The War in America Against Israel

The American Thinker has published a two part article on this topic by Richard Baehr. It is long but an absolute must read.

Part I
He calls it an “anti-Israel media crusade” and advises it will focus on “the trial of former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman for allegedly passing on classified information to journalists and Israel, and the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War of early June 1967.”

Part II

“Today in America, we have the unusual situation of a similarly large collection of writers, and academics and propagandists, a chorus, if you may, all of whom are hostile to Israel and its supporters in America. And they are singing together in newspaper columns, magazine articles, TV and radio interviews, books, academic papers, conferences, and lectures.”

The campaign against Israel in America today is focused on a few themes:

    1. The so-called Israel lobby is in complete control of the debate, and stifles criticism of Israel

    2. If only other voices were allowed to be heard, the debate would open up, and American public opinion and policy would change.

    3. American policy needs to change because the Israel lobby does not promote American interests, but Israel’s (or at least right wing Israelis), which are different than and wrong for America.

    4. If America were more evenhanded in its approach, and engaged more in the peace process (meaning it should lean on and pressure Israel for concessions) peace between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved, presumably quickly.

    5. If American policy were less under the sway of the Israel lobby, our policy would be viewed as more balanced, say like Europe’s, and we would have more friends in the world.

    6. If 2 through 5 above were implemented, Al Qaeda would throw a party for us on the Pakistan-Afghan border, light a campfire, and invite us over to sing Kumbayah with them, just before the forced conversions to Islam would begin at gunpoint.

April 1, 2007 | 4 Comments »

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. Western Civilization proceeds steadily on a path towards the elimination of right and wrong, lies and truthes, confrontational language, scientific proof etc etc and of course the judeo Christian moral values that have steered our society for many centuries.
    Western appeasement is seen as the universal panacea.
    however much appeasement we shower at Islam it is merely a minor temporary instrument in the desperate attempt to avoid conflict and is far more poisonous to our own culture that to theirs. The major instruments are the demonisation of our own society and the lionisation of Islamic societies to produce an even ground playing field in which there are no bad guys and no good guys and therefore no real causes of conflict. So Israel is demonized and Hamas and Hezbollah are lionised, in the same old way that Arafat was.
    The ramifications of this are are disastrous in our own society and are now bearing rotten fruit.
    Gitmo and Abu ghraib are compared quite legitimately by UNI professors to Gulags or Nazi concentration camps. Rapists are no worse or better that their victims. No difference between GWB and Saddam Hussein- and so on and on.
    When we talk incessant appeasement, we talk down our own civilisation and talk up barbarism to the level of democratic government.
    And this has now become mainstream thinking in our society. under the aegis of multiculturalism. All our sources of moral values have been consigned to the dustbin.
    There is now nothing however noble, worth defending and hence the traditional sources of conflict are no longer there to motivate us to act in our defence. To the liberals this is a “good thing’ since it eliminates any moral High ground which they see as causes of violent conflicts. The result is of course that Europe is no longer able to act in its own defense and it expects Israel to do the same.
    The increased western animosity towards Israel, is a direct result of this nihilistic liberal mindset.

  2. I take exception to Mr. Behr’s diatribe babout Jewish responsibility where he stated that tyhe israeli-pali is the cause of muslim ire specifically when he used the “Serbians attaking croats and muslims.” I believe ironically that Mr. Behr has fell victim to his own misinformation. Now possibly he was only using it as an illustration, however it is propagating another lie. Being both a Serb and Jew I Know it was the muslims and croats who started it and fooled the world as to Kosovo, much like the “Palestinian Myth.” However the Serbs don’t push this Bs while many Jews do!

  3. Jewish Current Issues comments on this article,

    Let me add a historical footnote to Baehr’s summary. Thirteen years after Resolution 242 was adopted, Jimmy Carter (natch) — in a fit of pique at Menachem Begin — allowed the U.S. to vote on March 1, 1980 in favor of a non-binding U.N. resolution that repeatedly (six times) referred to Jerusalem as “occupied territory.” It marked the first time, according to the New York Times, that the U.S. had voted against Israel on a major issue.

    In the uproar that ensued (and that ultimately cost Carter the March 25, 1980 New York presidential primary), the administration distributed a 1967 speech by U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and told the press it indicated he had supported the concept that Jerusalem was occupied Arab territory. On March 12, 1980, the New York Times printed a letter from Goldberg that he submitted “to set the record straight”:

    . . . The facts are that I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. . . . Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. . . . In a number of speeches at the UN in 1960, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory. . . . I made it clear that the status of Jerusalem should be negotiable and that the armistice lines dividing Jerusalem were no longer viable. In other words, Jerusalem was not to be divided again.

    When George Ball, my immediate successor, visited Amman on July 16, 1967, he quoted King Hussein as having said he personally recognized that there must be flexibility on the question of Jerusalem and that there could be no return to the pre-June 1967 status. This statement is in the reporting telegram of Ball’s visit to King Hussein.

    Carter’s action not only was a grievous gratuitous insult to an American ally, but started a process whose deleterious effects are apparent today — by encouraging Arab grievances to be aired in the UN as a more hospitable forum than the process Resolution 242 envisioned.

    First time I read that quote.

  4. Love that Socratic method:

    Media: If American policy were less under the sway of the Israel lobby…

    IMFA: I don’t quite understand. What exactly do you mean by “Israel Lobby”?

    Add your own debate… I believe this debating method demands true intellect, stripped of emotion.

    Problem is that these people – propagandists – don’t debate; they simply propagandize knowing that most people will believe anything in print. The main culprits have to be “encouraged” to debate on programs such as Glenn Beck.

Comments are closed.