The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
‘NYT’ Leaves Out Dennis Ross’s Charge to US Jews: ‘We Need to be Advocates for Israel’
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Once again The New York Times defers to supporters of Israel. It gives the pro-Israel peace processor Dennis Ross a platform on the op-ed page to talk about anti-Semitism in the State Department back in the 80s and 90s.

“Memories of an Anti-Semitic State Department” is a clever dodge on Ross’s part. It is supposedly a response to the controversy over Phil Giraldi’s piece at Unz Review on American Jews running the “war engine” in U.S. foreign policy — a piece that former CIA agent/hero Valerie Plame retweeted and was shamed for doing so, and over which Giraldi l ost his job at the American Conservative.

Ross argues that Jews shouldn’t be questioned about dual loyalty:

Rather than be worried about being mistrusted and accused of dual loyalties, Jewish American should feel proud. In uncertain times, identity can provide a source of security and comfort….

Indeed, to live a Jewish life one must be committed to the Jewish community, but also to others. Jews have an obligation to promote justice, mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace.

This is a dodge because Dennis Ross never mentions Zionism, just Jews. But Ross is a committed Zionist who told a synagogue audience last spring– supposedly off the record– about their Zionist marching orders: Jews should not advocate for Palestinians because we don’t live in Israel, and we won’t suffer the consequences of our criticism.

Because we don’t live there, we don’t bear the consequences of the decision… Plenty of others are advocates for the Palestinians. We don’t need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel.

So much for justice and compassion.

I disapprove of Giraldi’s broadbrush prejudicial attack, but the Times is still evading the criticism that Walt and Mearsheimer issued 11 years ago, thanks to the internet, and that continues to haunt the organized Jewish community: To what extent was the Iraq war pushed by neoconservative Jews who were concerned about Israel’s security. Joe Klein raised the Jewish neoconservative issue years ago and was pilloried for doing so:

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish
assault on Iran, raised the question of pided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

And yes: American Jews were overwhelmingly against that war. But: a, the community deferred to the neocons as it traditionally has done, because they are the self-appointed guardians of Israel’s security; so even the Reform Jews signed off on the Iraq war ( and my brother informed me that his Jewish newspaper said this war could be “good for Israel”); b, Thanks to Sheldon Adelson and others, neoconservative Jews who were opposed to the peace process got policy-making positions in the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith at the infamous Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, which distilled a lot of the lies needed to justify the invasion of Iraq. Colin Powell later blamed the war on the “JINSA crowd” — the neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Philip Zelikow, a Bush aide who chaired the 9/11 Commission, said in 2002 that the war was being planned because of “the threat that dare not speak its name”– Iraq’s “threat to Israel.”

Ross is chair of a Zionist organization, the Jewish People Policy Institute, and was part of the White House negotiating team that Aaron David Miller admitted later, “acted as Israel’s lawyer.” Ross needs to be challenged: How many open non-Zionists or anti-Zionists have ever had high ranking positions involved with policy on the Palestinians?

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Israel Lobby, Jews 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Colin Powell later blamed the war on the “JINSA crowd”

    Did he later blame it on himself at all? He did make the pitch for it at the UN.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @reiner Tor
  2. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    An Apology to Every Single American (Excerpt from VICE News’ Interview with Michael Morell)

    Published on Jul 8, 2015
    When al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Michael Morell was with President George W. Bush at an elementary school in Florida as the CIA’s daily briefer. The events that unfolded on that fateful day are just some of the many national security disasters that Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, has been at the center of since 9/11. The veteran intelligence official has spent much of his 30-year career out of the public eye, but he’s stepping out of the shadows to talk about his new book The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight Against Terrorism — From al Qa’ida to ISIS.

    VICE News met with Morell at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, and spoke with him about the Iraq war, the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, and what he refers to as “the new era of terrorism.”

    In this excerpt, Morell admits that the intelligence the CIA produced about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear intentions, which paved the way to war, was flawed. Morell is one of the first CIA officials to come clean about this fact, and to apologize for getting the intelligence wrong.

    • Replies: @anon
  3. @Dave Pinsen

    He was morally (and politically) responsible in the sense that he went along with the stupid push for war. But initially, within the administration, he was opposed to it, and argued against it. In that sense the war did not happen because of him, it happened in spite of him. Of course, the fact that he knew well how foolish it was from the beginning makes his moral responsibility in some sense larger.

  4. Randal says:

    pro-Israel peace processor


    I disapprove of Giraldi’s broadbrush prejudicial attack

    But not particularly, presumably (based upon the lack of even a cursory protest in this piece) of the fact that his opinions, which are a legitimate part of any debate on the issue, are actively and largely successfully suppressed – not least by actions such as his prompt dismissal from even a fringe publication such as TAC.

    but the Times is still evading the criticism

    Say, do you think they might be enabled in that evasion by the kind of suppression of dissent visible in the fact that Giraldi’s piece could only be published on a website devoted explicitly to publishing dissenting opinions that are usually suppressed in the US, and that even then he was promptly sacked by another publication merely for having had the piece published in even that context?

    that Walt and Mearsheimer issued 11 years ago, thanks to the internet

    Gosh, only “thanks to the internet”, eh? And Walt and Mearsheimer faced obstacles to publishing based upon content that almost led to their dropping the project? And they lost out on potential career prospects as a result?

    Gee, do you think any of that might come from the widespread acceptance of the kind of lazy smearing exhibited here in your own writing regarding Giraldi’s piece?

    There needs to be an honest discussion and debate about dual loyalty and its impact on foreign policy, with a particular reference to jewish people and Israel, because it’s so obviously the case, that jewish people have exercised and do exercise disproportionate influence at the highest levels in US society. The outcome of that debate is open to question, but it will never be an honest debate until one side of the debate is no longer actively suppressed.

    Until that time, nobody should be surprised that US policy is warped in dishonest and disadvantageous directions, when it is based upon opinions formed in a warped and biased discussion environment.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  5. And yes: American Jews were overwhelmingly against that war.

    True. But I now believe that was because the Iraq War was (officially) presided over by Bush, who is–Gasp!–a Christian. After O’Bomber assumed command and preceded to roll out another seven wars in eight years, I noticed that their response was considerably more muted … almost non-existent, in fact. And now some of them (by no means all) are actually attacking Trump for–get this–not being belligerent enough with certain countries like Russia and Syria.

    Consequently, I have come to the rather glum conclusion that Jewish anti-war activists should be handled with extreme care, about like Jewish anti-Zionists. It may make sense to ally with them tactically once in a while, but we need to be aware that they have an agenda all their own, which differs considerably from ours.

  6. hyperbola says:

    Ross is not the only traitor.

    Martin Indyk says he ‘made aliyah to Washington’ to save Israel

    Martin Indyk’s selection by Secretary of State John Kerry as the Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority summoned memories of an appearance I witnessed at J Street’s first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made “aliyah to Washington” during the 1980’s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israel’s favor….

    Indyk’s “aliyah” came in the form of a position at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) as a deputy researcher in 1982. Three years later, he and Dennis Ross founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC-linked think tank. Ross’s first paper for WINEP, which he published in 1985, demanded the appointment of “a non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy” who would not “feel guilty about our relationship with Israel and our reluctance to force Israeli consensus.”

    At the personal recommendation of the Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban, who raised $3.5 million for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, and later paid for the construction of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, Clinton appointed Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel. Ross joined the administration as Special Envoy to the Middle East, precisely the position he had dreamed up in his WINEP position paper…..

    And the bleeding of Americans to pay for the traitors criminals continues apace.

    “Israel, India, and the Geopolitics of West Asia”, A Discussion with Ambassador Martin Indyk

    Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?”

    Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” Report

  7. hyperbola says:

    Indyk should be put on trial for treason.

    6 elements of a strategy to push back on Iran’s hegemonic ambitions

  8. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    Intelligence was fine It was changed altered and spiced under duress . Cheney gang did it His cabal did this. He under appropriate method will admit why he did , who were with him, who pushed him and what was his reason for succumbing to the pressure .

  9. Wally says:

    Weiss said:

    “And yes: American Jews were overwhelmingly against that war.”

    No they weren’t, he just demonstrated the opposite.

    More of the same double talk.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution