Dual Loyalty? The case for dual loyalty of the Jewish Diaspora

Having read the title of my previous post, I realized it does not make sense to call it "Israel to blame for iraq war part 2" without explaining the issue of dual loyalty. After all, all the people listed in my previous blog post are American Citizens. I shall repair that error immediately, post haste, in this article.

The article below, details how the (mostly Jewish - in fact, ALL the key players were American Jews) neocon movement pushed America into the war with Iraq using the tragedy of 9/11 as a selling point.

The article Is Israel to blame for the Iraq War?, proving, with cited sources, that Israel itself, its government at the time, was all for the George W. Bush's new Iraq War and did everything to push the United States into that war.

"The article with an embedded video of Democratic Congressman Howard Berman, saying to his audience "Israel is why I went on the Foreign Affairs Committee".

Tim Russert asking Obama, the future president (?) of the USofA, the poignant question during the Democratic presidential debate: "What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel...",

and Phillip Weiss' analysis: "Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty?"

And why is McCain, the Republican candidate for president, campaigning in Israel? Why is he doing a voter canvassing tour in a foreign country? Personally I find that very strange...

General Wesley Clark talking about a grand plan of taking out seven (7) countries, starting with Iraq, who was told of the plan by mistake by his supposed aide, and then told to forget he ever heard of such a plan.

Why was House Resolution 951 passed, even though Ron Paul was against it, stating that "this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries."

Have you seen the most important post on this blog, in which there is an embedded video of Mr. Scott Ritter telling in his straight talk, no fear US Marine sort of way, about the Israeli lobby and how powerful it is in the USA?

What ties all these articles together?

The issue of dual loyalty.

Now, lets cut the bullshit.
America is a woderful country, and it attracts hordes of immigrants, of all skin colors, races, religious beliefs, economic status...

Christians, moslems, jews, buddhists, atheists.
Mexicans, Irish, Poles, Brasilians, Tibetans.
A rich university student comes here to study advanced mathematics in a top US university and decides to settle here.
A poor Mexican comes here to get a job in a restaurant and to send some money back home to his family.

There is one thing that unites them - they are either first generation immigrants, or first generation Americans.

Which means that they (of course, it is a given) have patriotic feelings toward their country of origin, not their adopted country - the USA.

I have sat at the Poland-USA match here in American Goy city, and was proudly wearing my USA soccer jersey. The rest of the 60,000 crowd was wearing white and red clothing and waving polish flags. When some of the people around me learned that I was born in Poland yet supported the American soccer team over the Polish one, there were some things said which better I not repeat here.

Being called a traitor and a sellout for supporting your own country, the one I am a citizen of, is a pretty weird experience. Especially when it happens in your OWN goddamn country.

Talk to any Mexican who serves you in a restaurant. Befriend one. It might be harder than you think - Mexicans are (my experience) notoriously hard to talk to, and they "clam up" especially when talking to a gringo.

Once you talk to one...
The Mexicans are very hard working people (in my personal experience, the myth of a "lazy Mexican" is just that - a myth) and are very family oriented - they literally work incredible hours in pretty horrible menial jobs to support their families.

But ask them about Mexico, after you befriend one - they will tell you about the Mexican - American War, la Raza (the race) and their patriotic feelings toward Mexico, despite Mexico treating them so poorly that they had to emigrate. Especially if you are not an Anglo American, but a first generation immigrant - like they are.

Watching a soccer match in USA between America and Mexico is a surreal experience (personal experience again) as the stadium is 99% Mexican, and the Mexican national team receives tumultuous support, while the few odd Americans at the stadium spend their time watching out for food flying in from all directions. Again, these soccer matches are played in America, in major cities like NY, Chicago, heck, Colorado of all places.


What am I trying to say here?
Simply this - that first, and possibly second (3rd? 4th?), generation Americans have patriotic feelings toward the country where they were born or their family originated - much more than to their country of economic choice, the USA.

Therein lies the Dual Loyalty.

The problem for a country like America is the theory of "assimilation". This is not a Star Trek concept - this simply means that, according to this theory, all these first generation incoming Americans will learn English, learn to be Anglo-Saxon, learn the mainstream American culture and mannerisms and, in short, become mainstream American Citizens.

I call bullshit.

This theory works when a person, alone, is dropped into an alien (to him) environment of a school, a work place, a neighborhood.

When a person like that is alone in an alien environment, then that person has to assimilate - usually, it is human nature after all - most of us want to fit in. And so, the person will make tremendous efforts to learn English, learn the culture, the mores, the mannerisms of the mainstream America so they can fit in.

This is what happened to me - I was dropped into a Junior High School, with nary an English word in my vocabulary... more - I was put in a class above my age, because, according to a family member, "Americans are idiots" and so I should go thru junior HS and high school as quickly as possible to go to a university.

This scenario of course does not happen when there is a group of immigrants already in place. When you have here hundreds of thousands of Poles, and thousands (millions, really) Mexicans, they (of course - human nature) will congregate together, go to the same church (where mass is NOT said in English), go to their ethnic shops and businesses...

There will be push back to assimilation - there will be resistance.

And there will be dual loyalty, perhaps going forth to 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation...?



Having set the table, lets pick on the Jews (Sorry, could not resist this).
Jews are no different in the dual loyalty problem from Mexicans, Poles, Irish, and any other ethnic/country group in the USA. Except for one thing - the Jewish recent history, at least as taught in the United States, is all about the Holocaust.

The German Nazis killed millions of Jews - men, women and children - in camps, which processed humanity going to the slaughter on an industrial scale. In effect, the concentration camps should probably have been called death camps, and that is one of the names they are called in Poland. They were not places to "store" people (concentration), they were places people were driven to so they could be killed efficiently. Mostly Jews, but many, many others - millions of non-Jews were also "processed" in those camps, gays, Poles, Russians, German political enemies of Nazism, etc.

Having this recent history, it is no wonder that Jews from Europe (Ashkenazi) became thoroughly radicalized. After all, if the Germans have tried to wipe out your whole race from existence, murdering millions - I bet that would affect you too, Mr. or Ms. Mexican-Irish-Polish immigrant to the USA.

Having become radicalized, the Jews began the Zionist movement, which in its simplest definition means "Lets get Jews a country of their own, where we will not fear anti-semitism, and where all the Jews in the world can come for refuge" (again, if I was 100% Jewish, I would be a Zionist also).

The trouble was that the land of Palestine which the radicalized Ashkenazi Jews wanted was occupied by Arabs, living in their villages and tending their crops. There is a fascinating article describing what happened next in Counterpunch online magazine, in which the Israeli "new historian" (which means that he practices actual history instead of pro-Israel, pro-Zionist propaganda) Benny Morris talks about the pogroms of Arabs in 1948 (birth year of Israel), the mass murder and ethnic cleansing, the rapes of Arab Palestinian women; exactly what happened during the recent Yugoslavia civil war between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. (this interview with Benny Morris deserves its own blog entry, and it shall come later).

So the Israeli Jews ethnically cleansed themselves a country - just like the United States did with American Indians in previous century, and just like the Serbs tried to do to their Bosnian neighbors.


The biggest trouble in this scenario (to me - this is my analysis of the dual loyalty issue for the Jewish diaspora around the world) is that the Jewish diaspora was radicalized by the soul shaking Holocaust experience. The words "Never Again!" as taught in schools around the world were not taught about the Nazi AND Soviet oppression (you must remember - Stalin killed MORE people in his camps (called gulags) and because of his economic policies than Hitler, and so did Mao Tse Tung in China), but ONLY about the Jewish suffering.

Let me be clear - the Jews were the MAIN target of the Holocaust, and they were slated to be exterminated - killed off. Meanwhile, the Slavs (Russians, Poles, etc) were, according to Nazi ideology, supposed to have had their intelligentsia (their elite, the university professors, scientists, teachers, bankers etc) killed off, leaving only a malleable population of docile slaves working in factories as slaves - think black slaves in America in the Southern states picking cotton, and you have a pretty good idea of what the Nazi plan was for Eastern Europe. Which happened - the Polish elite were put against the wall and shot or transported to the death camps.

That part of history is not taught; WW2 holocaust is exclusively taught about the Jewish suffering. The Jews, according to popular history, were the ONLY victims of the Nazis. The millions of Russians, Poles, Frenchmen, Czechs, Slovaks - they do not matter in the historic narrative as taught in the USA and Western Europe.

This leads to even more radicalization of the Jewish viewpoint.

As in the "Never Again!" slogan becomes a rallying cry, to do anything and everything, legal or semi-legal, to make it a reality. Never again will a holocaust against us, the Jews, be allowed to happen.

And how best to prevent such a holocaust?
Before and during WW2, most countries refused desperate fleeing Jewish refugees from Nazis entry. America under FDR refused desperate Jewish refugees form Nazi Germany entry into the "land of the free, home of the brave" - see Voyage of the Damned. To their credit, Western European countries took in the Jews fleeing for their lives from Nazi Germany, and to its eternal shame America didn't.

"Give me your tired, your poor" - indeed...

This episode, among many others, shaped Jewish thought and the ideology of Zionism.

Simply put, since Jews were not even admitted to America (of all places!) as they were fleeing for their lives (this was not economic migration - these were dead men walking), the Jews around the world decided (logically) that there must be, at all cost, a Jewish state in the world.

So that as a last resort, Jews fleeing from persecution from wherever, whichever country or region, could find safe refuge.

The trouble, of course, was that the land in question was already settled by Arabs.

After the Holocaust (Shoah), Jews were in no mind for legal niceties and simply ethnically cleansed themselves a country.

And, the Jews around the world, being taught about the Shoah in their own, private, Jewish schools as well as by their country's public schools, came to the conclusion that Israel, the Jewish state, must be supported - no matter what.

That is Zionism in a nutshell.


The trouble I see with the Zionist ideology now, in 2008, is that it is very unlikely, in modern times, for ANY country to engage in overt or covert anti-semitism. There may be (and are) individuals who commit anti-semitic actions, but these are isolated individuals - usually caught and punished under the law of the land.

Jews in America, for example (if you read the Philip Weiss blog) are doing very well, and indeed are now part of the elite, that strata of society which dictates to the rest of the country its foreign policy, its domestic policy, and are in powerful positions to sway public opinion or, better yet, the other elites' opinions to their views.

That is what happened, for example, in the Iraq War 2 - please re-read the article right below this one if you do not yet understand the Iraq War 2 historical narrative.

The trouble, then, is that Jews are in no immediate danger of another holocaust or a pogrom happening anywhere in the world - but they act as if such a thing is inevitable, and so are radicalized enough to support the aims of Zionism - which by now simply means to support Israel no matter what - all the time, and as their main goal.

Israel, I hasten to say, is not in any danger whatsoever - you see, Israel has nuclear bombs, and their Arab (potential) opponents do not. There is no way the radicalized Palestinian Arabs are an existential danger to Israel. (Incidentally, the Palestinian Arabs are radicalized for the SAME reason Zionists were and are radicalized - they are now looking for their own country, their own safe refuge, because no Arab country will protect them from Israeli apartheid policies - what is happening now could be called - bear with me - Palestinian Arab version of Zionism).

The trouble also is that us Jews are taught, from when we are small kids, to be outsiders - we may live in America/France/Romania - but we are Jews first. And so, being Jewish, being pro-Israel comes first.

Now, we may disagree between ourselves on how best to accomplish Zionist goals - whether by a peace process between Arabs and Israel, or whether by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the occupied territories, or by steering America into a war with Iraq... Iran... Syria...

But always, even if we have patriotic feelings towards our home country, the fear of the Holocaust is drummed into us which results in our support of Israel. So when I drive across my neighborhood, I see the posters about "We stand with Israel" and the call to give 10% of my will to the Jewish state. These calls to my inner-zionist are all around me.

The trouble with us Jews is that because of the Holocaust, because we became radicalized, we, unlike many other ethnic groups, do not assimilate nor do we want to. We are comfortable being part of many countries' elites (for goodness sake, a Zionist Jew is now a French president), and so there is no reason to assimilate fully. That is why on our blogs, our newspapers, we argue with the (always) mindset of "What's best for Israel? What is best for us, Jews?" first and foremost in our minds.

Whether we argue for peace or war, there is always the fear of the holocaust, and the idea of the safe place, a refuge for all Jews existing... just in case...

Many Jews, especially in America, try to mask this by saying the old canard that "American and Israeli goals are one and the same", which to any thinking individual is bullshit. But it sounds good - explains the American Jews' patriotism towards Israel.

Proof.
I was speaking mostly from the position of common sense - my own experiences and my own analysis of what is going on.

Inevitably, people want proof. People want the proof handed to them on a silver platter, and hammered with a gigantic hammer into their heads, and even then they might disagree.

Fine.

If my articles on my blog listed at the beginning do not sway you and open your eyes, then perhaps this will (again, thanks to reader Greg Bacon).

What this proof is - this is a policy paper presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, then Israeli Prime Minister. The report dealt with Israel's security and how best to achieve it. The writers of this recommendation were American-Jews, of the neocon variety.

Simply put, this policy paper recommended actions necessary to make Israel "more secure" in the future, meaning in the XXI Century. Chief among the recommendations were:

* Removal of Saddam Hussein
* Attack on Iran
* Attack on Syria
* Repudiation of the "land for peace".

If you follow the international news at all, you realize that this plan has been put into motion.

Iraq was attacked and destroyed - it is now not a danger to Israel.

Iran is next - the war drums and mass hysteria is being whipped in the USA to attack Iran, and the neocons are desperate to attack Iran before George W. Bush's presidency ends.

The Oslo accords were repudiated, and new settlements are growing on the West Bank.

The fascinating thing about this is how open this is - these are AMERICAN CITIZENS advocating what is best for Israel. I do not see Zbigniew Brzezinski writing a policy paper "what is best for Poland" before his career as a National Security Advisor - because that would be seen (rightly) as a huge conflict of interest.

This is not a conspiracy - this is right there, in the open - just google it yourself.

The incredible thing is that the people who wrote a policy paper advising Israel on its strategy for the near future (i.e. now), became very powerful figures in American government.

And they were successful in putting this plan to "make Israel more secure" in motion.

Using America's military and moneys.

Why am I the only one seeing this? Is this a forbidden topic, something that you don't talk about in polite company? Can only Jewish newspapers and blogs discuss this world changing topic? (Seems so!).

Here is the actual text of the policy recommendation written for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: read it here please.

Note the authors of this manifesto (source: Free Republic):

Richard Perle - American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader (Come on now - you KNOW who that guy is by now, right?).

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

Lets play a game called - spot the non-Jew in that bunch (hint: odds are you cannot win that game).

Some of these names should be familiar to you if you paid attention to the news.

Douglas Feith - "Douglas J. Feith (born July 16, 1953) served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005. His official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy", source: Wikipedia article.

David Wurmser - "is a Swiss-American dual citizen and a former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney"

There is more: "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith appointed Wurmser and veteran defense analyst Michael Maloof as a secret two-man Pentagon intelligence unit. One of their products, days after the attacks, was a memo that suggested "hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive" or a "non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.""

Source Wikipedia article.

Nobody but me finds it odd that people who make recommendations in a policy paper on what's best for Israel in 1996 are given Department of Defense positions in the USA? Anybody see the conflict of interest?

To put the plan for a "more secure Israel" into motion, the neocons (which is really a code word for pro-Israel activists in the USA government) organized themselves into PNAC, or the 'Project for the New American Century'. I am always reacting with laughter (really, I find it very funny) that the people who fist recommended "What's best for Israel" have the chutzpah to next write "What's best for America in the New Century", which incidentally includes everything that is best for Israel (i.e. removing Saddam, attacking Iran, Syria etc.).

The funniest thing to me is the idea that a new "Pearl Harbour" is needed to galvanize Americans to support the neocon vision for securing Israel - which the al Kaida dutifully (perfect timing, ask and ye shall receive!) provided.

To see the PNAC webpage on Wikipedia, see here - the bit about the new "Pearl Harbour" and here - the complete Wiki article.

Here is PNAC's own page - lest someone accuse me that I make all of this up. Incidentally, searching for key word "Israel" does not find any hits on the PNAC website. Another inside joke.

Here are some of the members of PNAC:
Elliott Abrams - During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, the special prosecutor handling the case prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him, President George W. Bush appointed Abrams to the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council on 25 June 2001.

Some human rights groups and commentators considered his White House appointment controversial due to his conviction in the Iran-Contra Affair investigation and his role in overseeing the Reagan administration's foreign policy in Latin America. Source - wiki.

William Kristol - William is the son of Irving Kristol who has been called the "father of the neoconservative" movement. Chairman of the Project for the New American Century, is editor of the highly criticised Murdoch publication, the Weekly Standard. The Standard serves as a sort of magazine version of FOX"news" and has been sued, debunked, and earned a general reputation for false and shoddy reporting.

Richard Perle - (Hello again!) "A veteran Washington insider, Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm." Source: oldamericancentury.org.

There we go again - dual citizens working for Israeli weapons companies. And oh, Perle being recorded on FBI wiretap telling Israeli officials American secrets did not affect his career at all. Simply put, to give Israelis American secrets is not a crime now, unlike in the days of Jonathan Pollard.

"During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Khashoggi is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board."

Source: oldamericancentury.org
Funny - we met some of these guys in my previous article...

You want to see the mission statement and see the list of who comprises PNAC?
Go to their official site again - it is not a secret.


I advise you to do your own research. Dig into the PNAC website, google keyword "PNAC", then do some research on the "Clean Break" policy paper and compare and contrast them. Research the neocons - it is EASY to do, and information is available even when the mainstream media considers such simple connect the dots 5 minute google investigative journalism as taboo.

You will come to the conclusion that both the PNAC mission statement and the 'Clean Break' policy paper were written by the same, or very like minded people, setting forth an action plan detailing what America should do to "make Israel more secure".

This action plan was only partially realized (after all, Iraq was supposed to be the first victim, with Iran and Syria getting their turn next, which did not happen - yet).

There is still work to be done "to make Israel more secure".