A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Israel Shamir Columns
The Fateful Triangle: Russia, Ukraine and the Jews
shutterstock_12633766

The erotic reliefs of Hindu temples with their gravity-defying and anatomy-challenging positions have found a new modern competitor in the Ukrainian crisis. Each party wants to get the Jews on their side, while claiming that the other side is anti-Jewish and a Jewish puppet at once. This impossible, Kama-Sutraesque position is the result of extremely confusing alliances: the Kiev regime lists devout Jews and fiery antisemites among its mainstays. The leading figures of the regime (including the president-elect) are of Jewish origin; strongman and chief financier Mr. Igor (Benya) Kolomoysky is a prominent Jewish public figure, the builder of many synagogues and a supporter of Israel. The most derring-do and pro-active force of the regime, the ultra-nationalists of the Svoboda party and the Right Sector, admire Hitler and his Ukrainian Quisling, Stepan Bandera, “liberators of Ukraine from the Judeo-Muscovite yoke”. Jews are ambivalent, and the sides are ambivalent about them, and a most entertaining intrigue has been hatched.

The Russians tried to pull Israel and American Jews to their side, with little success. President Putin condemned the antisemitism of the Svoboda party; he mentioned the desecration of the Odessa Jewish cemetery in his important talk. The Russians re-vitalised the World War Two narrative, fully identifying the Kiev regime with the Bandera gangs and the Nazi enemy. Still, this rhetoric is not taken seriously by Jews who refuse to feel threatened by cuddly Kolomoysky. “These Nazis are not against Jews, they are against Russians, so it is not a Jewish problem”, they say.

The Kiev regime mirrored the Russian attitude, if not Russia’s tactics. Being rather short of facts to brandish, they faked a leaflet from Donetsk rebels to local Jews calling upon them to register and pay a special poll tax “for the Jews support the Kiev regime”. This rude and improbable hoax was immediately and convincingly disproved, but not before it was used by, no less, Barak Obama and John Kerry. The American Jewish newspaper of record, The Forward, obfuscated the issue by saying that Russians and Ukrainians are antisemites by birth and their denials are to be taken with a grain of salt. This mud-slinging was effective – the hoax has made the front pages, while its debunking was published on the back pages.

The Russians had the facts on their side, and the West knew that: the US refused entry to Oleg Tyagnibok and other Svoboda leaders (now members of Kiev government) because of their antisemitism as recently as in 2013. But Russian appeals to Jewish and American sensitivities failed to make an impact. They know when to feign indignation and when to hush. Pro-Hitler commemorations are frequent in Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, and cause no lifting of a censorious brow, for these countries are solidly anti-Russian. In March of this year, the Obama administration’s special envoy on anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, flatly denied everything and said to the Forward that Putin’s assertions of Svoboda’s antisemitism “were not credible”. The US wants to decide who is an antisemite and who is not; like Hermann Goering wanted to decide who is a Jew and who is not in the Luftwaffe. In the Ukrainian crisis, the Jews remain divided, and follow their countries’ preferences.

Israel is neutral

Recently Prime Minister Netanyahu called President Putin. Putin is always available for and always courteous to Netanyahu, as opposed to President Obama, who shows signs of irritation. (Admittedly Obama has to listen to Netanyahu much more often and for hours.) Netanyahu apologised that he wouldn’t be able to come to St Petersburg for Israeli Culture Week; instead, old reliable Shimon Peres, Israel’s President, will make the trip. He apologised for leaking the news of this visit cancellation to the media, as well.

This is quite typical for the Israeli PM: at first, he asks for an invitation, Russia extends it, then he cancels his visit and leaks it to the press, thus earning brownie points with the Americans. He did it at the Sochi Olympic games, and now again, in St Petersburg. This is his way of expressing Israeli neutrality.

Israel is explicitly neutral in the Ukrainian crisis. Israelis walked out and did not vote on the UN GA Crimea resolution at all, annoying its American sponsors. The Israelis had a flimsy excuse: their Foreign Office was on strike. The Americans weren’t satisfied with this explanation. Strike or not, vote you must!

We learned from our Israeli colleagues the details of the Putin-Netanyahu phone conversation, which elaborated the reasons for Israeli neutrality. Israel is worried that as an asymmetric response to the US sanctions, Russia would deliver its potent air defence systems to Iran and Syria. Iran and Russia had signed a weapons supply contract a few years ago, Iran duly paid; then the shipment was suspended. Iran went to court demanding a massive compensation for the breach of contract. Likewise, the Syrians were supposed to get the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, able to protect its skies from Israeli raids. The deliveries commenced; PM Netanyahu beseeched Putin to put it on hold. Initially Putin objected, stressing the defensive nature of the system. Netanyahu told the Russian president that the S-300 would allow the Syrians to cover the whole North of Israel, at least all the way to Haifa, rendering important airfields unusable and endangering civil aviation as well. Putin agreed to stop the deliveries.

Vladimir Putin is friendly to Israel. He promised he would not allow the destruction of Israel; he promised to save its population if the situation should become truly dangerous. During the recent visit of PM Netanyahu to Moscow, Putin was not carried away by Netanyahu and Liberman’s hints of possible Israeli re-alliance with Moscow instead of Washington. He told the Israelis that their ties with the US are too strong for such a re-alliance being conceivable. Putin said that Russia is satisfied with the present level of friendship and does not demand that Tel Aviv weaken its ties with Washington. Putin visited Israel a few times, he received the Israeli PM in Kremlin. The Israeli ambassador Mme Golender sees Putin more often than do her American or French counterparts.

This friendly attitude has a down-to-earth reason: Putin is not fluent in English or French, while Mme Ambassador speaks Russian to him, eliminating the bothersome need of an interpreter. A deeper reason is Putin’s background: a scion of liberal elites, brought up in St Petersburg, schooled by ultra-liberal Mayor Sobchack, anointed by Boris Yeltsin, Putin is naturally friendly to Jews and to Israel. This friendly attitude annoyed some Russian ultra-patriots, who excitedly circulated his photo taken in the obligatory kippah near the Wailing Wall. They also counted and recounted the names of Jewish oligarchs in Moscow.

True, some of them – Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Hodorkovsky – had to flee their Russian homeland, but the Russian president is surely not the Jewish-tycoons-Nemesis and the-new-Hitler he is sometimes made out to be. Abramovich and Friedman, to name just two, retain his trust and access. Putin does not mind any oligarch (Jewish or Gentile) – as long as he stays out of politics.

Putin is also friendly with Jewish intellectuals and gentlemen-of-the-media, even if they are outright hostile to him. Masha Gessen, Jewish Lesbian Putin-hater and magazine editor; Alexey Venediktov, Jewish chief editor of Echo Moskvy, a popular liberal medium that attacks Putin every day; many others enjoy access to Putin, – while no Russian nationalist including Dr Alexander Dugin can boast of having met with the president privately.

Putin’s affability does not turn him into a bountiful source for every Jewish initiative. He stopped S-300 deliveries to Iran, but rejected all Israeli overtures asking him to ditch Iran, or Syria, or Hamas. In the course of their last phone conversation, Netanyahu claimed the Israelis discovered proofs of Iranian nukes. Putin politely expressed his doubts and re-addressed him to IAEA. He agreed to receive the Israeli “experts” with their proofs in Moscow, but nothing came of it. Russia’s support for Palestine is unwavering, – there is a Palestinian embassy in Moscow, too.

Putin supported building of a spacious Jewish museum in Moscow and personally contributed to its budget – but Russian street advertising proclaims the Resurrection of Christ, Eastertide, and His Nativity at Christmas. No “season’s greetings”, but open affirmation of Christianity. Russia is not like the US or EU, where external signs of Christian faith are forbidden, Easter and Christmas can’t be mentioned and whatever Jews request must be done immediately. Western Jews are annoyed (so their organisations claim) by public displays of Christian faith, but Russian Jews do not mind; moreover, they intermarry, convert and enter the Church in previously unheard of numbers. They are not strongly pro-Israeli, those that were already left for Israel.

So the Jews of Russia are not an influential factor to the Russian President. Putin will do what is right according to the Christian faith, and what is good for Russia, as he understands it — and he can’t be convinced to give up really important points. Other considerations – such as friendship with Israel – would normally take a much lower place in his priorities. However, in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, as the Russians are worried by sanctions and by threats of isolation, they try to pull Jews to their side. This makes them increasingly susceptible to Israeli manipulation, whether state-authorised or a private venture.

Last week, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld visited Moscow. In 2003, he famously threatened Europe with nuclear destruction (the “Samson Option”), saying “Israel has the capability to take the world down with us, and that will happen before Israel goes under”. Now he has explained to Russians Israel’s new policy: While the US enters the period of its decline, Israel must diversify and hedge its bets by drawing close to Moscow, Beijing and Delhi, he wrote in Izvestia daily. Perhaps, but without going too far. A flirt – yes, switching sides – not yet.

Israel prefers to stick to its neutrality. This is easy, as the Israeli populace (excepting its Russians) is not interested in Russian/Ukrainian affairs, does not know the difference between Russia and the Ukraine and is rather unfriendly to Russians/Ukrainians. This goes for both the Left and Right; the Israeli Left is even more pro-American than the Israeli Right. As for Russian Israelis, they are equally divided between supporters of Russia and supporters of Kiev regime. While observing niceties towards Russia, Israel does not intend to side with Moscow. The Jewish oligarchs of Ukraine – Kolomoysky, Pinchuk, Rabinovich – are integrated within the Kiev regime, and they support Israeli right-wing on a large scale. Israeli businessmen are invested in the Ukraine, and the oligarchs are invested in Israel. Kolomoysky controls YuzhMash, the famed missile construction complex in Dnepropetrovsk, and holds the secrets of the Satan ballistic missile, the most powerful Russian strategic weapon. He allegedly intends to share these secrets with the Israelis. If Israel were to side with Moscow regarding Ukraine, the breach with Washington would be unavoidable, and Israel does not intend to provoke it.

Some marginal Israeli right-wingers support Russia; they claim that they represent Israeli public opinion and government. They try to collect on their promises before they deliver. However, this is not an ordinary scam: they are trying to turn Russia into a supporter of right-wing Zionism.

Consider Russian-Israeli far right activist Avigdor Eskin. He impossibly claims that the Israeli government has already decided to jump from the US train to join the Russian one, that Israeli commandos are on their way to fight for the Russians in Donetsk, that Israeli authorities intend to strip Mr Kolomoysky of his Israeli citizenship. Naturally, all that is a load of bunkum, but Russians swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Avigdor Eskin is a colourful personality: a convert to Jewish faith (his mother is not Jewish), an observant Jew, an ex-Kahanist who was arrested in Israel for an alleged attempt to desecrate Al Aqsa mosque and a Muslim cemetery, and who served two or three years in Israeli jail; he styles himself a “Rabbi” and wears a full beard. After serving his time in jail, he moved to Russia and built a network of Israel supporters among the Russian far right. His message is “Israel is a true friend of Russia, while Muslims are Russia’s enemies”. He also adds that Israeli settlers are anti-American and pro-Russian. (If you believe that, the tooth fairy is the next step.)

Recently he claimed that the Aliya Battalion of “experienced Israeli commandos and sharpshooters” came to warring Donbass to fight on the Russian side against the Kiev regime troops. The Aliya Battalion is a battalion in the sense Salvation Army is an army. This is an Israeli NGO, established by Russian Israelis of far-right Zionist persuasion and of some Russian military background. It is not a part of Israeli Army. For a short while, the NGO provided guards for Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, but the settlements stopped using them as they were extremely unreliable. They boasted of murdering Palestinian civilians, of torturing and killing children, but this was just a sick sadist and racist fantasy, people say. Afterwards, the Battalion leaders turned its name into a profitable scam, roaming American Jewish communities and collecting donations for their supposedly secret activities. As this scam was exposed by Israeli TV (RTVI network; it is available on the YouTube), they had disappeared from the public eye. Now Avigdor Eskin resurrected the old scam, and made a lot of headlines in the Russian media.

Eskin found a soulmate in prominent Russian media man Vladimir Solovyev. The Solovyev is of partly Jewish origin, lived abroad, then returned to Russia; he runs an important political show Sunday Eveningon Russian TV. The Saker (a well-known blogger) described him as follows: “This show is hosted by a famous personality, Vladimir Solovyev, who is a very interesting guy. Solovyev is a Jew, and he is not shy about reminding his audience about it, who was even elected as a member of the Russian Jewish Congress. He is also a Russian patriot, and he is an outspoken supporter of Putin and his policies. His position on the Ukraine is simple: he as a Jew and as a Russian has zero tolerance for Ukrainian nationalism, neo-Nazism or Banderism. He is a determined and total enemy of the new Kiev regime.”

It is possible Solovyev is going through some personal identity crisis: from celebrating his Russian roots, he moved to proclaiming his Jewish origin. Alternatively, it is possible (and more likely) that the Russian decision-makers want to pull Jews on their side, and Solovyev is acting with US Jews in mind. Stalin did it, so Putin could repeat the trick. In 1942, as Nazi onslaught threatened Russia, Stalin had sent some Russian Jews to the US, to speak Yiddish to Jewish communities and lobby for the USSR. The American Jewish community surely carries some clout… Now Solovyev and others are trying to influence Jews abroad; or at least to show to their superiors they are trying.

The price Eskin extracts for his fantasy stories is high. In Solovyev’s prime time programme, he called for the destruction of al Aqsa mosque and for the building of the Jewish temple on its place. He called Palestinians “the people of Antichrist”. Even in Israel such statements can’t be voiced on public TV. In confused Moscow, Eskin was feted and given a place in another important political programme, that of Arcady Mamontov. Who is conning whom: is Eskin conning his Russian hosts, or are his media hosts using him to con their superiors, or are their superiors trying to con the Russian people? Or is Israel hedging its bets? Who knows?

Ukrainian Jews beg to differ

Jews came to the Ukraine a thousand years ago, perhaps from Khazaria. This is not a homogeneous community; rather, they represent several communities. A lot of them emigrated to Israel; even more moved to Russia. They speak Russian and usually do not speak Ukrainian, though they picked up the vernacular over last twenty years. Normally, they wouldn’t care about Ukraine’s independence, as Jews traditionally side with the strong, be it Poles under Polish rule, with Russians under Moscow rule, or with Germans under Vienna or Berlin. Now many of them have decided to side with the US or EU. One of the reasons why so many people of Jewish origin do well is that the ruling ethnic groups trust the Jews and rely upon their loyalty to the powerful and lack of compassion for their Gentile neighbours.

Another reason is the vague definitions. For last three or four generations, Jews have intermarried freely; children of these mixed marriages are often considered ‘Jews’. These are the ‘Jews’ to the present regime; often they have only one Jewish grandparent.

Ukraine, following its independence in 1991, moved into the Western sphere of influence, but Eastern Ukraine (Novorossia) retained its Russian character and links. Jews did well in both parts. Mr Kolomoysky is a prominent member of the Jewish community, and a mainstay of the Kiev regime. He is a ruthless businessman, famous for his raiding of others’properties and for his Mafia connections. Rumours connect him with many killings of business adversaries.

On the other side, in Kharkov, the Mayor and the district Governor (nicknamed Dopah and Gepah) are Jewish, and they can be considered pro-Russian. It was thought that Kharkov would become the centre of rising Novorossia; president Yanukovich fled to Kharkov hoping to find allies and supporters. But Dopa and Gepa disabused him, so he continued his flight all the way to the Russian city of Rostov. Their decision to remain loyal to Kiev did not work well for them: one was shot, and the second one has been imprisoned and his attempt to run for president thwarted.

Kharkov is also home to Mr. Hodos, a wealthy and prominent Jew who fought most valiantly against Habad, the Jewish spiritual movement of which Mr Kolomoysky is a prominent member. The Jews of Novorossia apparently support the general pro-Russian trend, though there are exceptions. Practically all Ukrainian Jews have relatives in Russia, and had Russian education.

Israel has a strong network of agents in the Ukraine. They snatched a Palestinian engineer and flew him to an Israeli dungeon, and that could not be done without support of Ukrainian security services. However, the stories of Israeli soldiers fighting in Ukraine are somewhat exaggerated: these are individuals of dual citizenship who act at their own will, not a state representatives.

US Jews are divided

US Jews are divided on the Ukraine, as they were divided on Palestine. Friends of Palestine, people with a strong anti-imperialist record and sound knowledge of East European history – Noam Chomsky and Stephen F. Cohen — recognised and renounced the US attempt to sustain their hegemony by keeping brazen Russia down. A subset of people, Gilad Atzmon aptly called AZZ (anti-zionist zionists), Trots and other faux-Leftist shills for NATO like Louis Proyect – called for American intervention and brayed for Russian blood.

The notorious Israel Lobby is strictly anti-Russian. The State Dept. official Victoria (“Fuck EU”) Nuland personally directed the Kiev coup; she handpicked the government and the president of the new American colony on the Dnieper River. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a founder of FPI, the successor of infamous PNAC, the extremist Zionist think tank which promoted wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and pushed for a war with Iran. Now they attack Russia, but they do not forget about their support for Israel.

Consider a young American gender activist and journalist, James Kirchick. He entered the Neocon network by shilling for the Lobby. He pink-washed Israel (“Israel as the best friend of gays on earth, while the Palestinians are homophobes who deserve to be bombed”). After doing the Israeli stint, he moved on to fighting Russia. He worked for the CIA-owned and US Congress-funded Radio Free Europe; stage-managed the sensational Liz Wahl’s on-air resignation from the RT and protested alleged mistreatment of gays in Russia. His dirty tricks were revealed by Max Blumenthal, a Jewish American journalist, a known anti-Zionist (working together with a Palestinian Rania Khalek).

While Israel is neutral re Ukraine, Israeli friends in EU and US are hostile to Russia and supportive of American hegemony, while friends of Palestine stand for Russia’s challenge to the Empire. The French Zionist media philosopher Bernard Henri Levy is an example of the former, while Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research is a representative of the latter. Leading critical (“anti-Zionist”) websites Counterpunch, Antiwar, Global Research sympathise with Russia, while pro-Israeli sites are hostile to Russia.

Zionists are nasty and vicious enemies, but they make even worse friends. Edward N. Luttwak is friendly to Russia; he called upon the US to make up with Russia. Strategic union of Russia and America is necessary, he says. Who cares about Ukraine? And here is his pitch line: Russia should fight China for the US benefit. Another Zionist friend, Tony Blair, also calls for peace with Russia – so Russia can fight the Muslim world for Israel. Quite similar to Eskin who offers his pathetic support to Russia in order to neutralise her positive influence and defence of Palestine.

The bottom line: Israel remains neutral for its own reasons. While Jews as individuals differ on Ukraine, there is a correlation with their stand on Palestine and on Syria. Enemies of Putin in Russia, Ukraine, Europe and US do support Israel and are hostile to Palestine, to Syria of Bashar, to Venezuela of Chavez. And the most dangerous lot are those who support Israel and Russia, as they are surely plotting some mischief.

Language editing by Ken Freeland

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net


(Reprinted from IsraelShamir.net by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Classic, Israel, Jews, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 105 Comments
Skip Commenters
(Additional comments may exist at original publication site of IsraelShamir.net)

105 Comments to "The Fateful Triangle: Russia, Ukraine and the Jews"

[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Who is this Shamir fellow? Can his views be trusted? I doubt it. He has his own axes to grind. Is he related to Itzhak Shamir, the former Israeli PM and terrorist?

    We should judge the Ukrainian-Russian conflict like the Sunni-Shiite conflict. We have no dog in that fight.

    Reply • 
  2. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Shamir’s a known anti-Zionist.

    (My opinion? I personally favor a two-state solution with a big wall down the middle. Everyone gets a country, and keep ‘em apart.)

    The USA would benefit tactically from drawing Ukraine into the EU orbit, as this would strengthen our hand; however, on a larger strategic scale it would further inflame Russia, a potentially dangerous thing. What’s probably best for America? Staying out.

    Reply • 
  3. Look Israel Shamir up in wikipedia. He appears to have obscured his real identity, his real name, his real positions. He is accused of anti-Zionism, which in my book is no crime. He is also accused of Holocaust denial, which would be serious if true. In any case, he seems a controversial character and not one to rely on for basic understanding of what is going on between Ukraine and Russia.

    Reply • 
  4. Cahokia
    says:
         Show Comment

    @norman ravitch

    None of that negates the content of this article.

    This is one of the most informative assessments of the role of Israel in the Ukraine civil war and of the relationship between the Russian government and world Jewry.

    The bottom line is that Israel is skilled at pitting “the nations” against each other to its advantage, including the U.S.

    One interpretation of Jewish elite and neoconservative influence in America is that it has been devoted to ensuring that Washington face off against every and any foreign opponent in recent decades *except* China. Just when the Bush administration might have started to confront the PRC, 9/11 happened. Then with the war in Iraq over and Afghanistan winding down, the neocons start a war in Ukraine and initiate a Cold War with Russia.

    My interpretation is that Israel knows that China will inevitably be a world superpower and intends to cultivate it, with an eye to making the People’s Republic it’s principal patron once it has leached America dry.

    • Replies:

    Reply • 
  5. fnn
    says:
         Show Comment

    Shamir also mocks the realities of the Holodomor and the Cambodian genocide. Maybe all the Communist Holocausts.

    On Cambodia:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/

    Reply • 
  6. I’ve seen some of the stuff he said from other sources and he really nailed Proyect. It is obvious that Israel seeks a foreign policy based on what it thinks is its national interest. They have no reason to anger Russia and the US will not abandon one of its masters. Putin doesn’t want to get on Israel’s bad side, but I cannot imagine why he would want to have the kind of relationship Israel and the US has. I’m all for Israel switching sides, and letting the Russians deal with it. It would further endear Putin to the Chechens who threaten Russia. Russia is over there within striking distance of Salafi Jihadist. Russia was going to be the target for Mohammad Atta, but America’s special relationship with Israel made it the target instead.

    Reply • 
  7. Shamir devious ways automatically make him suspect. Yes, he knows a lot. But it would be wiser to get information from elsewhere.

    As for Cahokia, beware of paranoia.

    Reply • 
  8. Shamir has become the target of many Jewish or Zionist writers. But don’t assume from that that he is ok. You can be anti-Zionist and still be a jerk, a criminal, or a fraud. Anti-Israel Lobby people need to beware of their own possible paranoia.

    Yes I know, paranoics can also have real enemies. But the Zionists thrive on their enemies going bonkers and discrediting themselves with conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

    We need anti-Zionists who are intelligent, rational, mentally healthy, and sensible. Are there any?

    Reply • 
  9. matt
    says:
         Show Comment

    norman ravitch,

    Do you always feel like you have to determine whether someone is an “enemy” before you evaluate the truth or falsity of what they say?

    Reply • 
  10. Truth or falsity takes a lot of time and work and resources. In a pinch the stature and reputation of someone giving so-called facts and opinions is very important and provisionally the only thing you may have.

    Much historical analysis which passes for objective cannot be and is not objective. People believe things and call them facts.

    Reply • 
  11. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “We need anti-Zionists who are intelligent, rational, mentally healthy, and sensible. Are there any?”

    What’s an anti-Zionist?

    A Zionist is someone who believes Jews should have a state in the current land of Israel. They can be a one-stater, a two-stater, or any variety; they don’t even actually have to support Israel’s current foreign policy or demand it receive any aid, only its right to exist.

    Therefore an anti-Zionist takes the opposite position, i.e. Israel has no right to exist. Not that many people actually want to take that position outside of the alt-right and far left. There are few anti-Zionists as you describe, and they tend to engage in ridiculous statements like claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen.

    Supporting Israel’s foreign policy and covert operations is another story altogether. Israel and the USA are two nations with interests that are frequently at variance, despite the best efforts of AIPAC to obscure this. Israel’s covert operations are devoted solely to the interests of the state of Israel, which is what you’d expect; the problem is the manipulation of the USA to keep its covert operations from behaving in the same fashion.

    If you mean sane and intelligent *critics of Israeli foreign and domestic policy*…Walt and Mearsheimer come to mind, and there are hundreds of others. Not so many on the mainstream right, which is part of the reason this site exists.

    Full disclosure: I am half-Jewish, though my fellow-feeling for the tribe has weakened *considerably* after the Iraq war. I’m half considering converting just to give Dershowitz and the SPLC the finger.

    • Replies:

    Reply • 
  12. What is anti-Zionism? What is Zionism? Israel is an integral nationalistic state; integral nationalism places the individual under the dominance of the ethnic or racial state. It grew up in Europe where the Jews picked it up as a means of self-defense.

    Arabs practice integral nationalism with a Muslim fanatical bent when they deny Jews the right to live among them, even though Jews have lived in the Middle East before the Arabs came and before Islam.

    An anti-Zionist opposes integral nationalism, which is the father of Fascism. Most European countries either have abandoned integral nationalism or are too ashamed to admit they still prctice it. Hungary is moving towards it. So might Rumania. Both are trying to eliminate their gypsy population and perhaps their Jewish populations as well. The very question in Ukraine is whether the Ukrainian nationalists are integral nationalists or not. In the past they have been, but they may now have changed. Who can tell?

    Reply • 
  13. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Yeah, and how’s abandoning integral nationalism working out for them? Thing is, even if you think you’re post-ethnic, other ethnic groups are still ethnic, and will take the land away from you.

    My opinion? Hungary for the Hungarians, Romania for the Romanians, Israel for the Jews, Palestine for the Palestinians. And yes, we have to split up the country to make that last pair work. The Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if the Jews had had an Israel to go to.

    Integral nationalism doesn’t make sense in the USA, or many places in the New World. Agreed. We have our own path, and it involves heavy assimilation and patriotism to make the country work. But if you have one ethnic group, you can’t have conflicts, and I think that’s what the Old World with its blood-soaked history needs.

    As for the Ukrainians? I think they want Putin out of their country, and I don’t blame them. It’s one thing to admire Tsar Vlad as a defender of Russian interests, but that doesn’t bode well for Ukrainians. But I don’t support the USA getting involved–it’s not worth starting WW3 over.

    Reply • 
  14. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    What’s wrong with this site? Why it keeps publishing anti-Semitic propaganda?
    ‘One of the reasons why so many people of Jewish origin do well is that the ruling ethnic groups trust the Jews and rely upon their loyalty to the powerful and lack of compassion for their Gentile neighbours.’

    As a Russian Jew, I view Russians and Ukrainians as part of one nation. It’s unfortunate that the coup in Kiev, was financed and organized by the US and EU has caused the government to lose its legitimacy and led to the rebellion in the eastern regions. It’s also unfortunate that the Ukrainian government chose to suppress Russian language in the Russian speaking provinces. It so easy to be fluent in both languages and if you know one of them. US and EU supported policies that they had opposed in places like Sri Lanka in their efforts to weaken Russia or out of pure stupidity. At this point, I think the eastern provinces will end up joining Russia, unless Kiev immediately grants them the federal autonomy that they are seeking.

    Reply • 
  15. The reason this site has so much anti-semitic propaganda is that frustrated people — those who blog here — are always looking for a simple explanation and for a long time finding it in the Jews has been common.

    One can be against the excesses of Zionism without being anti-Jewish, but it is easier to damn all the Jews with the same brush. You cannot blame the negroes because no one would believe that stupid people is capable of anything but vice and crime. So blame the Jews.

    Of course some Jews, like the Likud and its PM Netanyahu, do behave in an arrogant and outrageous way. Also Jews tend for good reason to be paranoid and self-promoting. Also offensive are the stupid evangelicals who find reasons in the irrational apocalyptic writing of the bible.

    Avoiding anti-Jewish expression may be difficult for some but it is worth the effort.

    Reply • 
  16. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    I’ll disagree with Norman here, and address Yakov. I can only speak at length about the USA, which is the only nation I have lived in.

    Assume for the moment Jews are better than average at climbing the socio-economico-political ladder, for a variety of reasons (high verbal IQ, neuroticism applied usefully, historical concentration in fields with strengths that overlap with those required to succeed in politics). There’s quite a bit of evidence for this.

    Furthermore, assume that Jews (this is the kicker) are *differentially represented across the political spectrum*. There are sensible historical reasons for this–the Right was frequently antisemitic, murderously so in Germany, almost as deeply so in Russia (Yakov may have heard stories of the Black Hundreds from his grandparents). In America, the Right is tied up with Christianity, and Jews are not Christians, almost by definition. (A converted Jew is technically still Jewish but no longer belongs to the Jewish community in any practical sense.)

    Furtherfurthermore, even when on the Right, Jews tend to retain certain positions at variance with mainstream conservatism, such as embracing immigration. There may be historical reasons for this as well–this is not so clear to me. Still, it’s not too hard to see why you could look at George Soros and Sheldon Adelson (who no doubt despise each other) and see a Jewish conspiracy to flood America with brown people.

    Additionally, many of the leading lights of the left, particularly in the media (Walter Lippmann and Jon Stewart, from 2 different eras) are Jewish, and American Jewish culture was tied up with leftism for a long time. So it’s not surprising that conservatives looking for a conspiracy can find one among the Jews.

    *Is* there a conspiracy? I tend to think the historical and cultural aspects of American Judaism (as outlined above) tend to produce a flood of bright left-wingers which has the effects described above, that it is a matter of tendencies and people doing what comes naturally. However, while having some Jewish relatives and growing up between West End Avenue and Central Park West, I have never been behind the scenes in the media or government, so it is entirely possible that I cannot see the strings behind the puppets. We know companies pay millions of dollars to buy politicians through campaign contributions, so I am willing to believe other types of backroom deals occur as well.

    As for Unz: well, most of the media’s Jewish, so naturally people pissed at the media get pissed at the Jews too. I tend to think a lot of the problems with the media would occur with Christians in charge–they have to please the public, so they have to produce lots of crap people want to buy, and like everyone in history they have to avoid annoying the powerful–but who knows? Certainly Israel’s probably gotten a better rap than it deserves (though being judged as a ‘white’ country, their sins tend to be magnified as well).

    Reply • 
  17. Norman goes, from his first comment, total ignorance of the author, to complete expert after two hours of googling, citing Wikipedia which is notoriously unreliable on these subjects. Is he familiar with the phrase “going off half-cocked”?

    Reply • 
  18. Norman Ravitch,

    I don’t understand your perspective, and I don’t find your response to Matt (#9) quite adequate. You say that truth or falsity take time and resources to establish, so “in a pinch” reputation can stand in place of analysis of the particular argument that is being made. That is just dressing up ad hominem arguments in nice clothes. In any case, reputation is at least as time-intensive in assessing as a narrowly-focused substantive argument.

    Shamir, regardless of the unflattering things he has to say about various groups of Jews, makes a few pretty specific and generally plausible, though not ironclad, arguments:

    1. Russia tried to pull Israel and American Jews to his side without success.
    2. Israel is neutral towards Putin’s Russia.
    3. Ukrainian Jews are siding with the new pro-EU, anti-Russia government.
    4. Jews in the US and Europe are divided, but organized Jewry in these places is generally anti-Russia

    Do you agree or disagree with any or all of these points? It requires no trust in Shamir to render a judgment on them. Your many posts in this string never address any point of substance in the article. They simply repeat the insinuation–I can’t really call it an argument–that Shamir is untrustworthy, whatever that really means. You have made seven posts that all, in various ways, suggest that we be suspicious of Shamir while avoiding any specific critiques of any kind. I find your obvious interest in this string–almost half the comments are from you–very interesting and rather bizarre–or maybe not so bizarre.

    Reply • 
  19. OK, I have given too much attention to Shamir! Granted. I find his comments uninteresting generally and the whole topic of Jews and Russia/Ukraine uninteresting.

    If you want information about these issues read Steven Cohen and Timothy Snyder, very different in perspective but real authorities about whom you need have no worry.

    I don’t think any of us wants to get into Ukrainian-Russian squabbles about:

    1. Are Ukrainians a separate people or only provincial redneck Russians?
    2. Are Ukrainians or Russians the best example of inheritors of the Kievan Principality of Rus?
    3. Should there be an independent Ukraine and independent Belarus at all?

    Reply • 
  20. For those who care (but why should you care?)

    Ukrainian nationalism was encouraged in Austrian Galicia in the 19th century as a force vs. Russia and also against any rise in Polish nationalism. The Ukrainians were encouraged in their traditional hatred of Poles and in a rather new hatred of Russians. To this day the most nationalistic part of Ukraine is in the West, the former Polish territories once under Austrian rule. The Poles of course suppressed Ukrainian nationalism. The typical Ukrainian nationalistic slogan was: Poles beyond the San (river border with ethnic Poland) and the Jews to the gallows!

    Reply • 
  21. Yes, I know. I promised to cease and desist! I shall try.
    You have to promise not to bait me.

    Reply • 
  22. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Honestly, Norman, it’s a comment thread. Say what you want, that’s the whole point. Just be aware that citing only the source in arguing against an argument is technically argument ad hominem and therefore a fallacy. (Silly example, because I don’t believe in Godwin: if Hitler said 2+2=4, 2+2 does not equal 5.)

    The left does it too–’mansplaining’, ‘check your privilege’, etc.

    Reply • 
  23. I knew it! Damn 19th century Austrians. Oh when will the world be safe from their machinations? I think we have discovered a new master baiter here. I wonder if he’s related to Dianne Ravitch? Let’s see what the last guy to edit the Wikipedia page has to say…

    Reply • 
  24. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Chahokia. “What Jews and Chinese Have in Common” by Michael Goldfarb in BBC News Magazine, 8th of February 2014. An extremely juvenile piece (e.g., Jews like Chinese food) if ever I read one, but nonetheless, perhaps evidence of your claim?

    @Norman Ravitch. Who is Norman Ravitch?

    Reply • 
  25. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG. Your observations reflect, to me anyway, someone able to stand outside his/her cultural, religious, or ethnic baggage, and look at the world for what it is and people for whom they are.
    Thank you.

    Reply • 
  26. Let’s stop worrying about the Jews and Ukrainians. Let’s worry about all the Americans who have died in vain. In the Civil war they died to give Lincoln glory and to free those miserable excuses for human beings, the negroes. In WWI they died for British Imperialism. In Vietnam they died to make JFK and LBJ look good. Now they have died for George W. Bush’s manias and fantasies.

    Let’s send no more live Americans to die in the Middle East. Send A bombs and H bombs instead. Wipe out those diabolical Muslims once and for all. It couldn’t be done in the Crusades but now we can and we should.

    Reply • 
  27. Ron Unz
    says:
         Show Comment

    Although I try to avoid injecting myself into comment-threads, I greatly appreciate the participation of those who do, especially when they reflect a variety of different perspectives and sometimes might have reasonable knowledge of the subject.

    Also, as our Comments Policy indicates, http://www.unz.com/masthead/#comments-policy, we tend to moderate with a light hand and allow a wide range of vigorous and clashing perspectives, sometimes including extreme ones.

    However, our Comments Policy also strongly suggests participants would avoid cluttering up a comment thread and craft their remarks carefully. So when a single individual provides one-third or more of the total comments in a thread, the likelihood of additional comments being approved may sharply decline regardless of other factors. The same may be true when too many comments across the entire website are submitted in a single day.

    Reply • 
  28. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    There is a joke about an old Jew standing by a newstand and reading anti-Semitic magazines. Another Jew sees him at it and askes in indignation:
    - You are an old man! Aren’t you ashamed of yourself reading these magazines?
    - Not at all – replied the old man – When I read the Jewish papers all I hear is about anti-Semitism and how weak and persecuted we Jews are. When I read the anti-Semitic papers I find out that we rule the world!

    Reply • 
  29. Cahokia
    says:
         Show Comment

    Times have changed Yakov! If you read the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet, the New York Times, or Time magazine, you will indeed hear how you rule the world.

    But it’s curious – if someone observes that some other ethnicity dominates a nation, it is not necessarily assumed that said person is a bigot. If you note that white people still control the levers of power in the West, only ideological right-wingers will call you a racist.

    But in the case of Jews, any accounting of their power which is expressed with less than complete adulation is automatically ascribed to anti-Semitism.

    Reply • 
  30. Hanshaw
    says:
         Show Comment

    This is a brilliantly clever and wry piece of writing – can you imagine, if elected, a person with Hillary Clinton’s kind of grasp of international affairs EVER coming to a grips with a world that is covertly ‘influenced’ – I shall not say ‘ruled’ – by the kinds of character described herein? Like her recent predecessors Hillary will naturally go with the flow and contribute nothing: just as she already did at State. Damn depressing but I imagine it has always been pretty much like this; only maybe less so.

    Reply • 
  31. Scott Locklin
    says:
    • Website
         Show Comment

    “If you want information about these issues read Steven Cohen and Timothy Snyder, very different in perspective but real authorities about whom you need have no worry.”

    Timothy Snyder is a gibbering propagandist who will tell you whatever the State Department wants you to hear at that particular moment about the political situation in Ukraine. You’re better off reading the Lonely Planet guide to Ukraine (which, FWIIW, is also horrible). While I don’t think much of Shamir; this article contains far less bullshit about Ukraine than a typical Snyder piece.

    Reply • 
  32. I intentionally coupled Tim Snyder with Steven Cohen, they have very different views but are worthy of respect.

    Scott Locklin has opinions but no stature.

    Reply • 
  33. Scott Locklin
    says:
    • Website
         Show Comment

    Yeah, that’s sort of like the “choice” people are presented with in American elections: two varieties of baloney; the old Soviet apologist, and the neocon liar.

    As for you: you’ve already been exposed for what you are. This week’s obsessive compulsive NB ding dong.

    Reply • 
  34. Jews tend to retain certain positions at variance with mainstream conservatism, such as embracing immigration.

    Why do you insist on promoting this falsehood?

    1) The “Jews opened the borders to feel safer in a multicultural nation” is a deception* fabricated by Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald’s sources, which throughout his career he’s distorted beyond their original meaning, show pre-WWII American Jews (whose elite at the time was conservative) weren’t interested in in non-white immigration. By 1965 the entire American elite wanted an end to national origins and, given his history of deception, there’s no particular reason to trust MacDonald’s version of events the Jews were the main force behind the act.

    2) Jews want less immigration:

    http://cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll

    In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.

    Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said is too low; 22 percent just right.

    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/12/2741253/poll-jewish-support-for-obama-falling

    The survey asked its Jewish respondents: “A new law in Arizona gives police the power to ask people they’ve stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?”

    The result was a slim majority in favor of the law: 52 percent to 46 percent.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_criticism

    MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[27] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited for example a quote from a 1969 dissertation by Sheldon Morris Neuringer titled American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953 where MacDonald surmised that when Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration, MacDonald wrote, “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data,” Mehler wrote, citing other examples.[28]

    Reply • 
  35. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    ‘Times have changed Yakov! If you read the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet, the New York Times, or Time magazine, you will indeed hear how you rule the world.’

    I don’t read these publications, for everyone’s benefit can you please provide a few links that will support your point? Namely, that the Jews rule the world. If you fail to provide them, the joke is on you.

    There is some confusion about the nature of Zionism on this board that I would like to clarify. Zionism is a national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants of the land Israel. Nobody questions the Arabs rights to Arabia why are the Jews’ rights to Judea are not recognized by many? Anti-Zionism usually equals anti-Semitism.

    Reply • 
  36. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.”

    Good point. I guess I should have said that *elite* Jews are enthusiastic immigration proponents–as with most things, there is a gap between the people and their overlords. This has the effect of resulting in the whole population being blamed for something they didn’t actually support.

    Reply • 
  37. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Yakov. ” …………liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants ….”
    Actually, no, Yakov, Jews were NOT the indigenous inhabitants of that land. If one accepts there might be some truth in the biblical narrative, the people now referred to as “Jews”, left Egypt, wandered around for 40 years, got into fights with other people, engaged in some internecine warfare, until finally, they TOOK OVER the land of Canaan, murdering most of its inhabitants.

    A sordid bit of history that has been repeated throughout human history all too frequently. The only difference to this story is the claim made that some divine being promised the land to non- residents.

    As a US citizen, I was born in a place that is held by force against others who might seek to make a claim, and according to the laws of those who hold it by force, I am ‘told’ I have a right to remain on this land. Is that ‘right’ right? That is one of those deep philosophical questions people far more intelligent than you or I have been pondering for millennia.

    Reply • 
  38. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    Philosophers can question anything including their own existence. Quercus, this is not a philosophical question but a question of healthy national identity and practical solution to an existential problem of the existence of the Jewish nation. Keep it simple: nobody questions that Arabia belongs to the Arabs, why Judea doesn’t belong to the Jews at least from the Jewish perspective? Is this hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that Greece belong to the Greeks and not to the Turks?

    Reply • 
  39. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Yakov

    Not a good analogy. There are nothing but Arabs in the Arabian peninsula so there is no real question of Arabs vs others. There is no equivalent of Eastern European Jews coming in from the outside and trying to take control, so again, the analogy doesn’t work. Of course, the Saudis have essentially claimed that all of the peninsula should be ruled by them (minus Yemen). That’s why the Omanis have had to fight them off in the past. The basic principle of humans trying to take stuff from others applies on the AP as well as anywhere.

    Zionism might be seen as a national liberation movement, but like many such movements, it comes at the expense of other nationalities. Arabs made up 90% of the population of IS-PAL in 1900. Jews snuck in under the protection of British imperial control and through superior organization, funding, and military capability, achieved control of the area. They are on their way to a gradual elimination of the Palestinians by driving down Palestinian birth rates, and coercing the migration of young Palestinians who need to find work. Eventually, it is hoped, the demographics will allow the annexation of all of “Eretz Israel” and a final solution to the Palestinian problem.

    The fact that Jews owned a small chunk of the West Bank 2000 years ago and expanded that into a larger mini-empire for a century or two is no justification for the ongoing, gradual ethnic cleansing of the Arabs none of whom ever wanted to live under the iron heel of a Jewish state.

    The Jews are not the only ones to take control of land this way, but there is absolutely no reason for the US to subsidize the process. Quite the contrary given what a strategic liability the Jewish state is for us.

    Reply • 
  40. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Anonymous

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Israel is a strategic liability to the US. I will not contest this point.

    The rest of your post is a distortion of the facts, which I also will not contest.

    I only hope that you understand that Judea to Jews is at least like Arabia to Arabs, or Kosovo to Serbs, or Ararat to Arminians.
    The greatness of us, Jews, is that after 2,000 years of exile http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea_Capta_coinage we came back and reestablished ourselves in our ansestral land speaking our ancestral language. What other nation can show such a powerful national identity?

    Reply • 
  41. Karl
    says:
         Show Comment

    It’s easier to learn to read Hebrew newspapers fairly well, than to learn to understand spoken Ebonics.

    I advise all interested parties to read the Hebrew press.

    Reply • 
  42. fnn
    says:
         Show Comment

    Keep it simple: nobody questions that Arabia belongs to the Arabs, why Judea doesn’t belong to the Jews at least from the Jewish perspective? Is this hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that Greece belong to the Greeks and not to the Turks?

    Ethno-states are de facto illegal within the EU. It’s likely a hate crime for a white Englishman (as traditionally understood) in England to call England an Anglo-Saxon country. When BNP was on the ascent the term “indigenous English” was regularly attacked in the mainstream press as devoid of meaning. Raceless/non-ethnic “constitutional patriotism” and “proposition country” formulations are the norm in the West. This is true even with respect to nationalist or separatist parties like SNP, Sinn Fein/IRA and the Catalan separatists.

    Reply • 
  43. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Israel is a strategic liability to the US. I will not contest this point.

    I’ll contest it.

    A strategic liability compared to what other nations? Our support of Taiwan’s independence against a China which is quite a ways more militarily dangerous than any Arab military. Or the thousands of troops and nuclear missles we defend South Korea with?

    The strategic resources invested in Israel, $3 billion in aid which is mostly a subsidy for US arms manufacturers and diplomatic support, are puny relative to those we’ve devoted to numerous other countries.

    Reply • 
  44. Ethno-states are de facto illegal within the EU.

    So what? It was European gentile elites (Jews are single digits of the Western Euro elite because of WWII) who created their immigration policy .

    Reply • 
  45. I guess I should have said that *elite* Jews are enthusiastic immigration

    In which case antisemites have no standing to even criticise Jews when they lie about the history of Jewish support for immigration and when gentile elites support immigration as much and even where Jews have little influence (e.g. Sweden).

    Rove and Grover Norquist are Norwegian and Swedish, respectively. Tom Donahue of the Chamber of Commerce is Irish as are/were Ted Kennedy, John McCain and the WSJ’s Bob Bartley who wanted a constitutional amendment stating “there shall be open borders.

    Reply • 
  46. you will indeed hear how you rule the world.

    America’s elite is more or less 80% gentile. Jewish American overrepresentation is generally 20%, but can be pushed higher if partially Jewish elites like Pinch Sulzberger, Steve Ballmer, and John Paulson are counted as fully Jewish.

    So while Jews certainly have outsized influence it can’t honestly be called controlling or that gentiles have no say in affairs when gentiles are at ~80% and where Jews and gentiles both support basically the same policies.

    The case “Jews control everything” is even weaker in Western Europe where their gentile elite is usually over 90% and Jews are in the single digits.

    Reply • 
  47. Ron Unz
    says:
         Show Comment

    @The Undiscovered Jew

    Participants should try to combine several replies into a single comment, addressing them individually by using a sequence of @s. Multiple successive comments by the same individual tend to clog up the comment-thread.

    Reply • 
  48. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    We got a little sidetracked from the main topic of this article. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union the Slavic republics had abandoned their traditional policy of anti-zionism and anti-Semitism. The new policy had caused the Russian Jewish expatriates like myself to change our attitude as well. Israel is my true home, but it is natural for a person to be attached to the place of his birth. I love Russia, it’s people, land, language, and literature. The former Slavic republics are friendly to Israel and the Jews. The Jews are portrayed fairly in the Russian media, contemporary literature and cinema. I enjoy dealing with Russians. Until now the same could have been said for Ukraine and Belarus. There is all the reason for growing cooperation.This may not sit well with numerous anti-Semites on this blog, but in the current Russian-Ukranian conflict Israel and the Jews don’t have dog in the fight. I do support Russian position but as a Russian patriot whose grandparents and uncles fought and died for that land, not as a Jew. It’s a wonderful feeling to be able to identify with Russia after a bitter past relationship.

    Reply • 
  49. @The Undiscovered Jew

    In response to my last post (#39–showing as “anonymous”) you say:

    “Our support of Taiwan’s independence against a China which is quite a ways more militarily dangerous than any Arab military. Or the thousands of troops and nuclear missles we defend South Korea with?”

    It’s interesting that you use Taiwan as a contrast to Israel. In fact, we do NOT support Taiwan’s independence. We maintain a “one-China” policy and we take no official position on Taiwanese sovereignty. We have modified our position on Taiwan and distanced ourselves from that entity over the years precisely because our post-WW II relationship with the ROC became a strategic liability. In order to build a strategic relationship with the PRC to counter the Soviet Union. This strategy proved successful in 1989, and we have further modified our position based on OUR and not Taiwan’s national interests.

    We have NEVER done that with Israel. George Marshall predicted that Israel would be a strategic disaster for the US, and he was right. Our self-destructive relationship with Israel has alienated much of the Arab and Muslim worlds and greatly weakened our long-term position in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our pro-Israel policies are gradually opening space for peer rivals in the region. In the past, we could delude ourselves about the high and growing costs of the Israel relationship, but now, it is obvious to all except those whose first loyalty is to Israel. Taiwan is an excellent contrast because it is an example of modifying a decreasingly effective strategy in order to realize new and emerging strategic goals.

    With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs. If Israel will not go along, we need to abandon it completely. We also need to impose a nuclear free agreement on the region–one that applies to ALL countries in the region. Again, either Israel follows our directives or we end all our subsides and diplomatic support.

    Your South Korean example is totally irrelevant. Our relationship with the ROK has been and continues to be strategically useful.

    So, one of your examples actually supports MY point and the other has no bearing on the question at all.

    Reply • 
  50. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Oscar Peterson

    ‘With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs’.
    Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able ‘to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs’?

    ‘ Again, either Israel follows our directives or we end all our subsides and diplomatic support’. Is this the relationship that you advocate with every sovereign state?

    Reply • 
  51. @Yakov,

    In cases where we (and the Europeans) subsidize both parties, we absolutely can use our leverage to compel the parties to a settlement that suits our strategic needs. We have never been shy about using that leverage on the Palestinians. It’s time we started using it with full force on Israel: Here’s what you, Israel, have to do to retain our support. If you want to go it alone, fine. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    “Is this the relationship that you advocate with every sovereign state?”

    Absolutely. Our financial and diplomatic support are a privilege, not, as Israel seems to think, a right. We expend them–or we SHOULD expend them–in pursuit of OUR strategic interests, NOT simply because some other country has needs. Either Israel takes measures to change its current status as a US strategic liability, or we should dump it post haste. The first step, of course, is to defang our den of disloyal vipers better known as the Israel lobby.

    Reply • 
  52. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    ” I do support Russian position but as a Russian patriot whose grandparents and uncles fought and died for that land, not as a Jew. It’s a wonderful feeling to be able to identify with Russia after a bitter past relationship.”

    Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!

    Reply • 
  53. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    And what would is your answer to my first question?

    ‘With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs’.
    Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able ‘to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs’?

    Reply • 
  54. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG

    Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!’

    What do they say?

    Reply • 
  55. @Yakov

    “Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able ‘to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs’?”

    What does that have to do with the specific question of Israel and the Palestine? We subsidize an Israeli state that is undermining our position in the world. If your point is that Israel may be unwilling to accede to the conditions that would rectify that problem, then you may be right. If that is the case, then we need to rid ourselves of the Israeli albatross and let it fend for itself.

    Reply • 
  56. Israel is the price we pay for:
    1. Anti-Jewish immigration policy before and during WWII.
    2. Guilt for the Holocaust in which all the European nations and America allowed the Germans to do their dirty work in decreasing the number of troublesome Jews around.

    Other countries do not have these guilt feelings because Americans are for the most part more decent human beings.

    Still, we can treat Israel, over a half century later, with realism and a consideration for our own national needs. Israel should now be no more important to us than Finland.

    Reply • 
  57. Norman Ravitch,

    The US has never owed any group, whatever its circumstances, entry into this country, nor did we owe the Jews of Europe anything more than we owed the Tutsis and considerably less than we owe the Cherokees et al. The US should in no way be expected to compensate for the systemic problem of Jewish alienation of host populations which continues today.

    Organized Jewry has, in the past, very adroitly and successfully spearheaded the effort to generate guilt feelings which, combined with considerable resources and extremely hard-ball politics, has left us with the unfolding strategic disaster we now confront.

    Don’t know why you say that Americans are more decent human beings than the rest of the world. Americans had the good fortune to take possession of a resource-rich and population-depleted continent where the zero-sum condition of scarcity was considerably reduced (though that is now changing.) That did not stop us from wiping out much of the native population (that had survived smallpox) and establishing a slave culture. If the native Americans had already developed immunity to European diseases and moved beyond a mesolithic level of development before we got here, the conquest of North American would have looked like Canaan or the Caucasus or Algeria or Palestine. To our credit, we have transcended these aspects of our culture to a large extent. But your implication that Jew-friendliness is some unique criterion for “decency” is absurd and, despite your last paragraph, evidence of self-obsession.

    I obviously DO agree with your conclusion, but the issue is not simply what we “should” do but how we overcome the power of an Israel Lobby that has much of our governmental structure in it pocket. I’m rather afraid that “decency” will be inadequate to that task.

    Reply • 
  58. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Norman Ravich

    Do I understand correctly that your comparison with Finland is intended to say that US should abandon Israel at times of war like it had abandoned Finland. And this is in the US strategic interest?

    @Oscar Peterson

    So to sum up your point in a somewhat crude manner: any country that is the recipient of us aid and diplomatic support should be treated like a prostitute? And this is in the US strategic interest?

    Reply • 
  59. @Yakov

    “So to sum up your point in a somewhat crude manner…”

    Well your summary is certainly crude. US global strategy is not a charity operation. There is room for aid, but the aid recipient, must at the very least, not be a strategic liability. Israel, in particular, does not meet this criterion. I have outlined above the direction I think Israel is heading in its own strategic thinking, and this is totally at odds with a sound and productive regional US strategy in the Middle East. Israel has a profound sense of entitlement to all sorts of support, and this mind-set must be broken. Either that, or over the side it must go.

    Reply • 
  60. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Oscar Peyerson

    ‘I have outlined above the direction I think Israel is heading in its own strategic thinking, and this is totally at odds with a sound and productive regional US strategy in the Middle East.’

    What is this sound and productive regional US strategy?

    ‘Either that, or over the side it must go.’

    Why? Is it only because Israel is a strategic liability? Any country that is a strategic liability to the US ‘should go over the side’? This is the policy that is in the US interest?

    Reply • 
  61. Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!’

    What do they say?

    Yes, what do they say, SFG? Be detailed. Let’s see if you can impress Yakov, an authentic FSU Jew, who’ll know if you’re a fake. I’m sure you’re up to the task.

    It’s interesting that you use Taiwan as a contrast to Israel. In fact, we do NOT support Taiwan’s independence. We maintain a “one-China” policy

    $12 billion* in weapons sales means we do support Taiwanese independence. We maintain strategic ambiguity over Taiwan and strongly hinted our direct military intervention is possible if China tries to seize the island. Clinton moved warships to the Straight of Formosa in the 1990s when China was doing some saber rattling.
    If there’s been no break with Taiwan, why aren’t you raising even a 1/100th of the protest to end relations with Tawain as with Israel?

    Our self-destructive relationship with Israel has alienated much of the Arab and Muslim worlds

    The Oscar Peterson Doctrine: America must any alliance with any nations in a territorial dispute against Muslims.
    Your policy means the end diplomatic relations with the following nations:

    1) Greece – conflict with Turkey over Crete and, in the past and maybe the future, Constantinople)
    2) India – conflict with Pakistan and native Muslims over Kashmir
    3) Russia – conflict over Chechnya)
    4) China – conflict with Central Asian Muslim separatists

    Taki, especially, should be out in the streets demanding the small, unimportant strategic liability on the Mediterranean, Greece, cede control of Crete to Turkey, to please the Arab street – or else have Athens carpet bombed.

    We also need to impose a nuclear free agreement on the region–one that applies to ALL countries in the region.

    Which means you would end all relations with nuclear armed Russia, China and India to please Muslims.

    * http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tightrope-diplomacy-us-arms-sales-taiwan

    Congressional pressure (especially from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives) is mounting on the Obama administration to sell Taiwan more advanced weaponry. House members inserted an amendment in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act urging President Obama to sell Taipei the F-16 C and D models. Reports circulated in Taiwan that a senior Republican, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, assured Taiwanese officials during a visit to the island earlier this year that the United States would approve the sale of Apache attack helicopters in 2014 and Patriot missiles in 2015[

    Reply • 
  62. “Any country that is a strategic liability to the US ‘should go over the side’? This is the policy that is in the US interest?”

    Yes.

    Reply • 
  63. Russian and Ukrainian anti-semitism was entirely religiously based. It was never racial. It was the Jews who were racially hostile to the Slavic populations. Jews who converted to Russian Orthodoxy were fully assimilated into Russian society and culture.

    In any case, why any Jew in Russia or Ukraine wants to remain there is hard to understand. Why don’t they all go to Israel, as most of them have? Many prefer to come to the USA where the standard ov living is higher. The greatest embarrassment of the Zionists is that so many Jews have never wanted to live in Palestine-Israel.

    Reply • 
  64. Scratch a rabbi and you find a mullah or ayatollah!

    Doesn’t matter where: Israel, America, Russia, Timbuktu.

    Reply • 
  65. @The Undiscovered Jew

    “The Oscar Peterson Doctrine: America must [forswear] any alliance with any nations in a territorial dispute against Muslims.”

    Well, now you’re just being obtuse. That absurd inference doesn’t follow in the slightest from anything I have said. Russia and China are geopolitical rivals and their Muslim problems in the Caucasus and Xin Jiang are a strategic boon to us. We are not the strategic guarantor of either of these countries, and their treatment–or mistreatment–of their Muslim minorities does not reflect on us in anyone’s perception except maybe yours. India/Kashmir basically falls in the same category. Though we have developed closer relations with India over the last 15 years, the Kashmir issue is not laid on our doorstep. It could potentially become a problem for us in the future, so we will see. The Turkey-Greece acrimony has diminished greatly over the last decade, and, for now, is not a significant issue. In short, none of your examples come close to substantiating your argument, if we can really call that an argument.

    The case of Israel is obviously a very different one, which even you must be able to grasp. Unlike the three large Eurasian powers you reference, Russia, PRC, and India, the US has no subjugated Muslim minority concentrated in a distinct geographical region of the country. In great power competition, this is a big point on our side and explains in part why we were once so warmly welcomed in the Middle East. We are well down the road to squandering that estimable strategic advantage through our support to the infiltration of Eastern European Jews into the region and to the subsequent imposition of a Jewish state on unwilling Arabs. Unlike the other cases, we ARE responsible in large part for what Israel has done. As the Zionist ambition for Eretz Israel gravitates towards the gradual elimination of the Palestinian population and the ultimate annexation of the the remaining Palestinian land, the ill will of Muslims worldwide, but especially in the Muslim heartland of the ME, is set in stone, threatening the highly advantageous position we achieved after WW II, even as we have to contend with rising powers and a weakened economy.

    Our relationship with Israel is an unfolding disaster for us and must be either changed to suit OUR–not Israel’s–requirements or discarded entirely.

    It is evidently your self-appointed task to defend the interests of Israel as you see them. Are you an Israeli citizen? I hope so–or, at least, that you are not an American.

    Reply • 
  66. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Norman Ravitch
    It was the Jews who were racially hostile to the Slavic populations.’

    In what way may I ask?

    @Oscar Peterson

    Maybe you can find a few minutes to explain what is this ‘sound and productive regional US strategy’? I think the whole board can benefit from your explanation.

    @Ron Unz

    Ron, I’m for freedom of speech for everybody, but I don’t see how we benefit from baiting and inflammatory comments if we are trying to have a serious discussion.

    Reply • 
  67. Ron Unz
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Yakov

    I’m for freedom of speech for everybody, but I don’t see how we benefit from baiting and inflammatory comments if we are trying to have a serious discussion.

    That’s a perfectly valid point. However, in one of your earlier comments you stated:

    Zionism is a national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants of the land Israel. Nobody questions the Arabs rights to Arabia why are the Jews’ rights to Judea are not recognized by many? Anti-Zionism usually equals anti-Semitism.

    Now it seems to me that throughout a large portion of the world’s population, that comment of yours would be considered extremely “baiting” and “inflammatory.” So perhaps I should have refused to publish it or even banned you as a consequence.

    The central problem is that on controversial topics, people have a wide variety of different standards regarding what they perceive as unacceptable positions to take.

    Reply • 
  68. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Ron Unz
    I’m new to the blog and just wanted to understand your approach. Thanks.

    Reply • 
  69. Russia and China are geopolitical rivals and their Muslim problems in the Caucasus and Xin Jiang are a strategic boon to us. We are not the strategic guarantor of either of these countries, and their treatment–or mistreatment–of their Muslim minorities does not reflect on us in anyone’s perception except maybe yours. India/Kashmir basically falls in the same category.

    The Peterson doctrine is even better applied to China and India than Israel. Both nations depend on America for their economic development. What better way to prove our friendship than to deliver an ultimatum to two large, powerful nations to give up territory to Islam or be completely cutoff from the United States as you want Israel to be?

    We are well down the road to squandering that estimable strategic advantage through our support to the infiltration of Eastern European Jews into the region

    If Muslims care that deeply about the oppression of fellow Muslims, why is Putin able to simultaneously enjoy good relations with both Arab states and Israel while repressing Chechens more brutally than Israel does the Palestinians?

    Unlike the other cases, we ARE responsible in large part for what Israel has done.

    By the standard you judge Israel, we are certainly responsible for India’s mistreatment of Kashmiris. Israel and India enjoy the military cooperation, weapons sales, and diplomatic support from America. Which makes us a co-conspirator to India’s crimes against Kashmir. Isn’t it time we join our Muslim brothers and end diplomatic ties with India?

    The Turkey-Greece acrimony has diminished greatly over the last decade, and, for now, is not a significant issue

    If Crete isn’t a potential flashpoint, the Greeks and Turks don’t know it. Both sides maintain armed forces near their border, which tells us their militaries do think the chances of armed conflict is high.

    If Greece and Turkey think war is possible, so must the Peterson doctrine. In the (plausible) chance they go to war over Crete, then your logic means we break off all relations with Christian Greece until they agree to all of Islamic Turkey’s territorial demands.

    If it were up to you, you would break off relations with Greece if they refused, wouldn’t you?

    Reply • 
  70. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @ Norman Ravitch

    Scratch a rabbi and you find a mullah or ayatollah!

    Doesn’t matter where: Israel, America, Russia, Timbuktu.’

    How is this relevant to our discussion? Do you feel this way only about ayatollahs and rabbies or about clearly in general? Why?

    Reply • 
  71. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    I meant cleargy.

    Reply • 
  72. @The Undiscovered Jew

    Your posts are becoming progressively more ludicrous. Just throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see if anything sticks, eh?

    “The Peterson doctrine is even better applied to China and India than Israel. Both nations depend on America for their economic development. What better way to prove our friendship than to deliver an ultimatum to two large, powerful nations to give up territory to Islam or be completely cutoff from the United States as you want Israel to be?”

    Obviously, the point is not to “prove friendship” with Muslims or anyone else. It’s to pursue and manage interests. Your simplistic understanding of our relationship with Russia and China is laughable. And no one views the US as connected in any way to the actions of those two towards Muslims in their respective states. The Zionist infiltration of Palestine under the protection of the British Empire and the subsequent conquest of Arab land is not accepted by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general. Why should it be? We made a huge strategic error in ever supporting the establishment of the Jewish state in the first place. Now it must be brought to heel or put on the other side of a “separation fence.” That should be obvious to anyone who places US interests first.

    “If Muslims care that deeply about the oppression of fellow Muslims, why is Putin able to simultaneously enjoy good relations with both Arab states and Israel while repressing Chechens more brutally than Israel does the Palestinians?”

    Putin has plenty of problems with the Arabs–some of the same ones that we do. The Saudis have funded the Chechen-Dagestani insurgency on and off over the years and implied that they could leash or unleash terror campaigns there depending on the Russian position on Syria, which should tell you something right there. Second, simply having good relations in the near term with decaying state regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt while alienating the broader population–which will translate into a more hostile leadership sooner or later–is very poor strategic thinking. We need to solve our Israel problem NOW while we still DO have relatively good relations with many states. Third, the psychological impact of the Zionist-chosenist conquest of Palestine in the Arab Muslim heartland is much deeper and broader than mistreatment of Muslims around the periphery of Islam in Chechnya, Xin Jiang or Kashmir. This is why we suffer more from our debilitating relationship with Israel than the other cases you are so desperately referencing.

    “By the standard you judge Israel, we are certainly responsible for India’s mistreatment of Kashmiris. Israel and India enjoy the military cooperation, weapons sales, and diplomatic support from America. Which makes us a co-conspirator to India’s crimes against Kashmir. Isn’t it time we join our Muslim brothers and end diplomatic ties with India?”

    How would “ending diplomatic ties with India” help the US? Unlike the case of Israel/Palestine, no one is associating us with the Kashmir problem. And unlike Israel, India actually provides us with strategic benefits vis-a-vis China. India is not a strategic liability. Israel IS a strategic liability. Is that simple enough for you?

    “If Crete isn’t a potential flashpoint, the Greeks and Turks don’t know it. Both sides maintain armed forces near their border, which tells us their militaries do think the chances of armed conflict is high. If Greece and Turkey think war is possible, so must the Peterson doctrine. In the (plausible) chance they go to war over Crete, then your logic means we break off all relations with Christian Greece until they agree to all of Islamic Turkey’s territorial demands.”

    First of all, if you can’t even tell the difference between Crete and Cyprus–which is actually the issue you are trying to raise–then you shouldn’t even use the example. There is no problem in Cyprus that threatens US interests–period! Just give it up.

    Now what about an answer to my question from my last post: Are you a loyal Israeli or a disloyal “American?” How many passports do you hold? Where DO your loyalties lie? Not with the US, that’s for sure!

    Reply • 
  73. My point is that the rabbis have made the Jews what they are. You can fill in the blanks.

    Reply • 
  74. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Oscar Peterson

    Maybe you can find a few minutes over the weekend to explain what is this ‘sound and productive regional US strategy’? I think the whole board can benefit from your explanation.

    Many people have conflicting loyalties and deal with them through their lives. Why this focus on Jews only?

    Reply • 
  75. They focus on Jews because of the Zionist Lobby. But you are right, many focus on the Jews out of principle — the principle of anti semitism — and find a use for their focus later. Because this website encourages unorthodox thinking and opinion it necessarily encourages Jew haters, as well as other haters.

    Reply • 
  76. There wasn’t much anti Irish opinion when all Irish politicians here were going out of their way to support the terrorist Irish Republican Army. Look at Congressman Pete King of NY and all the Irish politians in Massachusetts. Perhaps some were afraid of appearing anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholics no longer are afraid thanks to the pedaphile crisis.

    On the subject of anti-Catholics, probably Protestants and secular men molest minors and women just as much and perhaps more than Catholic priests, but it is easier to criticize a Church which has failed to be what Jesus asked it to be. No one expects Protestant churches to be what Jesus expected of them, as they have never seemed very Christian to some of us Romanists.

    Reply • 
  77. @Anon

    “Many people have conflicting loyalties and deal with them through their lives. Why this focus on Jews only?”

    Because the multiple loyalties of Israel’s zealous supporters, including Zionist Christians and others who are gulled into passively supporting this destructive relationship are having a particularly pernicious effect on the position of the US in the world and, by extension, on the future security and prosperity of the American people. This is not some academic or theoretical point. Does it not make sense to you to focus on more significant, rather than less significant, issues? Of course, you can disagree with the premise–that this phenomenon is especially threatening–as other posters here have been doing, but I don’t find the disagreement in any way compelling. On the contrary, I find the arguments presented either delusional or deeply dishonest or a mixture of the two.

    @ Norman Ravitch

    Your point about the IRA is a valid one. Peter King is a hypocrite in too many ways to list here. The two issues are actually quite similar up to a point. A lobby’s power saddles the US with a systemically bad policy. But the difference is that the damage done to long-term US interests and strategy stemming from Israel and its vicious lobby is incomparably more devastating than that of the Irish or Cuban or any other conniving interest group. So, don’t try to use the Irish terror lobby to deflect the long-overdue exposure of the psychopathic Israel lobby and its own, especially deleterious brand of dual loyalty.

    Reply • 
  78. I AM NOT SEEKING TO DEFLECT CRITICISM OF ISRAEL BY FOCUSING ON IRELAND. I HAVE BEEN AS CRITICAL OF THE ZIONISTS AS ANYONE. YOUR SUSPICION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE PERHAPS, ONLY PERHAPS, YOU HAVE OTHER ISSUES AT HAND.

    Too much concern with the Jews raises a whole host of questions. The Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history.

    Reply • 
  79. @ Norman Ravitch

    “I HAVE BEEN AS CRITICAL OF THE ZIONISTS AS ANYONE.”

    Yes, I’ve seen your bit about how our relationship with Israel should be like the one with Finland. But there is no prospect of it being anything like Finland. What are YOUR prescriptions to make the relationship more like Finland? What actions are you willing to take to make it like Finland? Do you believe it will just happen by itself? Do you or do you not agree that our relationship with Israel is, in fact, inimical to our interests and to our long-term welfare?

    “Too much concern with the Jews raises a whole host of questions. The Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history.”

    To be honest, I’m not that interested in the questions it raises for you. That seems like a smokescreen to me. And what does it mean to say that “the Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history?” Well, yes, of course there are other issues, but IF they are of so much greater concern to you, why are you wasting time here when you could be focused on THEM wherever it is that they are being addressed and debated? Frankly, your criticism of Zionism and, specifically, of our Israel problem appears to be of the distinctly “faux” variety.

    Stop whining about “too much concern with the Jews” and give us your appraisal of the US-Israel issue, your understanding of its strategic context and implications, and any broad prescriptions you might have. I have already done so in my posts (though Yakov continues to pester me for further restatements), so I am most interested to hear you go beyond the rather vague and mystical pronouncements you have been making about Israel and Finland.

    Reply • 
  80. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Yes, what do they say, SFG? Be detailed. Let’s see if you can impress Yakov, an authentic FSU Jew, who’ll know if you’re a fake. I’m sure you’re up to the task.”

    LOL…I haven’t been keeping up with this thread. But if Unz wants comments, he knows what to publish.

    The two I knew complained of anti-Semitism and the occasional beatings. They had nothing nice to say about Russian culture.

    And no, I’m not a fake, though I have no clue how I’d prove that online. I could be three skinheads in a bunker in Terre Haute, a guy in a shack in Boca Raton, or a guy chomping a pastrami in a deli on the corner of Park and Lexington. Though if you’re for real you’ll be able to pick out the mistake in my last paragraph. ;)

    Reply • 
  81. What do you wish me to say? Yes, Israel is not an ally that does us much good. Yes, it has interests not at all compatible with American interests. But all countries have interests that clash and yet can be temporarily reconciled in the interest of something greater. What I refuse to do, as you anti-semites (yes, I think perhaps this is a correct name for y’all) do is to identify Israel and its interests as permanently evil. What could be more evil than Islam, a medieval semitic revenge against Christianity and true intellectual honesty. The Jews are not as bad as the Muslims, historically speaking. Perhaps they might have been had they had power; but they didn’t.

    Reply • 
  82. OK–your comment is interesting at any rate.

    But what a contradictory mess: “What I refuse to do, as you anti-semites (yes, I think perhaps this is a correct name for y’all) do is to identify Israel and its interests as permanently evil. What could be more evil than Islam, a medieval semitic revenge against Christianity and true intellectual honesty. The Jews are not as bad as the Muslims, historically speaking.”

    A condemnation of “anti-semitism” immediately followed by the equation of semites, Islam and evil–all in two sentences! Not sure what you mean by “permanently evil,” and I don’t agree with your characterization of Islam, but that’s another subject that we don’t need to get into.

    Well, I’m done with this string. Bonam noctem.

    Reply • 
  83. The Zionist infiltration of Palestine under the protection of the British Empire and the subsequent conquest of Arab land is not accepted by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general.

    Islam is hanging on to a number of holy sites they acquired through not so moral ways. Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria. The last remaining Zoroastrians called, they’d like Persia back.

    We made a huge strategic error in ever supporting the establishment of the Jewish state in the first place.

    America got involved in the Middle East to block Soviet Russia from gaining hegemony over the world’s oil supply. As a NATO allied proxy state, Israel proved useful enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Doctrine

    Putin has plenty of problems with the Arabs–

    And doesn’t let them dictate who can be allies with. If he can get away with angering Muslims in select cases why can’t we?

    Second, simply having good relations in the near term with decaying state regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt while alienating the broader population–which will translate into a more hostile leadership sooner or later–

    Again, Putin is doing just that without shedding a tear for the ‘democratic’ Arab street. Syria’s Assad and Egypt’s new military junta all have his backing:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10635530/Vladimir-Putin-backs-Egypt-army-chief-Abdulfattah-al-Sisi-for-president.html

    Third, the psychological impact of the Zionist-chosenist conquest of Palestine in the Arab Muslim heartland is much deeper and broader than mistreatment of Muslims around the periphery of Islam in Chechnya, Xin Jiang or Kashmir.

    Muslims have endless territorial claims that will never be satisfied unless the entire globe converts to their absurd religion.

    They also consider their loss of Al-Andalus as an even greater Naqba than Israel’s war of independence. If Islamic immigrants in Spain were to demand their neighborhood secede from Spain and rejoin Morocco, would you demand Spain to surrender their demands?

    Unlike the case of Israel/Palestine, no one is associating us with the Kashmir problem. And unlike Israel, India actually provides us with strategic benefits vis-a-vis China. India is not a strategic liability. Israel IS a strategic liability.

    Were you aware Pakistan is Muslim? Pakistanis associate India’s occupation of Kashmir with American meddling and they’ve consistently been one of the most anti-American of all Islamic nations. In order to stay consistent with your doctrine, our diplomatic ties with India relations must go.

    First of all, if you can’t even tell the difference between Crete and Cyprus–

    I obviously meant Cyprus.

    As for the possibility of conflict over it, both Turkey and Greece have invested significant military assets to fight the other, both on the island and in the rest of the Aegean. Their armies wouldn’t be deployed unless they think there’s a realistic chance of war.

    With both Greeks and Turks think war is possible, what would you do in that case? If you followed your strategy of placating Muslim territorial demands, you would have to break off relations with Greece and side with Islamic Turkey; we can’t have Dar Al-Islam upset.

    Reply • 
  84. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG

    ‘The two I knew complained of anti-Semitism and the occasional beatings. They had nothing nice to say about Russian culture.’

    I grew up in a working class neighborhood and beatings or rather fights were a permanent feature of our lives. To live with dignity I trained in boxing from the age of eleven. By my bar-mizva I was more than holding my own. Russians do fight a lot and for a Jew in a tough neighborhood life can be a nightmare. So what they told you is true. The Russians, in my times, did not like Jews as a group but liked having Jewish friends. I was popular with Russian girls not just because I was smart and a good fighter that offered protection, but as I realized later on, because the Jews have a name of not drinking, not being physically abusive and, yes of course, for having money.

    If they had nothing good to say about Russian culture it reflects poorly on them.

    Reply • 
  85. John Cole
    says:
         Show Comment

    This thread is great fun in that it educates and entertains. I realise it’s necessary to take the extremes with a grain of salt.

    Reply • 
  86. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    I’ve read that there wasn’t a family in Finland that hadn’t suffered a casualty in its was with the Soviet Union. Would it be so terrible if this little nation had a powerful lobby in Washington to influence the US government to support its territorial integrity? Wouldn’t it be in the interests of the US to support a democratic, European and Christian nation against a barbaric conquest? Would American people sympathize with Finland? Wouldn’t they find it in their hearts to to save this little nation? Firm American support could have prevented that war.

    Reply • 
  87. Oscar,

    If Greece and Turkey fight a war doesn’t the logic of your Israel doctrine call for us to favor Islamic Turkey and break off all support for Greece?

    If not, why not?

    Reply • 
  88. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “To live with dignity I trained in boxing from the age of eleven. ”

    That’s it then. The combination of fighting and erudition in Russia always struck me as odd–but then again, that is one of the things about other cultures; they do not fit into the mental schemes you are familiar with.

    “Would it be so terrible if this little nation had a powerful lobby in Washington to influence the US government to support its territorial integrity?”

    Oh yeah, I’d definitely support the Finns over the Russians. But should they become a major recipient of US aid and get us in a hairy mess with a rival power? We’re staying out of the Ukraine because we don’t want to start WW3. I mean, don’t get me wrong; when the Arabs finally overrun Israel and water their camels in the ruins of the semiconductor factories, it will be a huge civilizational loss (though we may be able to get us some PhDs with no loyalty to China). But…is it good for the Americans to have the Arabs hate us? Is Israel still worth any strategic advantage?

    Reply • 
  89. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG

    ‘I mean, don’t get me wrong; when the Arabs finally overrun Israel… ‘

    What makes you think so? Please listen to the first 3 minutes.

    ‘ Oh yeah, I’d definitely support the Finns over the Russians. ‘

    Russians don’t have any beef with Finland, it was Stalin and USSR.

    Reply • 
  90. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    It’s not that important who won in Lebanon. The Israelis are massively outnumbered and the USA is going to get sick of supporting them. Short-term, they can’t be beat; long-term, they are doomed. Why would we succeed where the Crusaders failed?

    Russia and Finland? Fair enough.

    Reply • 
  91. Oscar,

    If Greece and Turkey declare war on each other, shouldn’t your doctrine compel us to abandon Greece?

    Come on, you paleocons are always crying about not having your arguments direcly confronted. Now your logic is being challenged and you can’t even give a straight answer. How are you going to get the mighty ethnostate off the ground if you can’t so much as handle a little internet debate?

    But…is it good for the Americans to have the Arabs hate us?

    What good would come from them liking us?

    Reply • 
  92. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG

    The point of the video was not that Israel had won but WHY it had won.

    Why would we succeed where the Crusaders failed?’
    I assume that ‘we’ are the Jews. There are no guarantees, but it looks good for us. Just like Armenia fights for its land so will we because we are the indigenous inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Remember – it’s not the size of the man in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the man.

    Russian TV had a long program on the Israeli army where they interviewed immigrants from FSU currently serving in the IDF. At the end they asked a question which remained open: why is Israel able to have an army that gives it’s young people a positive experience wheras Russian army fails to do so? What was different about IDF? Was it the army or the character of the people that made it different? In Israel kids after high-school spend a year in a military preparatory program being trained by professionals in order to get into elite combat troops and pay for it out of their own pocket. Can you name any other country where this happens?

    Reply • 
  93. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “I assume that ‘we’ are the Jews. There are no guarantees, but it looks good for us. Just like Armenia fights for its land so will we because we are the indigenous inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Remember – it’s not the size of the man in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the man”

    Numbers are a big deal too–a single US Army squad would eventually fall to the Taliban after they ran out of bullets. Without allies Israel cannot win.

    As for the Russians–I can well see why Russia would look to the Israelis for ways to restore national pride, and it is a change of tone from the past. But an army isn’t supposed to give its young people a positive experience, it’s supposed to defend the country. Being in an elite Israeli combat unit gives you a leg up on jobs in the future in high tech, which can be quite lucrative. I’m not Russian, but I don’t get the sense ‘doing well’ in the Russian Army puts you on track for anything except a Russian Army job, which isn’t much fun even if you do like the army. Israel, for all its problems, isn’t nearly as corrupt as Russia.

    Reply • 
  94. Markus
    says:
         Show Comment

    The truth is “antisemitic”. (Nevermind todays jews are a mix-mash of southern Europeans, semites and asians)

    Reply • 
  95. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @SFG
    ‘Without allies Israel cannot win.’

    True, and this is what diplomacy and lobbying are for.

    ‘I’m not Russian, but I don’t get the sense ‘doing well’ in the Russian Army puts you on track for anything except a Russian Army job. ‘

    In Russia it’s generally considered proper for a man to serve in the army as an expression of patriotism and manhood. It certainly wins you points with women.

    ‘ Being in an elite Israeli combat unit gives you a leg up on jobs in the future in high tech, which can be quite lucrative.’

    All it does is to serve as an indicator of your character qualities and, if you are an officer, of your managerial ability. I don’t think anybody goes into the army to get high tech jobs. On the other hand many employees wouldn’t hire someone who hadn’t served in the IDF.

    Reply • 
  96. Endless, endless ranting and obsession with The Tribe.

    Forget the rest of humanity–it’s all about The Tribe!

    Reply • 
  97. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @Willam Catto

    This post IS about the Jews. You haven’t made it clear in your comment if you are addressing Ron Unz for posting disproportionately about Jews, or commenters on this post. I cannot speak for Ron, but speaking for myself I believe that my comments were related to the subject at hand and are not indication of an obsession.

    As an example, can you post a comment about humanity that would be germane to the subject at hand?

    Reply • 
  98. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    UNZ must limit comments of thsoe people who go after whoever dare to talk about zionist Jews who have taken over world politics and economic and kill at will.
    The troll “norman ravitch”, to me, is the following zionist agent who pose as ‘anti imperalist’ , but in fact is a propagandist for zionist war machine, USG and its stooges in Washington. Last time was trying so hard for an invasion of Syria where it failed.

    This stooge writes with different names to fool others, but at the end he himself.

    http://louisproyect.org/2014/06/16/blood-spirit-the-family-and-soil-a-response-to-israel-shamir/

    Reply • 
  99. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “UNZ must limit comments of thsoe people who go after whoever dare to talk about zionist Jews who have taken over world politics and economic and kill at will.
    The troll “norman ravitch”, to me, is the following zionist agent who pose as ‘anti imperalist’ , but in fact is a propagandist for zionist war machine, USG and its stooges in Washington. Last time was trying so hard for an invasion of Syria where it failed.”

    You mean he should limit people who disagree with you? I’m not disagreeing with you about the power of the rest of the media, but comments on an Internet bulletin board?

    Reply • 
  100. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    {You mean he should limit people who disagree with you?}

    As long as the person in the link, censors any comment that slightly differs from his reactionary
    position, then other outlets MUST do the same.

    Reply • 
  101. Bill Jones
    says:
         Show Comment

    A Zionist is a racist.


    Reply • 
  102. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Bill Jones:

    Sure, but most of the people here are in favor of racism. ;) So why does every other race get a homeland but Jews?

    I think Israel’s situation is untenable in the long run, but I don’t see why they can’t exist as long as they can.

    Reply • 
  103. Yakov
    says:
         Show Comment

    @ Bill Jones

    ‘A Zionist is a racist.’

    Any more than a Dashnak or a Chetnick?

    Reply • 
  104. Director
    says:
         Show Comment

    I agree. However what do the Chinese think of this? The Middle Kingdom suck up to Jerusalem?


    Reply • 
  105. “The erotic reliefs of Hindu temples with their gravity-defying and anatomy-challenging positions have found a new modern competitor in the Ukrainian crisis.”

    Hindjews!

    http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/hinjews.shtml

    RELIGIOUS MERGER CREATES 900 MILLION HINJEWS
    Attainment of Nirvana Still Goal, But Not So Important
    That You Should Miss Cousin Vijay’s Bar Mitzvah

    Reply • 
  106. Current Commenter
    says:

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


  Remember My Information
  Email Me Any Replies to my Comment


Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS