[Vision2020] Well Goosh Ralph

[Phil Nisbet]

Sunil

As I mentioned, code is frequent in racist literature.  PNAC is headed by Mr 
Perle and he has been tied to Wolfowitz and several other Jewish middle 
level bureaucrats as what is refered to as a Neo-Con Conspiracy.  The only 
thing these genlteman have in common is that they are Jewish and not from 
the left of American politics.  If I mention the name of a Junior Proffesor 
between the names of the University President and the Dean of a College, am 
I or am I not infering that all three indiviuals have equal weight in power 
and prestige?

Wolfowitz, Perle, Neo-Con and PNAC are ways of letting people know that its 
somehow a Jewish Conspiracy that controls things.  Even you switch the 
arguement from concerns regarding why Iraq was really invaded to questions 
of Israel, though you acknowledge that at best Israeli security was not a 
significant concern in the run up to the invasion.  I know your not an 
anti-Semite Sunil, but you get pulled to that side by this exact kind of 
rhetoric.

Look at how you cover the statement of "Israelization".  We had security 
concerns as significant as anything that Israel was undergoing well before 
Iraq.  Western airports were being bombed, hostages taken, embassies blown 
up, 9-11 and all the rest.  What the author was infering is that we were 
turning the west into another state of Israel, when in fact we were already 
in a high state of security concerns well before Iraq.

Why did he use the term Israelization?  He used it to infer a Jewish thread 
with regards Iraq that simply does not exist.  We were at a higher state of 
security because we were attacked on our home shores by extremists who would 
be attacking us even if we had never deposed Saddam.

You said;

>I'm sure you're just employing hyperbole, but I also don't see any praise 
>for Iraq.  This sentence,
>
>' Iraq was a stable secular Sunni nation that posed no threat to the 
>security of the United States,' is one I consider factually accurate, but 
>not one that praises Iraq.
>

But Sunil, Iraq was not stable, it was being run by a man who had invaded 
his neighbors and fully planned to do so again given half a chance.  His 
Sunni based minority government was more brutal than apartheid South Africa. 
  His actions had frequently destablized the region, in his attack on Iran, 
attack on Kuwait, his armed state and threats against other countries in the 
region.

And a stable Middle East was indeed and has been a major concern in US 
overseas policy.  We have busted our hump in the Peace Process in Israel, 
Eygpt, Lebanon, Sudan and all the rest since the Second World War.  And sure 
a lot of that has had to do with the economic clout that some of those 
nations have with regards oil and some with Cold War actions to block Soviet 
ideas and frequently that has caused us to act in ways that are anethema to 
what we deem as civilized behavior.  But our past stupidity is surely no 
reason to continue to blindly allow the region to fester in a backward 
wallow of Nationalist Dictators and Religious fanatics.

Sheehan's son did not die for Israel, as she suggested in her email to 
Nightline.  He died in a US based action for US governmental objectives and 
Isreal was not a significant feature of those US hased policies.  So why is 
Israeli policy even being discussed?  Casey Sheehan was not in Sadr City at 
the behest of Tel Aviv or to protect settlements in the West Bank, he was 
there administering US policy.

What both Susan Estrich (Lordy I would never have thought that I would be 
defending Hilary's lawyer.) and I are saying to you, Sunil, is that Israel 
and US Policy there is not about Casey's death in Iraq.  Tieing anything 
about his death or Iraq to Israel is what is anti-Semitic.  Its says that 
somehow if there are Jews in the Region they must be the root cause of the 
action.

Estrich frequently critisizes Israeli actions, but she does not tie what is 
happening in Iraq to her statements about Sharon.  If you want a debate 
about Israeli politics, thats great and you should feel free to call them as 
you see them, but leave Iraq out of the equation.

Phil Nisbet

>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Well Goosh Ralph
>Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:17:17 -0700
>
>
>
>Phil,
>
>I continue to disagree with you in several ways.  First of all, I do not 
>read the article as saying a group of Jews were the prime movers for the 
>war.  The article talks about PNAC's support for the war; that paragraph 
>names Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.  I may be wrong, but isn't Wolfowitz 
>the only Jew in that group?  I've never thought of PNAC as a Jewish group, 
>though I realize that there are Jews in it; but I don't think of Harvard as 
>a Jewish university either.
>
>Second, I think you're completely mis-reading the phrase 'Bush has 
>Israelized the entire West.'  Here's the paragraph:
>
>'For Bush has Israelized the entire West: We will now live in a world where 
>crossing every border is a humiliating ordeal of searches and 
>interrogation; where our public places are patrolled with men bearing 
>machine guns; and where hundreds or thousands of us are subject to instant 
>death at a moment's notice.'
>
>I read this as saying the entire West now has the security issues Israel 
>has, that we now all face the same kinds of risks, and we may all turn into 
>the same sort of security state.  And given the recent ruling on Jose 
>Padilla, I dare say we may see our rights diminish here.  I do not read 
>this to say that Bush is waging war to turn the world into Israel, or 
>whatever you think that phrase means. 
>
>I'm sure you're just employing hyperbole, but I also don't see any praise 
>for Iraq.  This sentence,
>
>' Iraq was a stable secular Sunni nation that posed no threat to the 
>security of the United States,' is one I consider factually accurate, but 
>not one that praises Iraq.
>
>You are equating criticism of Israel with being anti-Jewish, and I disagree 
>with both you and Estrich on this.  I read the Estrich article you linked, 
>and I want to focus on this section.  In the first paragraph, I guess 
>Estrich is quoting Cindy Sheehan, and in the second she responds to the 
>previous paragraph:
>
>'"What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear 
>weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. ... It's OK for 
>Israel to occupy Palestine ... for the United States to occupy Iraq, but 
>it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of (expletive) 
>hypocrites."
>
>Anyone who cannot tell the difference, in any terms, between Israel on the 
>one hand and Syria and Iran on the other is not someone who, as my 
>grandmother would put it, is "good for the Jews" -- or for the country, I'd 
>like to add.'
>
>I hope this doesn't make me anti-Semitic, because then I'll have to talk 
>about my Jewish friends and my recent ethnic meals, and I can add that I 
>like all kinds of white, brown and black people and say I'm not racist, 
>BUT, Isn't she right?
>
>Estrich is not addressing the issue of hypocricy that Sheehan is raising in 
>her quote.  I don't think it's anti-Semitic to point that hypocrisy out.  
>We point out Iran's nuclear policy, but are we about to insist inspectors 
>go to Israel? No, we're not. 
>
>I do not think criticism of Israel should be equated with being 
>anti-Jewish, because they're not the same.  There's no monolithic Jewish 
>opinion about Israel's foreign or domestic policies.  Opposing Sharon does 
>not make me anti-Jewish; it means in part I agree with a bunch of Israelis 
>whose candidate lost the last election.  Hey, I'm in the same company here.
>
>I can't stand Tony Blair, but that doesn't make me anti-British. (It does 
>make me anti-Briton, Tony being that particular guy.)  And if people 
>decided to call me that, I'd have to assume that they would rather label me 
>than discuss the ideas I'm trying to put forward.
>
>That article did not claim the war was the result of a vast Jewish 
>conspiracy.  I think we would do better discussing what it does say, 
>because it describes the state that's being created, and the problems we 
>now face.
>
>
>Sunil
>
>
>
>From:  "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>To:  sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>CC:  vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject:  RE: [Vision2020] Well Goosh Ralph
>Date:  Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:27:44 -0700
> >Sunil
> >
> >Some people may have supported the war in Iraq because the moon is
> >made of cheddar cheese, but that would not justify a screed
> >condemning Wisconsin or claims it was a Wisconsonian plot to take
> >over the world.
> >the difference, in any terms, between Israel on the one hand and Syria 
>and Iran on the other is not someone who, as my grandmother would put it, 
>is "good for the Jews" -- or for the country, I'd like to add.
>
>I have been speaking to Jewish groups around the nation
> >The letter in question makes very specific claims, that a group of
> >Jews were the prime movers in a War, that they did so not to benefit
> >the United States, but to Israelize the Western World and that they
> >overthrew a nice sweet and sunny secular government to accomplish
> >that goal.  As you note, that was not the prime mover in the
> >equation for moving on Iraq, making any claim that the war is all
> >about Jewish plots out for what it is, Anti-Semitism pure and
> >simple.
> >
> >As I noted, David Duke and the Neo-Nazis make similar claims to that
> >obviously held by the author of the piece.  When a person’s views
> >are synchronous with virulent anti-Semites, I do not think it’s a
> >stretch to suggest that their ideas are
>motivated by something other
> >than scholarly intent.
> >
> >Discussing the rest of the issues involved in war in Iraq is a
> >worthy goal.  Trying not only to determine where we went wrong, but
> >also where we go from here considering the results on the ground, is
> >something we need to do as a nation and as a community.  But as a
> >community we need to condemn attempts to claim that the war is a
> >vast Jewish Conspiracy or that Israel is its casus belli.
> >
> >As I note, read Susan Estrich on the subject of blaming Israel for
> >Iraq.  http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/20050824estrich.htm  She is
> >hardly some evile Neo-Con and holds views similar to many in our
> >community with regard to Iraq, but can see through the role that
> >Anti-Semites are now playing in the Peace
>Movement.
> >
> >Phil Nisbet
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> >FREE!
> >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
>
>


>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963