Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: POLITICS-US:  Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide

Bene, sembra che se ne abbia abbastanza di neocon che, usurpando il 
ruolo di "difensori di Israele", promuovono politiche di ultradestra a 
nome di tutti gli ebrei americani.
-------------------------------------
POLITICS-US:  Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide
By Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe*
WASHINGTON, Jul 30 (IPS) - A mushrooming media controversy pitting 
neoconservatives against a prominent Jewish-American political 
commentator could mark a new stage in the growing battle over who speaks 
for the U.S. Jewish community on foreign policy issues, particularly 
regarding the Middle East.
TIME columnist Joe Klein's accusations that Jewish neoconservatives, who 
played a particularly visible role in the drive to war in Iraq and have 
since pushed for military confrontation in Iran, sacrificed "U.S. lives 
and money...to make the world safe for Israel" have spurred angry 
charges of anti-Semitism and personal attacks from critics at such 
neoconservative strongholds as the Weekly Standard, National Review, and 
Commentary.
But the fierceness of the controversy surrounding Klein, generally 
considered a political centrist, highlights the growing antagonism 
between neo-conservative hardliners and prominent U.S. Jews whose more 
moderate views are aligned more closely with those of the foreign policy 
establishment.
The controversy began Jun. 24, when Klein argued in a TIME blog post 
that the "fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives -- people like 
[independent Democrat Sen.] Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary -- 
plumped for this war [in Iraq], and now for an even more foolish assault 
on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties."
Within a day, Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, 
accused Klein of espousing "age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish 
conspiracy to control and manipulate government".
The reaction from the right-wing press was even harsher. Commentary 
editor John Podhoretz reiterated the accusation of "anti-Semitic 
canards" and called Klein "manifestly intellectually unstable".
Writing in National Review, former George W. Bush speechwriter Peter 
Wehner called Klein "a man who cannot control his anger and even hatred".
But Klein has refused to back down, accusing his attackers of using 
charges of anti-Semitism to silence criticism of neoconservative policies.
"When [Commentary writer] Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me 
anti-Semitic, they're wrong," he said in an interview. "I am 
anti-neoconservative."
In its broad contours, the controversy is a familiar one, as critics 
accuse neoconservatives of exercising pernicious influence on U.S. 
Middle East policy and neoconservatives reply with charges of 
anti-Semitism and conspiracy-mongering.
What distinguishes the recent furour over Klein, however, is that it 
involves someone who is widely regarded as an exemplar of the centrist 
political establishment.
Klein is best known for his 1996 novel "Primary Colors", a thinly-veiled 
and largely unflattering portrait of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential 
campaign that was originally published anonymously and subsequently made 
into a Hollywood movie. A frequent critic of Clinton, Klein has at times 
expressed admiration for George W. Bush.
He also endorsed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (although he has since 
expressed regret for his support) and describes himself as "a strong 
supporter of Israel".
The Klein dust-up is the latest in a series of events over the last 
several years that have placed neoconservatives both in the spotlight 
and on the defensive.
Neo-conservatism, a predominantly -- but by no means exclusively -- 
Jewish movement, got its start in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a 
small but influential group of Democrats began distancing themselves 
from the party which, in their view, had become too dovish toward the 
Soviet Union and too sympathetic toward Arab demands against Israel.
By 1980, most had become strong supporters of Ronald Reagan. A number of 
prominent neo-conservatives joined his administration, including many 
who would later play key roles in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
Consigned to the political wilderness under President George H.W. Bush, 
the neo-conservatives became increasingly identified in the 1990s with 
Israel's right-wing Likud Party. It was also during the same period that 
they began agitating for "regime change" in Iraq, arguing that such a 
move would transform the balance of power in the Middle East decisively 
in favour of both Israel and the U.S.
They experienced a rebirth with the election of Bush's son in 2000, and 
particularly after the 9/11 attacks, when they played a major role, both 
inside the administration and in the media, in rallying the public and 
Congress behind war in Iraq.
But with the deterioration of the situation in Iraq, the influence of 
neoconservatives inside and outside the administration began to wane, 
and critics began charging that they had led the U.S. astray.
A series of incidents also focused critical scrutiny on the American 
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful lobbying group 
whose hawkish right-wing leadership has often defied both the views of 
the broader U.S. Jewish community and the policies of Israeli governments.
In 2004, the Justice Department charged Pentagon staffer Lawrence 
Franklin with passing classified U.S. government documents to two AIPAC 
lobbyists, who had then given the documents to an Israeli Embassy 
official. In January 2006, Franklin was sentenced to more than 12 years 
in prison, while the AIPAC staffers are still awaiting trial.
In March 2006, the well-respected and staunchly realist international 
relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published the 
article "The Israel Lobby" in the London Review of Books. That article, 
which charged that the lobby had for decades skewed U.S. policy towards 
Israel in a direction detrimental to U.S. interests, became the basis 
for their 2007 book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy".
Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis was instantly controversial. Like Klein, 
they were accused by critics, including the ADL and Commentary, of 
anti-Semitism and of perpetrating stereotypes about shadowy Jewish 
conspiracies.
But as a result of their stature, the two authors' work clearly created 
political space for those, both within the foreign policy establishment 
and within the U.S. Jewish community, who had been long privately 
critical of the neo-conservatives but had been worried about the 
consequences of going public with their misgivings.
More recently, AIPAC has come under fire for its close alliance with 
right-wing Christian Zionists, particularly controversial pastor John 
Hagee and his organisation Christians United for Israel (CUFI).
Hagee views an undivided Israel as a precondition for precipitating the 
Armageddon, and his group has accordingly pushed for hawkish U.S. 
policies in the Middle East that have been consistent with the 
neoconservatives' own preferences.
Matters came to a head earlier this year, when Republican presidential 
candidate John McCain was compelled to repudiate Hagee's endorsement 
after comments came to light in which the pastor suggested that the 
Holocaust was biblically ordained in order to force Jews to resettle in 
Israel.
Nonetheless, Hagee and CUFI have maintained close ties with the 
neo-conservatives, and a collection of prominent Israel hawks, including 
Senator Lieberman, spoke at CUFI's summit in Washington earlier this month.
The belief that AIPAC has failed to accurately represent the views of 
the U.S. Jewish community led to the foundation earlier this year of J 
Street, a Jewish lobbying group that aims to push for a more moderate 
stance on Middle East issues.
In the wake of these developments, many observers have taken Klein's 
comments -- and particularly his refusal to back down in the face of 
withering criticism from neo-conservatives -- as a sign that new 
political space is being created for the public airing of more moderate 
views on Middle East policy.
M.J. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer now associated with the moderate 
Israel Policy Forum, expressed the hope that commentators would stop 
equating neo-conservatism with Judaism and start treating it as a 
political movement subject to political criticism.
"Although most neocons are Jews, few Jews are neocons," he wrote 
Wednesday. By equating the two groups, "[the neocons] want Americans not 
to follow the trail of war-mongering that leads not to Jews but to them".
*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the 
neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at 
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/
.
(END/2008)
-- 
[namib] Posso legalmente inneggiare al comunismo, ma non al fascismo.
L'una appartenenza è appunto *criminale*, l'altra no.
[tonibaruch] Purtroppo abbiamo questa legge idiota, è vero.
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/tree/browse_frm/thread/3f0249225d16ae1d/9d60fe69c1a4658e

 ruolo di "difensori di Israele"
Da dove hai preso questo virgolettato?
A margine noterei che il fatto che gli ebrei americani (70% democratici) 
abbiano posizioni differenziate (e legittime) su che cosa voglia dire 
difendere Israele, è un fatto abbastanza noto a chi non è un pirla 
antisemita.
I pirla antisemiti invece sono quelli che amerebbero decidere chi 
rappresenta davvero e chi "usurpa".
Tb

 rappresenta davvero e chi "usurpa".
Non hai letto l'articolo, coglione.


 Non hai letto l'articolo
Irrilevante.
Persio, sei un pirla.
Tb

 Persio, sei un pirla.
Fila via bagarozzo, che ammorbi l'aria.


Irrilevante.
AHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHA!
Il bacarozzo ammette di aver ciarlato a vanvera.
Disgustomatico. Fossi come lui mi farei schifo da solo, ma siccome
nessuno è come lui, fa schifo a tutti!

 E' molto rilevante 
No.
Solo un pirla antisemita può supporre che gli ebrei abbiano avuto una 
rappresentanza "unitaria" e non una notevole varietà di posizioni su 
cosa sia meglio per Israele.
E solo un pirla antisemita potrbbe pretendere di decidere chi con le sue 
posizioni, "usurpa" (quote letterale) il titolo di "sostenitore di 
Israele" (virgolettato di fantasia a cura del pirla antisemita falsario).
E tutto questo indipendentemente da qualsiasi articolo da pirla.
Persio, gigantesco pirla.
Tb

 rappresenta davvero e chi "usurpa"
pinter, intanto inizia a non usurpare il nome altrui
--
"il Logi è goi e quindi, poverino, abituato a credere che
quel che c'è scritto non necessiti di interpretazione"
(il cosiddetto agnosco/nahum/jabo/shampista/delafia/borat/andrea su
it.politica.internazionale, 26/10/06)

 pirla
antonio pinter, usa il tuo nome per insultare
-- 
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy        e-mail: 
ll...@dada.it