Jennifer Rubin, Marty Peretz, and the editorial board of the Washington Post have the effect of damning Israel with shoddy arguments. These writers arguments are often not only only poorly written but often obviously written in such a manner that subverts Israel's interest to the domestic political agenda's of the author. Trevor Norwitz treats so fastidiously like a client, the only alternative motive that could be attributed to him is advertisement for his legal services.

in reference to: Commentary » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Richard Goldstone (view on Google Sidewiki)

Leiberman endangers national security for cheap Fox stunt

Lieberman fans something much worse than McCarthyism

Say what you will about McCarthy at least there was a kernel of truth to his accusations. There was a world wide Communist conspiracy that was in many ways headed and controlled by the Kremlin.

While he was a dangerous political opportunist who used the war against Communism to support his own craven goals, the Communist threat was real. A systemic response focused on Soviet Communism was indeed warranted.

Having defeated Communism the right naturally has wanted to

"Islamist Extremism" is another kettle of fish altogether. There is not one Islamist conspiracy directed by one organization. But many conspiracies by many different Muslims located in many different regions of the world that are as much at odds with each other as they are with us. Understanding the threat this way the term "Islamic Extremist" is too broad and perhaps even underestimates the threat.

But in another sense the term is much too narrow. One of the most dangerous lies perpetrated by the likes of Lieberman is that Islam somehow is unique in its production of dangerous militants.

While Islamic terrorism has presented a unique danger to the United States to imply that actions against Muslim religious terrorism are sufficient is an incredibly dangerous under estimation of the problem.

Religious violence is actually quite common with significant acts of violence perpetrated by Christian, Jews, Sheiks, and even Buddhist and Hindus.

Much of the terrorism and even genocide in Sub Saharan Africa is directed by Christian sects. As Climate driven migration and water wars spread and our competition with China for African raw materials intensifies we are almost certain to face these types of groups.

As for the Fort Hood attacker a profile that could explain his actions could certainly include a Jewish soldier angered by a future American governments vote in the UN Security council to recognize a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel or a Christian soldier angered by the integration of openly homosexual soldiers into the armed forces.

But rather than propose responding to a threat that is decentralized and complex Lieberman chooses to promote falsehoods about the threat posed by a Fort Hood type radical. These falsehoods could give such a radical a crucial opening to do untold damage.

crossposted at http://www.google.com/sidewiki/entry/robert.lee.hotchkiss/id/RSB7k7_owRUi6r-O2faiYpIvAis

Is John Bolton an Iranian Mole?

There can be no argument that the destruction of Iraq was the single most significant event in Iranian history, even surpassing the Islamic revolution in importance. The destruction of Iraq converted its most deadly ally into a probable future client state.

The concurrent inclusion of Iran in the axis of evil slated for regime change and the torture and execution following sham trails of leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan removed any deterrent to seeking weapons of mass destruction. If attack and regime change was a true threat in any event pursuance of weapons of mass destruction to deter such an eventuality became the only logical response by the Iranian government. By demonstrating that people associated with the regime would be tortured and summarily executed after sham trails, everyone associated with the government had a personal vested interest in its continuance.

The emergence of an empowered, more repressive Iran bent on acquiring a weapon of mass destruction deterrent was an easily foreseeable result of the destruction of Iraq.

An attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities would almost certainly increase Iran's power, make it more resistant to regime power and more certain to develop a weapons of mass destruction .

The nuclear program in Iran is one of the few popular polices of the current regime. Far from causing a crisis for the Iranian government it would almost certainly strengthen the regime and the national resolve to obtain a credible weapons of mass destruction deterrent.

The attack on US interest will be immediate and won't come from Iran. Israeli forces will have to fly over Iraq airspace to attack Iran. As the United States is air force is the de facto air force of Iraq the Iraqi people will see this as a betrayal and termination of their agreement with the United States.

There would almost surely be immediate attacks on US forces in Iraq. The government would be under extreme pressure to demand and immediate departure of US forces.

The majority Shiite population would want closer contact with Iran and perhaps invite the Iranian air force to replace the departing Americans.

This would understandably not be well received by the Sunni population. Unrestrained by the presence of US troops the Shiites will most likely continue the sectarian cleansing that made the surge so successful.
This would result in heavily armed militant refuges entering Saudi Arabia.

Israel would definitely face repercussions for its attack on Iran. There would be a strong temptation for Israel to go ahead and do all the things it perceives as offensive to the international community at once and be done with it.

Its attacks on its neighbors and its threats have been increasingly violent. The Israeli population has almost completely lost faith in a peace with the Palestinians. There is more and more talk of a permanent solution.

It is highly probable that Israel would use any attacks from the occupied territories as an excuse for large scale ethnic cleansing. This would result in heavily armed militants flooding into Jordan and Egypt, destabilizing both of these countries. Israel would almost certainly launch massive attacks on Lebanon as well.

These actions will also make it clear that Israel never intends to reach a peace with Syria.

The result of these actions will be a destabilized Egypt or a an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lebanon would fall under greater control of Syria or Hezbollah or both. Syria would be drawn into a closer alliance with Iran and would itself be desperate to obtain a weapons of mass destruction deterrent against Israeli attack.


It is almost impossible to believe that Bolton's proposal could be motivated by concern for American interest in the region which would almost certainly be drastically damaged.

in reference to: Articles & Commentary (view on Google Sidewiki)

Kathleen Parker's Dishonesty about Rape

Often one is assured that conservative commentators are very likable, even generous in person. Parker surely tries to project herself as a good girl alternative to Malkin and Coulter. She often takes the line that while our political views may seem heartless and cruel you can trust that she truly believes these policies will be more helpful because she herself is a good person.

However, In this article Parker just big fat lies. She makes the incredible assertion that the Republican Senators oppose the particular proposed implementation of a policy of giving rape victims access to civil litigation against companies accused of complicity.

However nothing could be further from the truth. The thirty Republican Senators could have proposed a solution she suggest which would exclude all acts of violence from requirements in employment contracts which require binding arbitration.

Of course, these Senators did nothing of the sort. And several of the Senators made it clear on the floor of the Senate that they would oppose any such effort.

The majority of the Senators who voted against the amendment support not only requirements in contracts that require binding arbitration on the terms of the more powerful party, but also the effect that this has of denying the less powerful party often an employee or consumer from any meaningful redress to violations by the more powerful party often an employer or manufacturer.

Parker could, as she often does, make the argument that though a conservative policy has unfortunate consequences for some, it is better for the greater good. That is to say that it is unfortunate that there is no recourse for a woman whose company has suppressed and or destroyed evidence of her rape, but it is better for the majority because companies pay less for liability insurance and pass the savings on to the consumer, in this case the tax payer. Yet Parker can't bring herself to make this argument as some of the Senators did. She instead lies about the Senators true position regarding contracts that require binding arbitration on the terms of the more powerful party.

While Parker's cynical lies about the Senators' position regarding rape victims are despicable. The true policy of position of the Senators is even worse.

Not only is this system unfair. But it is injurious to our economy. The common law tort system is what has allowed common law countries such as the United States far outperform countries that have less robust tort systems.

While companies complain of litigation, litigation is far better than regulation With the tort system a company is free to take the risks it desires. It can decide rather to risk litigation by a certain action or refrain from that action on the basis of its best guess as to which course would be more profitable.

When a company is instead regulated by the government they are prevented from making their own choice. They can only act in the manner described by the regulation.

Those who try to restrict access to the tort system may imagine that raped women and victims of defective products will just passively suffer in silence. Nothing in further from the truth. These victims will take their stories to their congressmen and their state legislator and regulations will be passed. These regulations will be much more burdensome than fear of lawsuits and America will lose one of its most important advantages against other countries.

in reference to: Kathleen Parker - Kathleen Parker on GOP pillorying on rape amendment - washingtonpost.com
(view on Google Sidewiki)

The intellectual dishonesty of Marty Peretz regarding Obama's statement about wearing viels

In this comment Peretz shows both intellectual dishonest and a persistent refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Obama presidency.

Obama's remarks were made in a formal presidential speech. In such occasions are used to elaborate national policy, not personal preference. Peretz treats Obama as though he his a Fox "news" commentator.

Obama was saying that in the United States you can express your religion in any way you like as long as it does not impede upon the rights of others.

The argument for or against the veil is indeed an interesting one both in and outside Islam. Peretz's argument may have been better if he did on television wearing only a penis cap.

Many Muslim women I know are so relieved for an excuse not to be pressured to wear miniskirts that make the world their gynecologist. If Peretz seriously believes there isn't gender specific clothing pressures which demean women in western culture he must be either blind or insane.

Just because something is a problem in another culture doesn't mean that it advisable to try to influence the change.

Oboma by making it clear that wearing the veil or not is a personal choice in the United States and by stating that a woman's intrinsic rights will not be diminished by the state shows by example that the United States empowers women to express their religion as they chose.

Will this free women from pressure from family members or their religious community. No, but where else has Peretz suggested that the government dictate the outcome of individual choice?

in reference to: Barack Obama And The Veil: The President Vs. The Supreme Council Of Al-Azhar, A Pinnacle Of Muslim Orthodoxy | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

The man who turned down the crown

Obama earned the Nobel Peace prize in the first few moments of his presidency. Though one could certainly fault Obama for not more fully repudiating the policies of his predecessor one can not minimize the scope of of change from the broad powers claimed by his predecessor and his rival.

Bush campaigned on a foreign policy of modesty but from the very beginning of his presidency showed audacious contempt for the world community. He set the worlds climate response back by a decate. By unilaterally breaking the anti- ballistic missile treaty with extreme prejudice to Russia's national pride he helped put the final nail into Russia's floundering democracy.

After 9-11 he essentially declared himself dictator of the world. He claimed the right to kidnap, detain indefinitely, and torture any citizen of any country anywhere in the world without any due process what so ever. He claimed the right to destroy any nation on the basis of potential future threats years if not decades away.

He expressed utter contempt for the rule of law. Instead of allowing Hussein to be tried in an international tribunal he allowed him to be tried in a mockery of legal proceedings. Further he allowed hundreds of others not nearly so famous and some probably not guilty at all to be subjected to sham trails with even less pretense to due process and hanged in mass dozens at a time

He showed utter contempt for democracy actively working against it in Venezuela, Haiti, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority. He also discouraged democracy in Taiwan and stridently supported the China's growing influence over Taiwan.

He showed an unending contempt for the United Nations. Both by appointing a unrepentant opponent of the United Nations as America's ambassador to the United Nations and by having his Secretary of State lie to the Security Council about the Iraqi threat and by contemptuously ignoring efforts to find a peaceful solution.

Obama's opponent in the presidential race wanted to extend Bush's assault on the United Nations by a sol called League of Democracies whose legitimacy would depend on the favor with the United States and certainly not level of democracy.

Obama had the opportunity to claim the power claimed by his predecessor, power that would have made Cesar weep with envy. But he largely turned this power aside.

And while a vocal minority hate him for it. The vast majority of Americans are happy to be liked again in the world. They are happy to be in a community of nations, not to pretend to a dictatorship over the world.

While Neda's actions where heroic, they can not compare to the global import of Obama's step back from world tyranny and global assault on democracy.

The Post calls itself brave for supporting Neda. But notice they did not mention the Tibetans fighting for their freedom, the Palestinians fighting for their vote, or the Hondurans fighting for their freedom of speech and assembly.

For neocons like the editors of the Washington Post, democracy only has value as weapon to use against our enemies.

in reference to:

- President Obama wins the Nobel Prize for Peace — but that's not his fault. - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Marty Peretz puts democracy last again

Some people describe the rise of neoconservative thought as a journey from Trotsky to Reagan. But seldom mentioned is that this journey never approached any genuine appreciation of small "d" democracy. Neocons, like the Khmer Rouge they supported, were never bothered by the hypocrisy of decrying intellectual elitism in others while demanding for themselves overreaching deference for their own status as intellectual elites. In fact if there is one common thread that runs through neoconservative arguments it is that the neoconservatives have a unique special almost religious knowledge that trumps everything else including democracy.

This article is a perfect example of this attitude. The United States military is not like the military of a nation such as Israel. The military is not an institution that reflects the nation. The military in the United States is very unrepresentative of its citizenry. It is much more conservative, much more Republican, and of course much younger and healthier.

Further the United States army is a hugely powerful institution. Leaving aside its awesome power to destroy all life on earth, the military is a huge economic engine spending trillions of dollars. The American military could literally take over the country by mistake. It could like the military in China simply control the control the country by its economic decisions.

Luckily the military has been scrupulous in its avoidance of this danger. But the fact can not be denied is that the power of the United States military makes it the most potent threat to democracy in the United States.

The problem is that if political desire of the military is perceived all of its contractors suddenly have a vested interest in bringing that reality to pass. This is truly a case were one can't be too vigilant.

More important than any outcome of the Afghan project is the political neutrality of the military. The information McChrystal has to give is available from many other sources. Nothing is gained by McChrystal giving a policy desire the colour of the uniform. Peretz of course doesn't fear this consequence because he imagines that he will be whispering into th ears of the generals. This is what is to be a neocon and not a democrat

in reference to: "Old Soldiers Never Die." The Douglas MacArthur Analogy Fits Neither Petraeus Nor McChrystal. But That Is Probably No Comfort To The President | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

Further hypocrisy on Freedom of Opinion and Expression by Marty Peretz

While a freedom of expression declaration that can have the support of China and Egypt is disturbing, one could argue that such a baby step could provide a stepping stone to further reform in the same manner the American Constitution, written by slave owners provided a stepping stone for the civil rights movement. This article was not however an genuine critique of the statement, but rather an attack on the signers

This attack was intensely hypocritical. Marty Peretz wrote in Cool, But, yes a Communist. in which Peretz essentially accused Van Jones of Telling the Truth While Black . It is clear that Peretz has no particular preference for freedom expression himself, but finds the concept useful when promoting the ideas of people who likes and easy to ignore when confronting ideas of people he doesn't like.

While Israel does has a free press it can not be considered a bastion of freedom expression. Entities which receive government funding in Israel, which includes schools are forbidden from advocating a secular state or referring to the displacement of the Palestinians as a disaster.

The foreign minister, Lieberman, whom Peretz has repeatedly condemned, has advocated wholesale deportation of Israeli citizens who might refuse to support the Jewish nature of the state. Peretz's in effect condemns the United States for cooperating with countries that do not support a concept of freedom of expression, that Peretz himself does not support.

in reference to:

- U.S., Egypt Co-Sponsor A Resolution On Freedom Of Opinion And Expression. What The Hell Is Going On? Only The A.P. Reported This: I Wonder Why. | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

The strong and the weak cannot keep company

The tale of the Two Pots by Aesop has been much in my mind of late. As fate would have it, the fable was part of the training process for learning Microsoft's Speech Recognition to mitigate some of my disabilities.

Often proponents of the post Reagan economic system in the United States make the claim that there is no significant cost to huge income disparities. But, of course there are costs.

When the disparity between the middle class family and the family member on disability is of such a magnitude as it is in the United States, the realities of this disparity often make the maintenance of familiar ties all but impossible.

But of course it is not only families that are torn apart by these pressures. Friendships seldom survive a divergence of economic fortunes. Economic issues are also the prime cause of divorce.

When I was a child there as a recession that coincided with the completion of construction of a local nuclear plant. Suddenly the part time jobs of held by the wives of these displaced workers was the primary source of income. Social chaos ensued. Marriages dissolved, children were abused, and there was a infamous spree killing.

While the well off certainly fair better than the poor. Those with more money are as isolated or more so than those with none. A society if fewer social connections almost by necessity performs less well.

I am not calling for absolute wage parity or anything of the sort. I am only saying that there are costs of wealth disparity and these costs are not only social but financial and economic as well.

We are paying a price for the level of wealth disparity in our culture. And, until we are honest about that price, no genuine discussion of the merits of the current system can be had.

Here is the fable:

The Two Pots

Two Pots had been left on the bank of a river, one of brass,
and one of earthenware. When the tide rose they both floated off
down the stream. Now the earthenware pot tried its best to keep
aloof from the brass one, which cried out: "Fear nothing, friend,
I will not strike you."

"But I may come in contact with you," said the other, "if I
come too close; and whether I hit you, or you hit me, I shall
suffer for it."

The strong and the weak cannot keep company.

Heartless

Imagine if humanity developed a group of robots that resembled humans in every way except the ability to act selflessly. In other words the robots would be unable to act against their own interest. These robots wouldn't necessarily be evil, but they could not be good in the sense we generally describe goodness.

The reality is that such machines already exist. Corporations are in fact such machines. They are a human construct for the purpose of making profit. In many respects a corporation appears to be a person. In fact when we interact with businesses we may rarely know whether a business is a true mom and pop type sole proprietorship, a partnership or a corporation.

But there is an important difference that separates corporations from business owned by a sole person. A person may do as the please. They can invest all the companies money in strengthening the business or give all the profits to the poor.

A corporation is something different altogether. The decisions of the corporation are made by people but people who are not free to act as they desire. The officers of the corporation have a fiduciary duty to the investors. They required to in all matters act in a manner that increases the profits for the shareholders.

The people who run a corporation can not be generous. Even if one of the corporation's officers owns the vast majority of the stock, he can not make decisions that limit the profitability of the company to enrich himself or be generous. Certainly a company can perform costly acts of magnanimity such as making large donations to charities. But these actions can not be selfless. They must be part of an overall plan to grow the brand and increase profitability. For this reason a large anonymous donation by a corporation to a charity that in no way benefits the corporation would almost certainly be illegal and the officers of the corporation responsible for such a decision could Slikely spend decades in prison.

Similarly a serious argument has been made against Costco that its generous employment compensation is in fact illegal because it does not produce positive benefits for its share holders. This restriction on corporate decision making has profound implications.

Absent intervention by the government for example a corporation whose profits were not susceptible to public opinion would not be free to provide equal pay to women and men if the government didn't require it and women could be employed willing to work for less than minimum wage. Similarly such a corporation could not install costly safety measures to protect workers if such measures where not mandated by the government.

This reality has become more and more important as the nation has experienced a generation of deregulation and the Supreme Court seems poised to give free speech rights to corporations. Corporations say that left to their own devices they will do the right thing. But this is simply a lie. In fact, left to their own devices, it is illegal for a corporation to do the right, but in long run unprofitable thing.

Corporations may act like people but they are not people. They are by definition at best amoral actors. For this reason their speech is by almost any definition of lesser value than speech by encumbered persons. Granting the same speech rights to corporations will therefor almost surely degrade the quality of our national conversation.

Marty Peretz, a racist, accuses Van Jones of telling the truth while black.

The concept of political correctness is that political realities prevent one from telling the truth. But in our culture the response to perceived political correctness is to encourage white people to tell truths that minorities don't want to hear. The argument is that a society must not be so sensitive of others feelings that the truth is suppressed. Thus people who say negative things to or about minorities even to the exclusion of positive things are supposed to be protected from accusations of racism if what they say is or could be the truth. But what if this freedom is not reciprocated. What if the minorities themselves are not allowed to confront the majority with disturbing truths? Seldom is there such a concrete example of such hypocritical racism as this article, "Cool... But, Yes, Communist", by Marty Peretz.

He starts off in classic anti-PC mode by commenting that he agreed with the first thing he learned from Glenn Beck who is despised by liberals. He then went out his way to speak of Van jones in the most disrespectful and demeaning terms I remember Peretz using for some time. So he is saying is ok to use the insulting and demeaning language referencing a black man because it is all true

For those who are looking for a defense of Van Jones you must look elsewhere. I know nothing Van Jones. My accusations against are solely based upon a textual interpretation of the words in his attack on Van Jones. My case against Peretz indeed wold be greatly aided if all his accusations where true. If they are indeed all true than is repeated use of racism to defame Van Jones would be all the more inexplicable.

The column itself is written much below Peretz usual level. Perhaps his conscience negatively affected his writing. Regardless the quality of Peretz's own writing is so poor as to evade any true critique. Therefore I will focus on the three quotes by which Peretz invited his readers to judge whether Van Jones views were so extreme that it would be "unethical" for him to hold elective office. Is he expecting that we judge these quotes by the same ant-political correctness standard by which he demands we judge his own? Or does he expect us to judge Van Jones's quotes by a different standard. And if he invites to use a different standard is that standard different because of the race of Van Jones.

Exhibit A: Van Jones argues that “the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame."

Firstly is this quote true. The quote as read is probably truer than what Van Jones may have meant. Are their white polluters and and white environmentalist who steer poison releasing facilities to people-of-color communities for racial reasons? Without a doubt there are.

Do all polluters and environmentalist act with racial motivation, no.

The quote as quoted is certainly true. And if it makes people uncomfortable than that shouldn't be a problem because the truth is more important than political correctness.

Is Van Jones making such an unfair implication that it should disqualify him from public office. There is a high correlation between toxic sites and minority committees. Companies operating purely from a profit motive do have an incentive to put toxic sites in communities where many of the residents are renters as opposed to owners because renters are less likely to advocate against development that is perceived to reduce property values and are less likely to have influence with local zoning and regulating bodies. Minority communities certainly fit this profile. If these companies are guided as the law unequivocally dictates acts with the shareholders interest as the paramount consideration it is logical to assume absent some valuation of minority status that more poison emitting facilities will be placed in minority communities.

The quote is not dated and there has been significant evolution amongst environmental groups. In the past environmental groups were largely white and middle class, and made no bones about focusing on their own communities. The argument was rarely don't produce products that require this facility but don't do it here.

Over time more and more minorities have become involved in the environmental movement and many but certainly not all environmental groups have tried to focus on reducing pollution where ever it may be released.

So a fair assessment of Van Jones's quote would be that it is certainly literally true. It is largely true in the first part, and in the past was more true in the second part than it is now.

Exhibit B: A CD entitled “Wartimes: Reports from the Opposition,” produced by the Ella Baker Center. Mumia Abu-Jamal delivers the introduction and Van Jones begins speaking around 3:50 of this amalgam of excerpts from the CD.

Jones calls for: “The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders.”

Now this quote is indeed true. And perhaps the most telling example of racism on the part of Peretz. Americans have proven time and time that they would not tolerate occupation. And, indeed when the traitorous Southern states were occupied at the end of the civil war they turned immediately to a coordinated campaign of terrorism that continued well into the middle of the last century and involved the highest members the state governments of these states. Further the terrorism continued for generations after the occupation ended.

Not only would Americans not submit to occupation. The continued defense of the confederate flag by leading politicians to this day is a refusal to condemn the leaders of the Confederacy and Southern states for their campaign of terrorism. It is a refusal to count the decades of terrorism as a factor that would deny legitimacy to the celebration of those leaders who were not only traitors to their country but also ruthless terrorists as well.

While this quote is not pretty. It does point to a central truth that Americans oppose occupation more than they do terrorism or torture. If they were in the place of the Palestinians the treatment of African Americans suggest that it is very likely that Americans would turn as many Southerners did at the end formal hostilities, to terrorism immediately and without compunction.

This is not a justification of terrorism or in any way a justification of any actions by the Palestinians. But rather it shows a very real discrepancy between what Americans say about the legitimacy of terrorism, and what historically they themselves have done and still largely refuse to completely condemn.

This quote may be ugly but it is of great importance to the understanding of America's possible future actions in the Middle East. While for a generation shared interest and strong emotional ties to Israel have supported on American narrative regarding the justification of terrorism in response to occupation. There is another narrative that is just as intrinsic to American history.

When Israeli partisans speak of another 40 years of occupation and of taking unilateral actions such as an attack on Iran that could have devastating consequences to US interest in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and could lead to massive casualties amongst the thousands of American troops in the region. Israeli partisans are foolish to ignore this alternate American position on the use of terrorism to resist occupation.

If Israels actions endanger the United States' interest in the Middle East, lead to large American causalities, or angers the American public the Palestinians could quickly become heroic freedom fighters and Israel could become the corrupt, evil occupier.

Exhibit C: Van Jones delivers the keynote address at Powershift ‘09

Jones: "What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who've come here from all around the world who we're willing to have out in the field with poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system, and then we're willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect. We need to get down on our knees and thank these Native American communities but also the Latino community, Asian community and every other community that's willing to come here and help is out because we obviously need some help. We need some wisdom from some place else because what we've come up with where don't make no sense at all. ...

"This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing! [...] And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

Now no part of this quote is untrue in the slightest. The agricultural system in the United States is perhaps the least free market in the United States. The government has for decades favored large industrial farming even though it is often less efficient and productive than small labour intensive farming. Large scale industrial farming is not only funded by government subsidies, but also has highly favorable labour and environmental standards unavailable to any other industry. And, yes agricultural labourers sprayed with poisons that would not be permitted in any other industry.

And yes we did steal the land from the Native Americans. We actively obliterated their culture. And did force them on unproductive agricultural land. Every word of this quote is literally true and an accurate portrayal of historic events as they indeed happened.

In the end two of the quotes were completely true, even if they were ugly and outside the main stream of American discourse. One of the statements was literally true, though somewhat inaccurate in its portrayal of white environmentalist.

It is telling that Peretz could have mentioned Van Jones association with the clearly false idea of a 9-11 conspiracy. Yet he did not do so. The result is that this article can be read in no other way but as supporting a racist discrimination against minority Americans. If minority Americans say true things that are uncomfortable to white people it is not only ok to treat them in the most disrespectful manner, but it would be unethical for them to serve in government.

However, if minorities are offended by true statements by white authors than it is vile political correctness. Van Johnson may have deserved to lose his job. But to say that the justification of his losing his job was being a black man telling the truth is one of the vilest promotion of racism that I have recently read.

Why this time no really means no

Micah Zenko argues in his 30 August 2009 editorial in the Los Angeles Times editorial "Israel has Iran in its sights" that if talks with Iran concerning their nuclear program that Israel will act unilaterally and that such unilateral action will not negatively affect the relationship between Israel and the United States.

One can see why Zenko would have written such an argument. Negotiations with Iran do not seem to be going well. Israel certainly does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. The argument for such talk generally follows the good cop bad cop script. Zenko tries to assert that if Iran does not reach a deal Israel will strike and there is nothing that the United States can do about it.

However, in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, Obama would almost certainly not learn of the attack "from CNN." Israel would almost certainly have to travel through Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran. If Israel can traverse Iraqi airspace without our knowledge, we have been wasting untold billions on defense spending.

The Good cop Bad cop routine has been run so long by America and Israel it is a farce that is no longer funny. If we allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, our relationship with Iraq will be disastrously ruptured. This will have real consequences in the form of the lives of American servicemen stationed in Iraq as well is in gas prices.

More importantly, Israel and the United States do not have similar interest regarding Iran. Israel desperately does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapons, not because it fears an almost inconceivable first strike situation, but because it fears that a nuclear deterrent to an Israeli attack would encourage Iran to be more supportive of Hezbollah and other organizations threatening Israel. The security of the United States would be very little altered by the Iran's obtaining a small nuclear arsenal. Iran's regime has proven itself obsessed with its own security. Which makes it very easy for the United States to depend on deterrence.

The problem with deterrence is it depends on the deterred party not being attacked. After the deterred party is attacked there is no reason not to counter attack. In this case America's security issue with Iran is much more closely related to its troops in bordering Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the stability of nuclear armed Pakistan.

If an attack by Israel destabilizes Iran. Militants from Iran will almost certainly flow into both Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in substantial deterioration of America's strategic position. This is a case where the interests of Israel and the United States really do differ. Israel should not ignore the interest of the United States in this matter. If it does, the relationship will truly never be the same.

John Steele Gordon Is a Big DooDoo Head

Sometimes it seems almost impossible to respond to a person on their level. I tried to think of a more infantile comeback but is as far as I can go.

The concept that attempts to shape the language used to ones advantage as being a peculiar invention or tool of the left is asinine enough. If the left differs from the right in this arena it is in their ineptness not in their over use of this method. One example alone the re-branding of the estate tax alone as the "death tax" alone is enough to show the right uses such language play both self consciously and to great effect. But in reality such language play goes back to time immemorial.

However Mr. Gordon's article on the use of diacritical marks goes well beyond this sophistry into a land of rhetoric that makes "I am rubber and you are glue what you call me bounces and sticks on you." Look positively brilliant by comparison.

Firstly the absence of use of diacritical marks is largely due to two temporary circumstances. Firstly Diacritical marks used to be difficult to produce in many documents. Often times they would be hand written above typed words and then the work printed from a photographic plate of the result. Secondly the large expansion of higher education associated with the Baby Boomer generation produced college students that had less strenuous backgrounds, especially in language.

An example of the type of students who attended college previously were some of my classmates who had attended a prominent Catholic school in New Orleans. They were quite proficient at both Latin and Greek. I received a collection of college books from my Lutheran minster and many of them where in Latin and German. An African American Professor who taught me in the 1990's said that if I were serious about academia as a profession I would learn German.

Until the sixties it was quite common for text books written in English to just go off for pages in untranslated this or that. I can't say the number of times that I have read the sentences along the lines of -- And the most important thing to remember is followed by up to several pages of untranslated text in a foreign language, most often German.

Now both trends have changed. Computers have made it much easier to add diacritical marks. And University admissions have gotten much more competitive again. Foreign language is taken much more seriously.

Diacritical marks aren't just some decoration. They convey meaning, often meaning as important as the letters. While it is perfectly possible to read English without the vowels, it is almost impossible especially for a foreigner to read pinyin without the diacritical marks that are essential to meaning. Pinyin itself is a version of Chinese writing using Latin letters. The diacritical marks represent tones. Different tones make different words. The wrong tone can transfer an innocuous term into a grave insult.

Why would you want less information. And writing in Commentary's Contention blog Mr. Gordon should certainly value the desire of people to learn the language of their ancestors. Using the correct words helps English language learners of foreign languages of all stripes.

The idea that this is some one way street is also ridiculous. Reading almost any foreign paper you can find no end of English words. China now produces many books in Pinyin primarily for foreign readers. And the use of native words can convey real meaning. Even in the Pentateuch even where the words are exactly the same the old testament and the Torah represent very different works whose separate religious and historical traditions have attributed very different meanings to the same passages. To refer to the Old Testament when one means the Torah is an error not a convenience.

I don't know what Gordon is trying to convey. Does he not want to provide the reader with important information about the meaning of what he is writing. Does he only read English and no other language? Has he not read anything printed before 1950? Or, is he just a big DooDoo head?

Tort Reform Fools' Gold

"Whats in it for me?" seems the rallying cry of the stakeholders involved in the discussion over universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association has made it clear that its price for universal health care in the United States is tort reform. And, if major health care reform should pass it is very likely that some sort of tort reform will pass. But, while this is a long sought after dream of physicians, one would be mistaken to believe that it will be a gold mine of health care spending savings.

Tort expenses represent a small percentage health care costs. Physician groups claim that the amount in claims is actually a small part of the problem. They claim that fear of litigation require them to preform unnecessary procedures and tests to reduce liability.

Physician's fear of being sued is obviously quite real. The human body is almost infinitely complex. Random things often happen. Further the health care system itself is incredibly complex and has many qualities which introduce systemic risk to the patient which are largely beyond the physicians control. Further the nature of the insurance market distributes the cost of litigation mostly on the risk associated with a procedure rather than on the quality of work by the physician. Just as you will be charged more for health insurance if, through no fault of your own you happen to be a female of child bearing age a physician is charged more if they perform procedures with a higher risk of catastrophic failure. Thus a obstetrician is charged more from her insurance company because the cost of a botched delivery can be catastrophic not because she is a bad physician. The physician therefor charges more to the insurance company for deliveries and the insurance company charges more to the lady buying health insurance on the possibility that she might get pregnant.

It is a frustrating system which provides very little incentive for good care. But remember the obstetrician pays more primarily because of the way that insurance companies and physicians decide to charge for risk throughout the health care system. Physicians could agree to share the risks equally and then vary insurance rates on the physician's performance rather than the risk inherent in their specialty.

However physicians chose to use a system which does not give strong incentives to good performance. Almost universally a bad physician in a low risk specialty pays far less than excellent Physician in a high risk specialty. By seeking to cap large awards Physicians may reduce insurance premiums for high risk specialties but may not reduce premiums at all in low risk specialties. Further, it will do nothing to place more incentives on quality care.

Thus physicians will have very little reason to change their "defensive medicine" habits -- if a large amount of health care spending is related to "defensive medicine." In fact there is very little reason to believe that expenses attributed to "defensive medicine" would disappear absent the threat of tortuous action.

Physicians may be bad patients. But they are even worse clients to their lawyers. We all have to take measures to reduce our liability at work. We may curse the frustration of it, but physicians often seem to believe that they are immune from the responsibilities associated with almost any business. They believe that it is somehow an intrusion for lawyers to intrude into their business and resent their advice. But, is a Physician's judgment actually superior to their attorney's.

The answer seems to be no. Certainly no for limiting the physician's liability. But also no for patient care. The last thing a lawyer would advise is to through every test and treatment under the sun at a problem. After all every test and treatment extends the physician's liability as well as possibly reducing it.

The uncomfortable truth about the supposed "defensive medicine" is that health care providers get paid for it. Are they doing test as a defense against being sued or are they doing tests to make more money? Unfortunately, as office staff will tell you, the greatest determiner of what tests and procedures are performed is what the insurance company will pay for.

The burden of proof is on the physicians to show that money spent on "defensive medicine" is a reasonable response to liability in the tort system. A reduction in punitive damages for example would provide no change whatsoever in the calculus of whether to perform defensive medicine in specialties in which that would provide little reduction in liability and no reduction in premiums.

Since it is far from clear that defensive medicine is the logical response to current liability, it is very difficult to see how it would be less logical after tort "reform." It is even less likely that tests and treatments will be substantially reduced.

So, see tort reform as what is, a probably necessary concession to the AMA. It is unlikely to be a source of health care savings.

What's the Mission

Commentary's current catchphrase is "It's not a just a Magazine it's a mission. But what is that mission exactly? There has been much talk lately about the "Israel lobby" and it's nefarious influence on American policies. There may or may not be an "Israel lobby" but a quick read of Commentary makes it clear that if such a thing does exist it Commentary is certainly not one of its organs.

The recent posting "Does Will Prefer a Nuclear Iran to a Neocon Washington?" by Jonathan Tobin is a case in point. The article basically makes two points. First that the neocons where right about Iraq and they are right about Iran as well.

I will deal with the two arguments in reverse order. The argument that Iran is an existential threat to the United States is patently ludicrous. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. Iran doesn't have missiles which can reach the United States. And even if they were to take out an American city, this would not put the United States in mortal danger. Iran might in a couple of years pose an existential threat to Israel.

But even this would almost certainly not truly manifest for years probably decades. Iran has been nothing if not a logical operator. Iran's suppression of the pro-democracy demonstrators was quite restrained. The Chinese who do have nuclear weapons ready to launch capable of taking out several US cities were more violent in putting down the Muslim demonstrators in it's western provinces. But one hardly hears about China on Commentary. Iran is clearly not suicidal. The chances of a first strike on Israel, which probably has hundreds of nuclear weapons is incredibly remote.

The real fear that Israeli partisans have is that with a nuclear deterrent Iran could through the support of terrorism in Lebanon and Israel grind Israel down to the point where it would be overwhelmed with demographic disasters posed by the occupied territories, and the recent decision to throw away the forty years of remarkable loyalty of Arab Israeli citizens over a few peaceful demonstrations. The inflation of the Iranian threat seems to be a pro-Israel position. But it must be remembered that the real threat to Israel is the demographic pressures of Arabs in Israel and in the occupied territories. Iran could only facilitate the crises which is almost entirely of Israel's own making.

But the real indication that Mr. Tobin's heart is not with Israel is the first argument. One could make an argument that Iraq has been a success for the United States, though there are great difficulties. However, it is almost impossible to make the argument that the Iraq war has been a success for Israel. The destruction of the Hussein government allowed Iran to greatly expand its power in the peninsula. The ability of Iran to pose a real threat to Israel though terrorism is almost entirely the result of the Iraq war. A true Israeli partisan could not call the Iraq war a success without qualifying that statement with an acknowledgment of the war's cost to Israel's strategic decision.

What then is the mission? If Commentary is not primarily advancing America's interest and also not primarily advancing Israel's interest, whose interest is advancing? One could argue that the magazine is advancing the interest of the Republican party. It is true that the articles are almost universally critical of the Democratic party and supportive of the Republican party and Jennifer Rubin does seem to envision herself as as Jewish Sarah Palin, but even this association misses the mark.

Deep down Commentary is a neocon magazine. And neocon's are their own true north their own mission. They are no more loyal to Israel than America or the Soviet Union. They are no more Jewish than Atheist than Jewish. They are loyal to capitalism no more than socialism no more than communism. Their only faith is in the sufficiency of their own human actions.

We're So Vain (Why We Are Losing or Have Lost the "War on Terror")

Asymmetric warfare, commonly known by its Orwellian pseudonym "terrorism" has been the holy grail of warfare since the dawn of time. It supposedly allows a less well armed, but larger force defeat a more well armed larger force. Since the discovery of pointed stick, wealth has been the overwhelming determiner of success on the battlefield. Even the man who personified the hope of Asymmetric warfare, Mao, wrote "Power flows from a barrel of a gun."

To understand success of the use of Asymmetric warfare by Muslim conservatives is to understand just how wrong Mao was. Power does not flow from the barrel of a gun. Mao's revolution died with barley a shot being fired. The greatest significance of Mao's victories and those of Allied forces over the Axis forces was certainly the election of Dwight Eisenhower as president.

The greatest fiction woven by the writer of alternative histories, is that wars are lynch pins on which history turns. If World War II had been won by the Axis powers it is hard to imagine that the lives of the vast majority of people around the world would differ in any significant way from the lives they live now.

One of the many perversions of those civil war buffs who spend their life in the fetid detritus of Southern secession, is the pitiful significance they place on the various battles of the war. Southern independence never had a chance. Once it became clear that the European powers would not join the Southern cause and that the naval blockade was somewhat successful, any faint hope of success for the Confederacy was extinguished.

All the battles that so many study with such passion were utterly meaningless. The north could have lost virtually every battle and even the war itself and virtually nothing would have changed. The value of agricultural goods would have diminished in any case. The northern industrialist would have come to power in any event.

The true wisdom of battle was that Lao Tzu. Nations rise and fall of there own accord. A victorious general is one who knows how to fight the battles that are winnable. Battles determine who stands at the captain's wheel, but these captain's wheel is not connected to a rudder.

Mao won for one reason and one reason only. The cities had become dependent on the great powers. The destruction of the Japanese and British Empires in the war doomed the power of the cities and allowed them to drown in the countryside. When the cities were reborn the Mao's tide ebbed away. The millions of lives lost, the millions of dollars wasted, all the plans of mice and men mattered not.

A similar change in the stars is occurring now. The center of the gravity of the world is shifting East. The institutions that supported the post World War II era are being swept away. The old battles of Europe go on, but their significance is diminishing to zero.

The old battles of the East are ascendant. You can date the graves in the Middle East by the direction in which the bodies are lain. As one influence wanes the bodies themselves turn to the future. And the future is with the rising sun and the East.

One could read the above and suppose that there is a certain fatalism, in the author's approach. How, if the outcome of test of arms is insignificant to the flow of history, can one triumph over terrorism.

The answer is simple. Wars decide the fate of individuals, not peoples. Those who understand this have the power to influence the personalities who lead claim to rule the world, and means that they follow to do so. To the extent one values such things, there is a clear path to "winning" asymmetric wars.

Successful people by definition rarely fail. If they appear to fail, chances are, that observer was mistaken about their goals. If there is a rich patriot, he is no more common than other madmen. The powerful of the world overwhelming are motivated by their own desires, caring little for what happens to the people they claim to represent.

Leaders both civilian and military are motivated much more by their own careers than the fate of their nations. Throughout history, the vast majority of the leaders of a defeated power, if not killed, immediately and with apparently very little reservation switch their allegiance to victor.

Understanding Asymmetric warfare is understanding why that very few who remain loyal to their lost cause do so. The answer is simple. They do not have the means to do join the victors. As Lucifer so eloquently says "It is better to reign in hell." By attaining leadership position amongst the resistance these leaders can benefit either from a change in fortune between the two powers, or much more likely, reach the position were they can betray their followers for a position of power with the victors.

We in our vanity say things like "They hate us for our freedom." These people don't hate us at all. They couldn't care less. And, if they had been offered a position of power on our side they almost surely would have taken it.

The goals of several of the recent strategies of combating terrorism are based upon thwarting the supposed goals that terrorist leaders have for their people. The Reagan doctrine of not negotiating with terrorist, hopes to make it clear that nothing is to be gain by terrorist activity. The Powell doctrine of overwhelming force is also premised on the resistance is futile meme. Perhaps the least effective anti-terrorism method is Israel's "Crazy Boss" strategy which tries to leave fear in the terrorist's mind that any violence could result in overwhelming force.

These strategies have been a total failure, because they are based on the vain nation that the terrorist care about us at all. To the terrorist, the only thing that matters is their position of power within their own movement. Terrorism gives them power not because it weakens the enemy but because it increases their power in the movement. The power of terrorism is not its effect on the enemy but the sense amongst the resistance that something is being done as opposed to nothing.

Thus the most effective course to ending terrorism negotiation. In negotiations the illusory nature of a the terrorist's "resistance" is immediately exposed and the true power differential is made immediately apparent. After decades of trying. Israel was easily able to defeat Arafat with negotiations. One could argue that the defeat of Fatah and the splintering of the Palestinians would result in a few more feet of land for Israel in the final resolution of the matter, but even this is highly unlikely.

By negotiating with Hamas could Israel easily defeat them as well. The significance of such a victory or even its desirability are debatable but the certainty of the victory is almost certain. The clear eyed leader is not confused. The song is not about us, at all.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - Criterion Collection (2-Disc Special Edition)

I have recently watched The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - Criterion Collection (2-Disc Special Edition). I am a big Bill Murry fan. Scrooged has been one of my favorite movies for some time. Lost in Translation really seemed to be a transcendent role for Murray. The Life shows Murray inhabiting a character much more like the character played in Scrooged. But despite this the movie has unexpected pathos.

It was advertised as a comedy, a parody of the Jacques Cousteau documentaries. But this is just the premise for a much more serious exploration of aging, and relationships. In many ways The Life is a worthy mate for Lost in Translation. If anything Murray provides a braver and richer exploration of the liquid realities of an aging movie star.

Rag: To haze

We tend to think of English as being either British, or American. But the reality is that English is widely used in many countries in the world and has quite different vocabularies in different cultures. If one is going to remain current in English one must realize that these different vocabularies will have as much chance if not more of surviving than the language we use here in the states. For this reason I try to read widely the English used throughout the world.

In this, article: 7 Sanawar boys sent home for ragging found in the Times of India to rag is used in the sense of to haze, meaning physical violence or bullying in a school setting.

Re: Why Israel Will Bomb Iran

This article scares me. The logic seem impeccable especially for Israel's attack on Iran. I do not believe however that a two state solution is in the offing. I believe that it will be hard not to make the argument that Iran's desire to retaliate makes the formation of the Palestinian state too dangerous.

The reality is that the growth of the settlements is simply incompatible with the formation of a Palestinian state. Israel never stopped increasing the settlements. The rhetoric from the Israel's seems more and more absolutist against the Palestinians. And, a victory against Iran will only increase the power of the conservatives in the Israeli government.

I think it is harder and harder to argue against President Carter's arguments in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

Re: The New York Times, the Charles Freeman Controversy, and the Israel Lobby Issue

I truly fear that members of the Jewish right engaging in activities that may in end cause dreadful danger to the Jewish community in the United States. I used to imagine that there might be some sort of truth to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer . But more and more reading, especially The National Review and Commentary, has lead me to believe most commentators who would be lumped with the "Israeli lobby" are not only not directed from Israel but that their "pro-Israel" polices arise from domestic political considerations more than any special loyalty to Israel. After all if the primary motivation was Zionist, wouldn't they be in Israel?

But for some time I have noticed a disturbing trend. Israel and some of commentators have become more abrasive and accusatory. If find myself more and more offended by Israel's demands that we accept their versions of events. Rarely is there any attempt to woo Americans. I believe that this attitude is behind the repetitively low support for Israel's actions After all Americans barely bat an eye at oppression far greater than the Israeli's inflict of the Palestinians.

But with the Charles Freedom incident there truly does appear to be the outlines of a conspiracy. There is no question that the attacks on Freeman originated from ardent supporters of Israel. But, any careful reading of the attacks along with other writings by the same authors make it clear that the attacks were largely motivated by domestic political considerations, unrelated to Israel.

If people would just say something like this, all would be probably be fine. The problem is that authors like Ron Radosh and the Washington Post editorial board made the declarative statements that the motivation for those who led the opposition to Freeman was not his statements about Israel. This is simply false and obviously false. Supporters of Israel risk actually forming a conspiracy to lie about the events leading to Freeman's withdrawal.

Times of economic insecurity such as now are dangerous times. Politics can lurch quickly between extremes and people are looking for a scape goat. If the question of whether there is a conspiracy involving Jewish supporters of Israel, changes to what is the nature of the conspiracy, the danger of Pogrom against the Jews would greatly increase.

Supporters of Israel need to work on their message. Focus on the people at large, not just the powerful. And studiously avoid actions that could give demagogue an place to start.

Ron Radosh, it seems went beyond his lies about the Freeman incident to suppressing my similar post in regards to his article. I submitted two versions, both of which seem to have been rejected. They are provided below. Believe me it is far better to let your opponents express their opinions, odious though they may be, than to have them quietly advancing their agenda.

Update: Both comments were posted in the comments section provided for Mr. Radosh's article.. I also corrected some spelling and grammar errors.



Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.

Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadly, been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush, the lesser evil, sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, the greater evil, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.

Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.

By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.

After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.

There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.

Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.

Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadly been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.

Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.



By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.

After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.

There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.