Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The threatmonger's handbook
The United States has the world's largest economy (so far), and the world's most powerful conventional military forces. It spends about as much on national security than the rest of the world combined, and nearly nine times more than the No. 2 power (China). It has several thousand operational nuclear weapons, each substantially more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. America is further protected from conventional military attack by two enormous oceanic moats, there no great powers in the Western hemisphere, and it hasn’t been invaded since the War of 1812. (A few southerners may want to challenge that last statement, but I'm not going to get into that).
9/11 reminded us American security is not absolute, of course, and the strategic advantages I just outlined are no defense against climate change, pandemic disease, or financial collapse. But surely the United States is about as secure as any great power in modern history. Yet Americans continue to fret about national security, continue to spend far more on national security than any other country does, and continue to believe that our way of life will be imperiled if we do not confront an array of much weaker foes on virtually every continent.
One reason Americans exaggerate security fears is the existence of an extensive cottage industry of professional threatmongers, who deploy a well-honed array of arguments to convince us that we are in fact in grave danger. (The United States is hardly the only country that does this, of course, but the phenomenon is more evident here because its overall strategic position is so favorable). Debunking these claims is easier once you know the basics, so I hereby offer as a public service:
The Threatmonger's Handbook:
(Or, How to Scare Your Fellow Citizens for Fun and Profit.)
Rule #1: Emphasize that small decisions can mark the difference between victory or defeat.
The core logic of threatmongering depends on convincing others that world is highly elastic; that very small policy changes will have dramatic effects on one’s overall position. Threatmongers argue that cancelling some weapons system or failing to take action against some minor danger may leave you vulnerable to a devastating attack. At the same time, spending just a bit more or taking aggressive action now will cause potential threats to dissipate and guarantee security for years to come.
Rule #2: "Everything is connected."
This principle is a corollary to Rule #1: a good threatmonger wants to convince you that events in one area will have far-reaching effects everywhere else. They portray a world where credibility is fragile, where dominos fall easily and where one's allies will be quick to jump on the enemy's bandwagon after a single setback. By the same logic, threatmongers promise that success in one place will quickly lead to further triumphs elsewhere. During the Vietnam War, threatmongers predicted that defeat there would lead to dominos falling all across Southeast Asia and undermine U.S. alliances all over the world (which of course didn't happen). More recently, the architects of the Iraq war argued that toppling Saddam would trigger a wave of democratic transformations across the Middle East and put dictators on notice elsewhere. In a world where everything is connected to everything else, there are no minor problems and nothing can be safely ignored.
Rule #3: Emphasize threats that are inherently impossible to measure.
This principle was the essence of McCarthyism: his claim that communists were infiltrating the U.S. government was impossible to disprove with 100 percent confidence, and it made many Americans fear that a vast network of subversives were secretly at work across the entire country. The problem is that there's no way to know for certain if his accusations were true or not: that flag-waving Boy Scout next door might have been an especially cunning Marxist-Leninist with a truly effective disguise. Today, threatmongers try to scare us by portraying all Muslims as potential subversives, and by suggesting that Western civilization itself is under siege from immigration, the internet, cyberterrorism, or some other covert form of infiltration. And don't forget Rule 3A: when an alleged threat is easy to measure and not really that serious, just classify the information so that nobody finds out.
Rule #4: Portray allies as a liability rather than as an asset.
States normally seek allies in order to pool their assets and make both more secure. Threatmongers see this differently: the more allies you have, the more interests that must be protected and the greater your security requirements actually become. Logically, U.S. defense requirements should be lower because we are allied to some of the world's wealthiest and well-armed states. But the logic of threatmongering suggests the opposite conclusion: as the United States recruits an ever-increasing network of allies, it has to defend more and more places and must therefore worry about an ever-widening array of problems.
Rule #5: Whenever possible, depict opponents as part of a strong and highly cohesive movement, and preferably one united by strong ideological convictions.
This is the flip side of Rule #4: our allies are weak and feckless, but our opponents are always strong, cunning, resolute, and well-organized. During the Cold War, the enemy was "monolithic communism," an image that downplayed the deep schisms within the communist world. Under Bill Clinton, the danger was a motley collection of "rogue states" whose combined capabilities were a tiny fraction of our own and who weren't even in cahoots with one another. George W. Bush went one step further, and placed Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and North Korea in a mythical "axis of evil." Today, other threatmongers rail about the looming danger of "Islamofascism," thereby suggesting that all Islamic groups are part of some vast and well-organized conspiracy. In all these cases, the same basic principle is used to make dangers look bigger than they really are.
Rule #6: "We must act now!"
To a skilled threatmonger, trends are always against us and time is always short. If we do not act soon, we are told, the window of opportunity will close and our security will be compromised forever. This is the mindset that drove Germany's decision to provoke World War I and led the Bush administration to attack Iran in 2003, and those now favor military action against Iran invoke essentially the same logic. They've forgotten Bismarck's warning: preventive war "is committing suicide for fear of death."
Rule #7: Always describe opponents as irrational, unalterably aggressive, and impossible to deter.
If the enemy is aggressive, irrational, and willing to run great risks, then it will take overwhelming superiority to deter them and even that may not be enough. In fact, if the adversary is as nasty as the threatmongers say, then deterrence or containment probably won't work and war is probably inevitable. And if war is going to occur sooner or later, we should look for a favorable opportunity to take them out first. Kenneth Pollock of the Brookings Institution used Rule #7 to perfection in his 2002 book The Threatening Storm, thereby helping convince potentially skeptical liberals that invading Iraq was a good idea.
Rule #8: When it comes to national security, there is no such thing as opportunity costs.
The goal of threatmongering is to convince a country to spend more money on defense or to undertake more aggressive actions in the name of national security. Leaders or citizens may object if they think such a policy might entail real costs or require genuine tradeoffs, so skilled threatmongers often argue that increased military spending will be cost-free (for example, by claiming it will stimulate the economy and create jobs), or by suggesting that military action in one arena will produce lots of positive externalities elsewhere (see Rule #2). At the same time, they will downplay the possibility that military action lead to a costly quagmire or make it impossible to take action elsewhere (see under: Iraq).
Rule #9: Assume that opponents are able to do anything they say they want to do.
One easy way to scare people is to look at your enemies' wildest dreams and assume that they have the capacity to actually bring them about. During the Cold War, threatmongers studied Soviet military writings and argued that the most fantastic Soviet battle plans were an accurate measure of what the Red Army could actually accomplish, even though there were sound military reasons to reject that assessment. Or they took the rabble-rousing rhetoric of revolutionary leaders at face value and assumed that it would be as easy to spread revolution as these radicals thought. Today, threatmongers tell us that Osama bin Laden wants to topple governments throughout the Islamic world and eventually restore the medieval caliphate, even though he is as likely to achieve that goal as I am to win the Wimbledon singles title or make the finals on American Idol. It obviously makes sense to know what an adversary’s objective might be, but only a dedicated threatmonger equates desires with actual capabilities.
And don't forget Rule 9B (the Cheney Corollary): if there is a one percent chance that some bad thing might happen, act as if it is a 100 percent certainty. A purer illustration of threatmongering would be difficult to find.
Rule#10: When challenged, immediately question your critics' patriotism, credentials, or seriousness.
Nothing can disarm critics who claim that the nation is needlessly squandering blood or treasure more effectively than accusing them of being unpatriotic, naïve, excessively idealistic, or insufficiently "serious." And if that doesn't work, bring up Neville Chamberlain.
These tried-and-true methods do not work all of the time, of course, but they are undeniably effective. This is partly because a few leaders turn out to be hard to deter, sometimes seemingly minor events do have large consequences, and losing a war or being forced to compromise with an adversary is never a pleasant experience. In short, there are good reasons for any country to national security seriously, which is why realists like me oppose pacifism, radical disarmament, or reflexive appeasement. But squandering resources is never a good idea, and exaggerating dangers can be as harmful to a state's long-term interests as understating them, especially when it leads to wars of choice that turn out badly. So when you see arguments like this being used to justify hawkish policies, hang onto your skepticism (and your wallet).
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Case in point
Right on prof.!
A case in point -- why are we in Afghanistan? Are the Taliban that dangerous? Isn't the 9/11 mastermind in Gitmo. Is getting 6th tier Al Qaeda operatives worth destabilizing Pakistan? Have a look at Prof. Mueller's article in FA:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64932/john-mueller/how-dangerous-are-the-taliban
Re. Why we fight, in general? -- there is great documentary (military-industrial-gwot-complex):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682
A case in point -- why are we
No!, no! you are there to save the women! Jupiter knows the implications of not saving them at home on your own women. Maybe even the pimps try to power share with State.
Professor knows very well that threat mongering is a necessity for State. Once you assume that "State" is given by Jupiter and threat mongering is a necessity for State then to understand the IR of such States you develop theoretical tools which help better to State in their threat mongering, like the SATFP:
I can't imagine Professor thinking that State without threat mongering will keep her identity as State. I don't know why he circles around the bush rather than saying;->
"without threat mongering, State is useless."
For State threat mongering is a very effective tool especially when State is in real trouble at home to imagine a threat outside to divert the attention of citizens and re-unite them to pay their taxes plus;->>
Of course I am not complaining that Professor is undermining the State by criticizing its threat-mongering practices, but if Professor thinks that this will help save the State he is dreaming, he should better refresh his memory with above axioms related to State.
No threat-mongering no State.
What would Our Professor do without State and her threat-mongering;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Applying these to Walt
Such as your argument that all Israeli settlements be uprroted right now and that removing them will end most if not all Islamist grievence with the west.
The way you do with Israel.
As you do in your book "The Zionist Lobby." As you do regarding Bibi's "treason" against Israel.
You wrote a book doing just this called "The Zionist Lobby."
Your description of Bibi.
Like you do of the most extreme Israeli settlers.
clever, but.................................................
clever rhetoric Dave123, but Prof. Walt does NOT use those rules to say that we should declare war on the zionist lobby (even though _I_ think it would be wonderful idea).
Duh.
To say that people may subscribe to the list of rules above to _argue_ their viewpoints in print is one thing, to say that they use them to generate fear to get us into stupid wars is quite another thing.
btw, why in G*d's name would you defend the Israeli settlers?
Clint uses Rule #7
Carebeful!
Direct Hit!
Interesting Dave123.
What does "carebful"" what do
What does "carebful""
what do you mean by "interesting"?
Swine flu is "interesting" also, if you work at CDC.
There are a lot of "interesting" cases at the local asylums.
Dave123 is either an Israeli
Dave123 is either an Israeli settler or David Rothkopf
Mobazz uses Rule #7 too
LOL!
OMG!
OMG, how old are u? LOL! ;)
Prof. Walt, I would have
Prof. Walt,
I would have mentioned Jack Snyder's work on Myths on Empire, since I believe it goes exactly in this direction.
From example, warmongers also speak quite often of tiger-paper enemies, new eldorados, and so forth and all the contradiction we know and that Snyder has elegantly summed up.
Footnote: Jervis
Walt's entire post should have a footnote to Robert Jervis's body of work. Not a criticism of Walt. Just an observation about how many of these rules are mentioned somewhere along the way in Jervis's work.
These rules seem to be tied
These rules seem to be tied to only neoconsertive assertions... where else do you think they have applied in recent history?
Cold War
Cold War rhetoric (on both sides) used such rules -- or some subset at least.
see:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2278/the-lulling-effect-of-arms-control
“Democracies will not sacrifice to protect their security in the absence of a sense of danger. And every time we create the impression that we and the Soviets are cooperating and moderating the competition, we diminish that sense of apprehension.”
Throwing chum to the piranhas
Eh, Dr. Walt?
They can, and do. For one thing, canceling certain weapons systems (such as, for example, the next generation of air superiority fighter when your current jets are 30 years old) means that 20-30 years down the road, you're significantly weaker in that area.
For that matter, how about a counter-example - most of the US Security Community thought Afghanistan and Pakistan were a "minor danger" that could just be ignored, which is why they more or less left them to the wolves after the Soviets were driven out?
That's not to say that every "minor danger" is some rising threat that we're ignoring; God knows we've ignored tons of shit in Africa without any real consequence to us. But how to tell, hmm?
It had a pretty devastating setback to US military credibility and capabilities at that time, and Cambodia, Burma, and Laos all went communist (and the Thais had to deal with a major communist insurgency). But this point is more or less correct; one should be suspicious of overly-linked outcomes, particularly if they seem overly optimistic.
I'd argue that this was connected to Bush's greatest foreign policy flaw - his tendency to escalate problems. He took a reactive war against a particular violent jihadist group, and turned it into some grand, worldwide crusade to eliminate Islamic terrorism everywhere, while changing states in the Arab World to secular democracies (that hopefully support Israel). In doing so, he also set the bar impossibly high, and ensured that the US will probably run into issues in doing so.
That said, there are some advantages to that escalation. The violent Islamic separatists in the Phillipines have been better dealt with by the Filipino government with the new US help.
That's because part of US alliances usually involve security guarantees. We're not alone in this, either; Russia, for example, does this with some of the central Asian states, but on a smaller scale.
Yes, but as Robert Jervis pointed out in his article on the Security Dilemma, even Bismarck realized that sitting back in a period where war is dominated by the Offensive capabilities is utter foolishness. That's the case in certain areas, particularly Israel.
There's a hint of a point in this set of beliefs, which is that other states' foreign policies are also (with some autocracies being an exception) a mixture of bureaucratic and political outcomes within the domestic sphere. You've written a lot on this with regards to the Israel Lobby; opponents of the US say that the US is aggressive and irrational, dominated by Zionists.
Bullshit, of course, but what can you do? Conspiracy theories are popular.
Af/Pak disaster is due to BUSH No. 2's "Policies"
You say: "most of the US Security Community thought Afghanistan and Pakistan were a "minor danger" that could just be ignored, which is why they more or less left them to the wolves after the Soviets were driven out?"
True. But the disaster in Af/Pak exploded as a result of US policies POST-9/11: Squeezing the Taliban out of Af and into Pakistan.
Bloody Brilliant.
Educate yourself: buy Descent into Chaos:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22274
These events dramatically illustrate Ahmed Rashid's central contention in his brilliant and passionate book Descent into Chaos. Throughout the book Rashid emphasizes the degree to which, seven years after September 11, "the US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001":
Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar. The US invasions of two Muslim countries...[have] so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats...in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader...is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history....
Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, forty-five thousand Western troops, and the deaths of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback.... The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.
Pakistan...has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown.... In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year....
In 2008, American power lies shattered.... US credibility lies in ruins.... Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.
It is difficult to disagree with any of this. Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.
For one thing, canceling
For one thing, canceling certain weapons systems (such as, for example, the next generation of air superiority fighter when your current jets are 30 years old) means that 20-30 years down the road, you're significantly weaker in that area.
Yes, when we cancelled new battleships in 1942, 20-30 years down the road we wound up significantly weaker in battleships.
And when we severely cut back on horse cavalry we wound up very weak in horse cavalry.
Imagine that we had cut back on battleships 15 years earlier, Then the japanese would have had an absolute advantage over us in battleships. That would have put us in serious trouble at Pearl Harbor, wouldn't it? And all through the war in the pacific, we'd have had to deal with our battleship shortage, we'd have had to hold on until we could make up the lack.
For that matter, how about a counter-example - most of the US Security Community thought Afghanistan and Pakistan were a "minor danger" that could just be ignored, which is why they more or less left them to the wolves after the Soviets were driven out?
They were right. Afghanistan and pakistan were minor dangers, and are minor dangers today. AQ training bases could have been set up practically anywhere in the world including the USA, in those days.
But how to tell, hmm?
Nuke them all from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
You've written a lot on this with regards to the Israel Lobby; opponents of the US say that the US is aggressive and irrational, dominated by Zionists.
Isn't it true that we're aggressive and irrational? I'm not sure how to distinguish between "dominated by zionists" and "consistently act in favor of zionists for some unknown reason".
To argue that we aren't irrational wouldn't it take some sort of rational argument in favor of our foreign policy over the last 8 years? I don't see how to construct one.
To argue that we aren't aggressive.... That would be hard.
Yes, when we cancelled new
I was talking about implementation time and "mileage", not the possibility of a weapons system being overtaken by a new weapons system (and in the US's case, they were replacing one set of ships with another). There's plenty of examples supporting my case, such as the fact that we can still depend on F-15s and F-16s even though they were developed in the 1970s and 1980s.
Not exactly. I'd suggest reading some Ahmed Rashid on this.
The "minor danger" is a matter of opinion.
Rule 6
in rule six it says we invaded iran in '03. otherwisw, great post! i really enjoyed the best books and films in IR.
John Birch
Gee, isn't all this in the John Birch Society's handbook?
I have very little
I have very little disagreements with the statements made above.. so I'm wondering about the impact of our new president on the future of foreign policy. Will we see a shift from the traditional position of fear and threat towards a more rational, human policy of engagement and dialogue?
Will the words 'axis of evil' be replaced with something like 'our partners in human development, prosperity and equality?'
I want to see some light in this tunnel of aggressive, destructive policy.
It's hard to argue with
It's hard to argue with these, and they're all pretty useful, and can be extended to other areas beyond national security; for example, you'll find many of these tactics were and are being used in the arguments for the various bailouts. And a common thread is that they're all in essence a way to take your money from you and give it to the government, and allow the current regime to spend your money in its preferred way. It's all a way to get people to suspend their natural, rational distrust of government, and to make them forget history.
But there's a huge catch-22, and that is something inherent in the nature of bureaucracy, and the two rules that govern any bureaucracy: 1. Bureaucracies exist primarily to perpetuate themselves, and 2. Those who work in bureaucracies are generally governed by the 'cover thine own ass' principle.
If someone had talked up the threat of Islamic terrorism in the 90s, they would been rightfully exposed to many of the charges in your list (and the whole bombing the baby formula factory in Sudan seemed really absurd at the time). Yet they would have been right and you would have been wrong for criticizing them; or rather, we could say you would have been right in criticizing them right up until 9/11/01 (you see the Schroedinger's Cat paradox here?).
And once something like 9/11 occurs, the two main rules that govern bureaucracies kick in; so more and more threat have to be examined to cover everyone's collective ass, and the natural resistance to expand bureaucracies is weakened. And we are still trying to figure our way through the response to this reaction of our bureaucracies to 9/11.
Muslims hate our policies -- rightly so.
You said: "If someone had talked up the threat of Islamic terrorism in the 90s, they would been rightfully exposed to many of the charges in your list..."
Not really.
Islamic terrorism is largely an outgrowth of our own wrong-headed policies. (Supporting dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and funding injustice and the persecution of civilians in Israel for example).
The terrorists are using the wrong means to fight for a just cause.
Read the 9/11 commission report -- it's really spelled out there.
Or the Defense Science Board analysis: "Muslims don't hate our freedoms -- they hate our policies"
See section 2.3 in:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in
favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do
not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups.
Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a
shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian
boundaries that divide Islam.
You make no sense. Even if
You make no sense. Even if your simple-minded views were true, it would not invalidate the statement you cite.
But it really does stimulate the economy
Military Keynesianism works. In fact it works better than ordinary Keynesianism does, for two reasons: one, it does not have the undesirable social side-effect of making the population well-off and uppity; two, the products are self-destroying, so the demand is infinite.
The demand might be infinite,
The demand might be infinite, but the supply is not. Most military expenditures during wartime are not "pay as you go," they are added to the national debt. The current generation may see the benefits of more jobs but future generations get saddled with an ever-increasing debt and interest on that debt which cripples their ability to invest in their own education, infra-structure, etc. In short, it's a Ponzi scheme.
wonderland
Professor Walt,
It is transparent to anyone familiar with your work, how self-descriptive your insight is. I second Dave123 and Brett here, who have made all the necessary arguments.
Please, there is no point in attacking the methods of your adversaries - since we all share the same methods! Your list is a caricature, and guess what it does - paint your opponents as irrational.
We are - according to you fear-mongers.
What you fail to explain is - who we are? And why we are professional. Where's the paycheck coming from? And why do we have this irrational passion for fear-mongering. Do we suffer from a psychopathic commitment to our nation? Or some Freudian complex?
I'd be interested in your answer - since again - a hefty part will apply to yourself.
***
In the end this exercise in abstraction is useless. Rhetoric, in its purest form. Like your concern for Israel, in the last piece.
***
And yes, I am for a transfer of Arabs. And no, it has nothing to do with genocide. A peaceful transfer, is absolutely possible, and a necessity. And save your Ad Nazism for another Jew - the least you can do is demonstrate that stereotypes about goyim aren't true.
"transfer of Arabs"
Sorry, I'm new to the discussion and I'm not familiar with the "transfer of Arabs." Got a link where the proposal is explained?
No intent to argue, complain, or criticize--just seeking clarification. Thanks!
try google
google the following string of words to get your answer:
fascist lieberman expel arabs kach
transfer of Arabs
And I am for the transfer of Israelis out of Arab land, back to where they came from: Moldova, Russia, Poland, Ethiopia, Germany, Brooklyn and Long-bloody-Island etc.
The most fascist right-wing Israelis are actually Americans. Why?
Peacefully move Israel to Germany. That is justice.
-Clint (American Jew)
And yes, I am for a transfer
Unless you are more or less bribing them to leave the areas in question, it's still a forced transfer, which when done to a mass national group constitutes ethnic cleansing.
Clint,After you are done
Clint,
After you are done your ethnic clensing,what would you do with the 40% of Israeli Jews that are Arabs? Would you send Ethiopian Jews back to starve?
I guessyou are also want to move all non native Americans back to their ancestor's country of origin as well?
Yes
Yes, if there were 100,000,000 Native Americans alive, living in Canada and Mexico, and yearning to return then they would have a right to return to "USA". If they could all live in a single democracy that would be fine. If not, then the USA "citizens" should be removed to where they came from. The situation in Israel is easier because foreigners started arriving there just in 1948.
Alas, we (USA) did a great job of genocide with the Native Americans.
Maybe that is what you would like to do with the arabs?
Yes, there is a lot of anti-Semitism in the world. But you fail to note one of the main causes: Zionism. Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that the two are antithetical.
I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns. Jews are taught to heal the world ("tikkun olam"), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.
So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.
Practice what you preach Clint
So essentially Clint, you're saying that you're quite willing to live with the fruits of others genocide rather than moving back to where you 'came from'.
Interesting.
BTW, the idea of Zion has been with us since the beginning.
The reality of this is that even the most radical of anti-Zionist of Jews continue to live in Israel.
Tikkun Olam is indeed a core aspect of Judaism, but so too is the idea of Jews as a people, connected to the land of Israel.
As for the uglier aspects of the Arab / Israeli conflict, perhaps you should take the view that it takes at least two parties for a conflict and the Arab/Muslim states in the world (Including the Palestinians themselves) bear at least equal responsibility/blame for the suffering of the Palestinians.
Just remember, that in the end, anti-Semitism serves only the anti-Semites. Jew haters have never lacked for rationalization for their bigotry and violence.
I am willing
I am willing to sit on the sidelines as long as $3BILLION of my taxes do not go to fund the MILITARY of one side of this conflict.
Per year.
In lieu of that, I suggest 1.5Billion in military aid to Palestinians, and 1.5 billion to Israelis per year.
With the Israelis getting a handicap of no funding of their share, for the next 30 years as they have already sucked the US tax payers of their funds for that long.
PS: Zion is a religious/political concept -- it is not an absolute truth. I can invent a religion which gives me access to your home too, buddy. So, no, it is not been around since the big bang.
fruits of genocides
Yes, I am willing to live with the fruits of others' genocide if there are no more native people yearning to get access back to their homes. For whom should I leave?
There has not been a genocide against the Arabs. Too bad for you, eh? Does it make you sad that you can't have genocide in 21st century -- keep trying in Gaza though.
So there are Arabs yearning to go back to their home, now occupied by Poles, Russians and Moldovans and horribly dressed Brooklyn duchebags. The natives have the right of return. You didn't kill them all yet. :(
As for the uglier aspects of
As for the uglier aspects of the Arab / Israeli conflict, perhaps you should take the view that it takes at least two parties for a conflict and the Arab/Muslim states in the world (Including the Palestinians themselves) bear at least equal responsibility/blame for the suffering of the Palestinians.
Don't go there. Just don't go there.
What you say is true, or else it isn't true. Either way let's not talk about the Holocaust.
Just don't go there.
I'll second the earlier comments that Walt's current theory
Matches his own hate-filled polemics on the 'Israel Lobby' and other more recent comments on Jews and Israel.
Of course
hate-filled polemics on moving Arabs out of their lands is perfectly OK, right? (see posts above)
Hypocrites, all.
Great job Clint
Great job Clint. Your responses to the Zionist apologists are inspiring. I have long said that supporters of Zionism are left with two options. They are either ignorant (often times willfully so) or immoral (as evidenced by their comments above). I think that at the heart of the matter these people are deeply paranoid and deep down inside believe that everyone who is not like them will one day turn on them. I believe this deeply routed suspicion is inculcated at a very young age and developed throughout their life. This is what allows them to consciously or unconsciously turn off their moral compass when it comes to matters of Israel. Israel represents a safe place of last resort for that day they know will come when the Goyim once again turn on them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure it is possible to get through to these people without first addressing the underlying paranoia.
As far as I'm concerned,
As far as I'm concerned, Israel has a right to dwell within the post-1949 (and pre-1967 borders). Those were the borders established in combat, and the population transfer is over, more or less. In any case, most of the people actually affected are dead, and we're dealing with their children and descendants.
The case of the Palestinian Territories is entirely another matter, though, simply because it is an ongoing process, with victims who are currently being wrong.
The Mentality of the Racist Jewish Zionist
Should we be surprised that a racist Jewish Zionist like Brett believes that Jewish genocidaires and ethnic cleansers should be able to get away with their crimes?
Of course, in the case of the Holocaust every dime that might once have belonged to a Jew has to be clawed back.
In any case, the ethnic cleansing, theft, and genocide of 1947-8 never ended, and relief for the crimes should certainly encompass the crimes that Jewish Zionists committed since the start of the Zionist movement.
It is also worthwhile to point out that Zionist Jewish and Soviet Jewish genocidalism hardly differ at all, and both certainly should be a topic of serious public discourse as long as Jewish Zionists use the Holocaust for political manipulation.
See The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine.
Because Jews insist that non-Jews show acknowledgement, remorse and atonement for the anti-Jewish crimes that have grown out of non-Jewish politics, by the same token Jews should show acknowledgement, remorse and atonement for the crimes that have grown out of Jewish politics.
Need a Framework for Threat-Mongering
Professor Walt's Threat-Monger's Handbook ignores the most important components of modern threat-mongering: Jewish Zionist control or influence in the media and the plethora of Jewish communal organizations that provide media updates to influence news professionals, who are themselves far too often Jewish Zionists.
Save Darfur, which is essentially a Jewish Zionist anti-Arab propaganda organization, even has the motto: educate, advocate, legislate.
Even with the web of control, intimidation, and dependency that the Israel Lobby/Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland has imposed on the USA, some Zionist scare-mongering seems to be wearing out. As far as I can tell Geert Wilders-style Islamophobic incitement is getting little traction despite the best efforts of Jewish Zionist hate-mongers.
Here are some relevant links:
.
This article fits hand in
This article fits hand in glove with the article the 12 signs of fascism. Both articles are excellently written