Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-CIA Man Uncovers Jewish Conspiracy!
Wall Street Journal -- Best of the Web ^ | Feb. 10, 2005 | JAMES TARANTO

Posted on 02/11/2005 11:37:32 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt

Remember Michael Scheuer? He's the former CIA analyst who penned an anonymous book called "Imperial Hubris" attacking the Bush administration's approach to terrorism. When we last saw him, in November, he was explaining to Tim Russert that American support for Israel is to blame for anti-American terrorism, and that Osama bin Laden is "in many ways . . . an admirable man."....

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anonymous; cia; conspiracy; hubris; imperial; imperialhubris; jamestaranto; jewish; michaelscheuer; scheuer; sympathizer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Michael Scheuer was one of the top CIA officials who worked to keep Islamist terrorist websites online at American ISPs ostensibly so the sites could be 'monitored' (he wrote about this in his book, "Imperial Hubris"). However, there has been very little monitoring of the hundreds of terror sites.

Related discussions:

Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
  Posted by Jim Robinson
On News/Activism 01/08/2005 5:36:28 PM PST 

Deputy chief resigns from CIA (CIA Said to Be in Turmoil Under New Director Goss)
  Posted by crushelits
On News/Activism 11/12/2004 9:27:00 PM PST  

Uncertain Trumpet: Imperial Hubris is an alarming book.
  Posted by Unam Sanctam
On News/Activism 11/16/2004 5:34:42 PM PST  

'Imperial Hubris' Claims Iraq Invasion 'A Gift to Bin Laden' (BARF ALERT)
  Posted by chambley1
On News/Activism 06/28/2004 4:05:02 AM PDT 

The Secret History of Anonymous (Author of Imperial Hubris identified)
  Posted by Shermy
On News/Activism 06/30/2004 11:24:30 AM PDT 

Scheuer's Hubris
  Posted by Afghanistanmation
On News/Activism 11/30/2004 5:18:20 AM PST 

1 posted on 02/11/2005 11:37:33 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt

Have you read Scheuer's book?


2 posted on 02/11/2005 11:46:58 AM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt

No wonder the CIA hasn't produced a reliable piece of intel since the early '70s. If this nutcase is typical, the whole agency is rotten to the core as well as incompetent.

Besides, anyone who believes a "Jewish Conspiracy" is even possible just doesn't get that 1,000-year-old joke that says if you put a dozen Jews in a room you come out with 13 different opinions.


3 posted on 02/11/2005 11:48:51 AM PST by FreeKeys ("When looking for a reason why things go wrong, never rule out sheer stupidity." -- Brian M. Wilson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

"" 1,000-year-old joke that says if you put a dozen Jews in a room you come out with 13 different opinions.""

Wait, I don't get it. I really really don't.


4 posted on 02/11/2005 11:50:52 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell (Forgive Russia, Ignore Germany, Punish France - Condoleezza Rice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys
Do you think the CIA uses "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" in their newbee training classes? Buy that man a tin foil hat.
5 posted on 02/11/2005 11:52:15 AM PST by Mark in the Old South (Note to GOP "Deliver or perish" Re: Specter I guess the GOP "chooses" to perish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
Have you read Scheuer's book?

Yes, I have. He makes many good points (mixed in with sheer blithering nonsense). I've scanned and OCR'd the sections dealing with the terrorist use of the internet (my interest) and am thinking of posting excerpts from the book as "Imperial Hubris: How the CIA Has Been Helping Al-Qaeda Win the War of Terror"

6 posted on 02/11/2005 11:53:53 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt (---- Fight Islamist CyberTerror at: http://haganah.org.il/haganah/ ----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

So let's see if we have this straight: The Council on Foreign Relations gives a public forum, hosted by a dean from an Ivy League university, to a guy who expounds crackpot theories about "clandestine" Jewish efforts to control America--including the Holocaust Museum!--and the "debate" is "unbearably restricted"?

And let's remember that Scheuer isn't just any old nutcase. He is, as Lemann said in his introduction, "the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit." The quality of intelligence over at Langley would appear to have been even lower than anyone suspected.

7 posted on 02/11/2005 11:54:10 AM PST by SJackson ( Bush is as free as a bird, He is only accountable to history and God, Ra'anan Gissin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

Maybe the theory was authored by cynicom..


8 posted on 02/11/2005 11:54:19 AM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Wait, I don't get it. I really really don't.

Obviously, at least one of the Jews must have had two opinions -- but by the time you explain a joke, it's no longer a joke.

Anywho, here's more related discussions. Michael Scheuer was also the one accusing the CIA of 'torture' in the New Yorker Magazine:


CIA renditions of terror suspects 'out of control:' report-Boiling prisoner suspects' body parts
Yahoo News, Agency France Presse- Later The New Yorker. ^ | FEB 6 2005 | AFP

Why So Glum at the CIA?
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 1/19/05 | Alan Nathan

Investigator: Senior CIA Leaders to Blame for 9/11 Lapses
Newsmax ^ | 1/7/05


9 posted on 02/11/2005 11:59:06 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt (---- Fight Islamist CyberTerror at: http://haganah.org.il/haganah/ ----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

Scheuer is all over the place, and has some brutal ideas.

To the simplistic dichotomy it's what we are vs. it's what we do he claims it's merely "it's what we do". This is appealing to lefties hoping to have their "root cause" prejudices affirmed but the book itself shows that some of "what we do" is unappealing to no domestic faction. Then, even more confusingly, the shows jihadism is a lot about "what we are" - for example his mentions that Osama wants us to convert to Islam.

The anti-Israel angle might be his attempt to increase book sales to the anti-semitic left, but here in the link above it seems heartfelt. And his book describes the worldwide ambitions of Osama and Jihadism, yet without criticism doesn't discuss why accusations that we help Russia and India in Chechnya and Kashmir are wrong.

Even his title is confusing. "Imperial Hubris" seems to evoke the idea of a reaction to American Empire, yet he uses it to criticize Americans who can only think Osama must be only reacting to us because we think, e.g., we're the center of the world.

He's all over the place and he's loopy. Plus many of his so-called revelations are merely taken from Osama's communiques and videos to which he gives no credit.


10 posted on 02/11/2005 12:02:54 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
Wow . . . and I thought that the CFR was part of the International Jewish Conspiracy! But here they are promoting anti-Israel conspiracy theories! Who'd-a-thunk it? I guess this means the CFR is now a beleagered ally in the "patriot" movement that all good anti-ZOGgers must defend . . . sort of like the United Nations!

The only "wagger" in this situation and in all others is HaShem, Yitbarakh Shemo, the Absolute Master of the Universe, Who created the world for the sake of Israel and the Torah. I'd say that sort of makes Israel important . . . wouldn't you?

The only absolutely forbidden subject in American public discourse is G-d's Will in and control of history. No one, including the rightwing anti-Semites, wants to bring that up! I hope Jewish liberals are pround of that.

Shout it from the housetops: HaShem, Hu' Ha'Eloqim!

11 posted on 02/11/2005 12:03:05 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Hanistarot leHaShem 'Eloqeynu, vehaniglot lanu ulevaneynu `ad `olam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Transcript



Winning or Losing? An Inside Look at the War on Terror

Speaker: Michael Scheuer, a.k.a. Anonymous, author, " Imperial Hubris"

Presider: Nicholas Lemann, dean, Hubert R. Luce professor of journalism, Columbia University

Council on Foreign Relations
New York, N.Y.
February 3, 2005

NICHOLAS LEMANN: So, welcome everyone. My name is Nick Lemann. I'm the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, and I'm here to ask questions to, and sort of field questions from you to Michael Scheuer, who you all know. I will just read his bio for the sake of formality, but here's the book, "Imperial Hubris," which I am sure many of you read. And let me just read this quickly. [The] New York Times and [The] Washington Post bestseller, "Imperial Hubris" was originally published anonymously, as required by the counterintelligence. Its author is Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, who resigned in November 2004 after nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia. As Anonymous, he is also the author of "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America." Scheuer has been featured on many national and international television news programs, interviewed for broadcast media and documentary, and has been the focus of print media worldwide, and now the ultimately appearing at the Council on Foreign Relations. [Laughter]

((...excerpted...))

QUESTIONER: I am Richard Whalen. I'm a writer, and I'm working on a book that's looking at the preliminaries to World War II, when we last had a debate about whether we should go to war before we were thrust into war. I want to congratulate you on reintroducing some of the fundamental issues and questions that have to be addressed before you go to war in a democratic society. And you have particularly focused on the forbidden subject of whether the United States has any limits with the spoiled child of Western civilization, the state of Israel, which insists upon having its own way, to the extent we must read the Israeli press on the Internet and read [the Israeli newspaper] Haaretz so that we see real criticism of a policy that has gone too far. Now, you have taken some criticism for your approach. I'd like to hear what you feel about this subject.

SCHEUER: I always have thought that there's nothing too dangerous to talk about in America, that there shouldn't be anything. And it happens that Israel is the one thing that seems to be too dangerous to talk about. And I wrote in my book that I congratulate them. It's probably the most successful covert action program in the history of man to control--the important political debate in a country of 270 million people is an extraordinary accomplishment. I wish our clandestine service could do as well. The point I would make--the point I try to make basically in the book is we just cannot--we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that's led by the tail. I've tried to be very clear in saying we have an alliance with the Israelis. We have a moral obligation to try to work through this issue, if we can. But I don't think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them. And I certainly, as an American, find it unbearable to think there's something in this country you can't talk about. That's really my spiel I guess on that, sir.

LEMANN: Gary?

SCHEUER: It was interesting to see the sheet suggested ways to review "Imperial Hubris" that came out from AIPAC [the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee]. [Laughter]

QUESTIONER: I'm curious--Gary Rosen from Commentary magazine. If you could just elaborate a little bit on the clandestine ways in which Israel and presumably Jews have managed to so control debate over this fundamental foreign policy question.

UNKNOWN: All you have to do is look at this landscape of American politics and see how many people who have raised this issue of the Israeli relationship.

SCHEUER: Well, the clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress--that's a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust. I find--I just find the whole debate in the United States unbearably restricted with the inability to factually discuss what goes on between our two countries.

((...excerpted...))

http://www.cfr.org/pub7771/nicholas_lemann_michael_scheuer/winning_or_losing_an_inside_look_at_the_war_on_terror.php



12 posted on 02/11/2005 12:07:46 PM PST by JohnathanRGalt (---- Fight Islamist CyberTerror at: http://haganah.org.il/haganah/ ----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys
This is in line with the BS that pervades our universities.If you read the papers from our experts like Joesph Massad & Said one might get wacky notions. Daniel Pipes and a couple of others paint a different picture.
13 posted on 02/11/2005 12:18:27 PM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
OK, this is important, comic challenged freepers, so we'll try again;

"Why are there no Jewish Alcoholics?"

"'cause it interferes with there suffering"

My Jewish pal whom I love dearly told me that, it's his favorite.

He says underdeveloped sense of humor is a epic problem in the uncivilized world.

I agree.

14 posted on 02/11/2005 12:18:45 PM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt


Thanks for the links, I read all the articles.

So basically the CIA has failed us.


15 posted on 02/11/2005 12:23:13 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (Forgive Russia, Ignore Germany, Punish France - Condoleezza Rice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
Sections?

Pray tell - just how many sections did you find?

16 posted on 02/11/2005 12:24:27 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

Ain't it the truth! Either that or the man needs to stop smoking the cheap stuff!


17 posted on 02/11/2005 12:39:44 PM PST by Convert from ECUSA (tired of all the shucking and jiving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

That's Baptists, not Jews.


18 posted on 02/11/2005 12:40:31 PM PST by blue-duncan (If this doesn't work, they can always try their hand at those little slips of paper in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

There were no Baptists 1000 years ago.


19 posted on 02/11/2005 12:47:44 PM PST by Mark in the Old South (Note to GOP "Deliver or perish" Re: Specter I guess the GOP "chooses" to perish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I think he was handicapped by having to flesh out the book with material he found in public to buttress ideas based upon non-public information.

At least that's the only explanation I could come up for as to why he'd be casting his net so wide and far for source material.

At any rate, while I don't agree with all of his positions, specifically his pessimism as to our chances in Afghanistan, I can't find fault with the majority of the book - and the issue being raised on this thread is whether blind American support for Israel is in America's interest: Scheuer's position is that it's not, and I agree with him.

We're not going to cut Israel loose - Israel's existence is in the American interest.

But looking on passively as Israel expanded settlements into the West Bank and Gaza strip was more harmful to American interests than helpful.

20 posted on 02/11/2005 12:50:19 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: norraad

You and your friend are absolutely right. This hyper-sensitivity to our own ethnicity is a byproduct of political correctness which of course comes from the left.

As a Jew,I'll laugh as hard as anybody at a good "Jewish" joke. I think we all need to loosen up a bit. The MSM is always onthe lookout for some perceived or imagined offense directed at some ethnic group, except of course against Christians. Once again, it all comes down to politics.


21 posted on 02/11/2005 12:56:52 PM PST by Zivasmate (" A wise man's heart inclines him to his right, but a fool's heart to his left." - Ecclesiastes 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
Sections? Pray tell - just how many sections did you find?

There's a lot about al-Qaeda's use of the internet in Imperial Hubris. An entire chapter and many other sections in the book. Both Scheuer and Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's former counter-terrorism coordinator (who also wrote a 'tell-all' book) clearly understood the key importance of the internet to facilitate Al-Qaeda's terror plans.

I disagree strongly with Scheuer's tactics. However, my opinion doesn't count and Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.

I believe Al-Qaeda's cyber-security threat is vastly overrated as well as 'spy' uses such as steganography for covert communications. Terrorists want to be understood.

Terrorism is done out in the open. After the terrorist act occurs they usually claim credit over the net. A beheadding has very little impact unless it's broadcast to the world. People need to realize that Al-Qaeda uses the net for recruitment, propaganda, incitement, fundraising, extortion, intimidation, .... etc. right out in the open -- in plain English (or Arabic, French, Urdu, Malay...).

The sites are easily traced, the credit cards paying for the site are on file at the ISP as well as the IP address of the terrorists uploading content are in the server logs. So why keep the thousands of terror sites on line? If they're keeping the sites online so they can be 'monitored' -- then why doesn't the CIA monitor the sites? (Instead of writing 'tell-all' books) If some hypothetical Arabic translator in some cube in the bowels of Langley is actually translating the terrorist statements off those sites -- they why isn't it being published so the U.S. citizens paying for it can become aware of what's going on.

22 posted on 02/11/2005 1:08:12 PM PST by JohnathanRGalt (---- Fight Islamist CyberTerror at: http://haganah.org.il/haganah/ ----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zivasmate
Thank you.

My pal also considers it a matter of maturity, meaning specifically the luni-left & the rest of the world has a lot of growing up to do.

But, not to worry, the mature are out there everywhere.

It's just the crying snout nosed babies tend to be noticed because the make so much more needless noise.

23 posted on 02/11/2005 1:47:05 PM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
There's one section in Chapter 3, and a recursive mention of that section later in the book.

I doubt you've read the book, Galt - you strike me more as someone who relies upon the ignorance of others to BS your way through a thread.

Where at all does Scheuer talk about steganography?

He's discussing Al Qaeda's use of legitimate websites to advance it's vision, and the proliferation of non-Al Qaeda affiliated websites which are also profitting Al Qaeda by providing a pan-Islamic electronic village in which Al Qaeda's activities, aims, and methods can be discussed. Further, he points out that Al Qaeda's paradoxical embrace of modernity has done away with their need for bases or safe-havens: terrorism is now an at home project, from gathering information, to planning and training for attacks.

And what are you talking about? You're going to call for our censoring non-Al Qaeda affiliated foreign websites, thereby strengthening Al Qaeda's claim to American duplicity in regards to the Muslim world "One standard for Americans, another for Muslims", and for doing what exactly to sites like Al-Neda and Al-Ansar, which have been shut down, only to reappear elsewhere in various forms (even on hijacked State of Arkansas servers)? More of the same?

Thanks for the fresh new approach, John.

Why don't you read those pages you've scanned and OCR'd, m'kay? It would save me the trouble of paraphrasing passages from the book (p79-80).

24 posted on 02/11/2005 5:30:41 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
But looking on passively as Israel expanded settlements into the West Bank and Gaza strip was more harmful to American interests than helpful.

What does that have to do with us?

25 posted on 02/11/2005 5:50:31 PM PST by papertyger (If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Without America, Israel's existence is somewhat tenuous - think back on the Yom Kippur war and our resupply operations, or our Veto of UN resolutions aimed against Israel.


26 posted on 02/11/2005 5:59:52 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
Without America, Israel's existence is somewhat tenuous - think back on the Yom Kippur war and our resupply operations, or our Veto of UN resolutions aimed against Israel.

You brought up expanded settlements. I ask again, what does that have to do with us.

27 posted on 02/11/2005 6:06:17 PM PST by papertyger (If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty

Gotcha, you are bad.


28 posted on 02/11/2005 6:11:44 PM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt; LauraleeBraswell
Obviously, at least one of the Jews must have had two opinions...

Not to mention the fact that no two have the same opinion ;)

29 posted on 02/11/2005 6:38:10 PM PST by papertyger (If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

You, and I refrain from calling you sir, are a paskudniak.


30 posted on 02/11/2005 6:42:29 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

We are seen as Israel's enablers in the Arab world, and to a large extent that is not an incorrect view.


31 posted on 02/11/2005 6:57:23 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

What about "John" ? ;)


32 posted on 02/11/2005 7:03:53 PM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty

Sorry you have to stoop to such a level. I would hope that is not a true indication of your character.


33 posted on 02/11/2005 7:06:16 PM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

You have a great propensity for being an irritant.


34 posted on 02/11/2005 7:08:37 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JohnathanRGalt
What a loon....

I can understand how he comes to the conclusions however. He must have known my late grandfather.

Thankfully my father did not pass it on to me.

I would not let him.

35 posted on 02/11/2005 7:08:53 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
and to a large extent that is not an incorrect view.

Quite true, but the cause is the same cause that brought this author to his erroneous conclusions in both cases of error.

36 posted on 02/11/2005 7:11:47 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
Precisely my intent my good man. This is a conservative forum, not a "antisemitism" propaganda outlet.

Those with thin skins are rather hypocritical when taking up others bandwidth complaining about "intolerance".

37 posted on 02/11/2005 7:15:21 PM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
but the cause is the same cause that brought this author to his erroneous conclusions in both cases of error.

To quote Carol Broslofski: "What what what?!"

Help me out here hoss.

38 posted on 02/11/2005 7:38:18 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; LauraleeBraswell
That's Baptists, not Jews.

Aw geez! And all this time I was being told it was the Masons!

39 posted on 02/11/2005 7:41:33 PM PST by uglybiker (SPES MEA IN DEO EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: uglybiker

That has always been a Baptist diversion.


40 posted on 02/11/2005 7:54:09 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nw_arizona_granny

LOL PING!


41 posted on 02/11/2005 8:05:37 PM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT (Character exalts Liberty and Freedom, Righteous exalts a Nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
It takes two to tango. Arafat rejected Barak's offer that would have removed almost all of those settlements. I don't think the settlements had much to do with the lack of a peace deal. I don't think at any time the Palestinians were ready to make a deal that was at all reasonable for Israel to accept. The upside of the settlements is that it tended to make clear that time was not on the Palestinians side.

And no, I don't know a thing about the book. I just think over the past 20 years, the equities have shifted decisively to Israel's side, and I was one whose skin would crawl ever time I listened to M. Begin. Diffferent facts lead to different conclusions.

Oh yes, the really "constructive" thing Israel did was to build the wall, which I advocated about 6 years ago. If anything leads to peace, it will be the wall.

42 posted on 02/11/2005 8:16:08 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
Help me out here hoss.

A rather unexplainable fear of Jews.

43 posted on 02/11/2005 8:20:10 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The wall again, is it?

I think we left this with me standing firm on the 1967 border and you allowing for small scale Israeli enlargement.

I'll note that I wouldn't have been so charitable as to describe anything Arafat did as dancing - he was a schmuck and good riddance to him, but neither his existence nor Palestinian's dismal inability to find worthy leadership is reason for Israel to play the Lord of the Manor and enclose the Palestinian commons or divest Palestinians of their homes to make room for Israeli homes - were the shoe on the other foot, Palestinian settlements or encroachment in Israel would be no more acceptable than the current setup, and we need to start enforcing that policy with a little more firmness than we have in the past.

As to where this leads, I'll quote Scheuer himself:

Israel. There is certainly not a more difficult or dangerous issue to debate in the field of postwar U.S. foreign policy. The American political landscape is littered with the battered individuals - most recently the president of the United States - who dared to criticize Israel, or, even more heretically, to question the value to U.S. national interests of the country's overwhelmingly one-way alliance with Israel. Almost every such speaker is immediately branded anti-Semitic and consigned to the netherworld of American politics, as if concerns about U.S. national security are prima facie void if they involve any questioning the U.S.-Israeli status quo.

44 posted on 02/11/2005 9:33:59 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Scheuer's afraid of Jews?

Sorry - I don't see it.

45 posted on 02/11/2005 9:51:10 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
What I am saying is that the settlements near the border put pressure on the Palestinians to change their position. The far flung ones were unfortunate, and will be abandoned anyway, but in the end, I don't think that had much to do with Palestinian irrationality, or being a barrior to peace in the sense of deflecting Palestinians away from something that it was moral for the US to push Israel to accept.

In the end, what is the in US interests in the long term is to do what is moral and consistent with its conscience - not to pacify the Arabs in an agenda that does not comport with that.

If one really wants to criticize the US and Israel, it should pertain to the period after the 1967 war and into the 1970's, and that is water long under the bridge.

46 posted on 02/11/2005 10:00:28 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

By the way it is hard for any fair minded person to criticize Israel after Barak extended the deal he did, and its rejection. That exposed that the Palestinians and their leadership wore no clothes, covering up their ethnic cleansing agenda, in my mind. That was the real Rubicon for me, as to my present views.


47 posted on 02/11/2005 10:03:44 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
There were no Baptists 1000 years ago.

      Actually there were.  Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, President of the Council of Trent in 1524, said, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers."
48 posted on 02/11/2005 10:08:36 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

I did not complain about intolerance, though I believe it is what you have a problem with. Take it or leave it.


49 posted on 02/11/2005 11:06:34 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
If the show were on the other foot, there would be no Israel.
On the other hand, there already is an Arab state on 3/4 of 1922 Palestine.
The issue then is how much of the disputed territory, Israel should take. Most of the "settlements" are either on previously empty land, or land owned by Jews prior to 1947-49.

The costs of supporting Israel are known. What are the costs of not supporting Israel?
Are we to believe that the Muslim world will cease to have grievences? I doubt it. They will have an excuse for Jihad as long as any non-Muslim nation controls territory once controlled by Muslims or any Muslim in Dar Al-Harb is slighted. Of course, the ultimate goal of Muslims is a world-wide Caliphate.

Scheuer knows this. His blaming Israel is therefor a clear attempt to buy off Islam. Of course, the question is why Israel and not Russia, Spain, of Greece?
Instead of dealing with Islam, he preffers to whine about Jewish power.

50 posted on 02/12/2005 12:30:02 AM PST by rmlew (Copperheads and Peaceniks beware! Sedition is a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson