James DiEugenio Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 (edited) Paul, As I said I think the McLeod article came from Mintpress. The Unz Review is a collective site. Which many have objected to on the grounds you state. PS: I just checked and it is from Mintpress. https://www.mintpressnews.com/ Edited January 18 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: I read quite a bit of this way too long article, and then got curious and followed some links on the right side of the page. I was unfortunately introduced to some horribly anti-semitic crap, which likewise took some deep reading but is undeniably true, and I’m not confused between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. I know from first hand accounts of survivors what happened. Perhaps you were not so privileged. Paul, Ron Unz's site is a mixed bag of articles about history and current events, characterized by material that has been marginalized by the U.S. mainstream media. I, certainly, don't agree with all of the work published there. Unz, himself, is Jewish, and is, IMO, quite a brilliant man. He's a Harvard and Stanford grad who made a lot of money with a computer company, but has always been interested in history-- and "untold history," in particular. His signature articles at the Unz Review are his scholarly American Pravda series-- alluding to the "Pravda-esque" nature of U.S. corporate media censorship. As for your allusion to the Holocaust, I have been privileged to know and work with some Holocaust survivors in my lifetime, and have even lived and worked closely with adult children of Holocaust survivors since my medical school years. I know firsthand that there is an inter-generational legacy of WWII trauma that many of my peers and family members have experienced. (I have also known adult children of Russians who fought in WWII.) My own father fought the Nazis in Italy, France, and Germany-- from 1943 to 1945-- in the U.S. 753rd Tank Battalion. He survived the Battle of San Pietro, where the 753rd lost 17 tanks in a frontal assault on the German lines, and he was also a survivor of the Battle of Monte Cassino, and Operation Dragoon in southern France. HIs battalion liberated a Nazi concentration camp at Lohr, Germany, and he personally witnessed the emaciated condition of Nazi concentration camp survivors. Many of the founding fathers (and mothers) of Israel had family members who died in the Holocaust. And many prominent Neocons-- including, I believe, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith-- also lost family members in the Holocaust. They have been, understandably, dedicated to the survival and prosperity of Israel, as a homeland and haven for Jewish people in an antisemitic world. As for the Neocons and the Project for a New American Century, they have played a major role in orchestrating the Bush-Cheney administration's so-called "War on Terror" since 9/11. The PNAC agenda, as I understand it, was largely based on the theories of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith-- using the U.S. military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Alawite regime in Damascus, then, later, overthrowing the Ayatollahs in Tehran. What do you make of General Wesley Clark being briefed in the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon, shortly after 9/11, about the Bush administration's plan to wage war on several Islamic nations in seven years-- beginning with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Libya, and ending with Iran? Edited January 18 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 BTW, Feith was also associated with the Henry Jackson coterie. I think he was brought in by Wolfowitz. Is it not really something that the Russians had to come in to save a secular leader in the Middle East, namely Assad. And do not forget, that Nasser united Syria with Egypt for a short time before the Saudis short circuited it. Kennedy then sent aid to Egypt to cushion the blow. The Neocon philosophy now dominates in Washington. Diplomacy is a four letter word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, Feith was also associated with the Henry Jackson coterie. I think he was brought in by Wolfowitz. Is it not really something that the Russians had to come in to save a secular leader in the Middle East, namely Assad. And do not forget, that Nasser united Syria with Egypt for a short time before the Saudis short circuited it. Kennedy then sent aid to Egypt to cushion the blow. The Neocon philosophy now dominates in Washington. Diplomacy is a four letter word. JD-- I admire your good nature and intentions, but you are casting pearls before swine, both historically and at present. Even JFK's advisers told him the chances for the "right of return" leading to peace were nearly nil, due to implacable Arab-Islamic hatred for even the thought of Jewish state in the Mideast. When Hamas says they want to kill all the Jews--well, after Oct. 7 perhaps we should believe them. US domestic politics appears to be fraying. You have lefties carrying signs like "Catamites for Hamas," and righties apologizing for the horror of Putin (300,000 dead in Ukraine and Putin is just warming up). Now Putin has become a Hamas supporter, so the circle of right-left lunacy is complete. It would be nice if JFK could have made peace in the Middle East. A certain divine figure tried, and also failed to make peace there, during the Roman occupation. So it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 (edited) Robert Dreyfuss is an expert on America in the Middle East. He is no big fan of Kennedy. In his book Devil's Game, he says that Nasser was the last time you could have had peace in the area. So please do not say its me. Edited January 19 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Richard Dreyfuss is an expert on America in the Middle East. He is no big fan of Kennedy. In his book Devil's Game, he says that Nasser was the last time you could have had peace in the area. So please do not say its me. Well maybe. As I recall, Nasser evicted all Jews from Egypt on seven days notice, even though they had lived there peaceably since the time of the Pharaohs. Egypt made war on Israel four times, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1969. He might have made war again, but he died. He printed vitriolic anti-Jewish propaganda. Nasser was thus dubbed the "moderate" in the Mideast by Western media. That gives you an idea of MidEast culture. You might get a kick on this article. https://www.meforum.org/62399/nasser-and-the-palestinians Maybe Nasser was just for Nasser... Edited January 18 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) Geez... Just when we're finally getting somewhere in exploring the largely untold history of the Neocons and post-JFK U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, our Google "scholar" Ben Cole hijacks the thread with a deflective, retro-active reference to the early 60s. Terrific. 🙄 In any case, people interested in the history of the past half century, in relation to the current crisis in the Middle East, might be interested in studying the details of the well-funded Neocon UANI movement to start a U.S. war with Iran. A U.S. war with Iran was the final agenda item of the pre-9/11 Neocon Project for a New American Century. United Against Nuclear Iran, by Alan Macleod - The Unz Review Edited January 18 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 As I said, I thought Jim's disjointed piece was in the first half a rehash of previous posts about JFK and Nasser and how Jim dreamed of a JFK/Nasser Socialist takeover of the Middle East where the Sauds and other oil rich countries would give up their wealth to the non oil countries like Egypt, in Nasser's always changing politically expedient vision of a Pan Arab League. And by the way, the Palestinians would have been given a permanent home! As if any powers anywhere would look forward to a revolution in oil country! It was a dream that was betrayed early on when JFK sided with Sauds against Nasser in the War in Yemen. Then near the end, JIm brings in Henry Jackson as the starter of the neocon movement! I'm not sure if Jim knows JFK actually was considering Henry Jackson as his VP running mate in 1960, before he decided on his southern strategy with LBJ.! Then imagine my surprise when I find that jt was Jackson who was there for RFK's support when he appeared at the 1964 Democratic Convention. First coming on camera with RFK at 5:25. https://youtu.be/o2rdKbOmPKs Besides to assume without Henry Jackson, there wouldn't have been a PNAC movement 20 years after his death is BS! The invasion of Iraq is totally on George W. Bush and his PNACer's. The Democrats in the house solidly voted against going to the War in Iraq. If we hadn't gotten that very questionable electoral result and we had Al Gore, the war never would have happened! I never liked Joe Biden through his entire career but I've been surprised to see his economic policies were certainly more for the working class than JFK, or any President in the last 45 years. Has anybody asked Di Eugenio since I can't because he has me on ignore, heh heh about RK Jr. making the most hawkish defense of Israel of any American politician up to this day? I think not, and wouldn't expect it! Would any other of you hard core RK /peace in Israel people like to weigh in on that as well!? My guess no matter whatever shock they possess over Israel's atrocities, they'd vote for RK anyway. Because we have a President in the U.S. I think a lot of people across the pond think that that must mean he has super powers. But we have a Congress that has the power of the purse strings. And If you're serious about the catastrophe in Gaza. Blaming it all on Biden is silly because the support of Israel is widespread in the U.S.! There's a number of people here who don't even agree with you about this! I generally like Mother Jones, but the current policy didn't just happen because of Joe Biden!. Imagine Trump as President ,who merely said the hostilities have to "play out! " The current situation would have been completely unleashed with very little Presidential calls for humanitarian action, and the Palestinians fed to the dogs, with a nothing more than shrieking from a handful of lefties! Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tried to pass a resolution to force the State Department to report on Israeli human rights violations in Gaza. It was backed by all of 11 Senators out of 100! Of those who voted for it, 10 were Democrats!, the one Republican out of 49 was Rand Paul! That should tell you what and who you're up against! Knowing Kennedy politics, JFK would probably be somewhere between Bernie and RK Jr., heh heh heh Ok probably like Biden, with about as much call for humanitarian efforts. I don't think JFK would be threatening to cut off aid to Israel at all, (Ask yourself, did he ever in all of his Presidency cross Congress!) and the U.S.is not going to bring in troops! Any JFK-as-saint conjecture would be as realistic as Jim's JFK Nasser plan of socializing the Mideast,solving the Palestinian issue forever, and then all of us living happily ever after! Call it a conspiracy, or call it dealing with political reality as it is. What changes the equation, are events that effect U.S. political sentiments in an election year. How mundane huh? https://www.businessinsider.com/which-senators-voted-bernie-sanders-resolution-israel-human-rights-violations-2024-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 (edited) William: One would think after the disasters of Iraq and Libya, the nutty Neocons would learn their lesson. Flip a coin as to which was the worse debacle. I still cannot get over using NATO to bomb Africa. When in fact the JoInt Chiefs said you could have had a diplomatic solution to get rid of Gaddafi instead of reducing Libya to a failed state. But then, HRC tries to convince Obama to invade Syria? OMG. Obama then writes an article saying how he was not going to be snookered twice. But he does not admit that he approved Timber Sycamore a 1.2 billion covert action. Which ended up employing Islamic fundamentalists in the Nursa Front. I mean that one got so bad Moscow had to come in to rescue Assad. How bad does it get when the Russians save a secular state in the Middle East? In both situations, we ended up on the side of the Muslim fundamentalists. Kennedy liked Nasser because that is what he was not. And Libya and Syria started under a Democratic administration. This was what I meant when I said in Pittsburgh that the Neocon triumph, because what began with a Democratic senator, Henry Jackson, eventually spread to the Democratic Party. And Kennedy's policies were just about erased from history. You have to go to rarely read books to find them. Edited January 19 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: William: One would think after the disasters of Iraq and Libya, the nutty Neocons would learn their lesson. Flip a coin as to which was the worse debacle. I still cannot get over using NATO to bomb Africa. When in fact the JoInt Chiefs said you could have had a diplomatic solution to get rid of Gaddafi instead of reducing Libya to a failed state. But then, HRC tries to convince Obama to invade Syria? OMG. Obama then writes an article saying how he was not going to be snookered twice. But he does not admit that he approved Timber Sycamore a 1.2 billion covert action. Which ended up employing Islamic fundamentalists in the Nursa Front. I mean that one got so bad Moscow had to come in to rescue Assad. How bad does it get when the Russians save a secular state in the Middle East? In both situations, we ended up on the side of the Muslim fundamentalists. Kennedy liked Nasser because that is what he was not. And Libya and Syria started under a Democratic administration. This was what I meant when I said in Pittsburgh that the Neocon triumph, because it began with a Democratic senator, Henry Jackson, eventually spread to the Democratic Party. And Kennedy's policies were just about erased from history. You have to go to rarely read books to find them. Jim, IMO, reducing Israel's Muslim neighbors to the status of "failed states" was the Neocon/PNAC agenda all along. It's one reason that Wolfowitz wanted to de-Baathify the Iraqi Army and government in 2003 -- against the advice of General Jay Garner. Garner told Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in 2003 that "it would take 50 years to stabilize Iraq" if Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army and police. De-Baathification led directly to the outbreak of the civil war in Iraq-- between the Shiites and the deposed Sunni Baathists. It also led directly to the disastrous insurrection against the occupying U.S. Army. The related Neocon agenda in Syria was to engulf the country in civil war and chaos, by arming Sunni proxy militias to wage war against Assad's Alawite government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 William: You one upped me. I did not, or maybe could not, have thought of it that way. 👋 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: William: You one upped me. I did not, or maybe could not, have thought of it that way. 👋 It's speculative, Jim, but the notion occurred to me after studying the disastrous course of the Iraq War* and the subsequent destruction of Syria. Was the destabilization of Iraq merely the result of poor planning by the Bush-Cheney Pentagon (i.e., Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith) or was Balkanizing/destabilizing Iraq the Neocon agenda all along? The same thing happened to Libya and Syria during the Obama administration. * Bob Woodward's Iraq War trilogy-- Plan of Attack, Bush at War, and State of Denial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 On 12/25/2023 at 9:41 AM, Robert Morrow said: Let's fast forward to June 8, 1967. Lyndon Johnson, completely beholden to Zionist interests and in cahoots with Israel, tried to sink an American ship, the USS Liberty and murder everyone on board, so that the heinous crime could be blamed on Egypt so the USA would have a pretext to enter the Six Day War and bomb Nasser out of power. Nuclear war was avoided by about 5 minutes when LBJ and McNamara got on the military phone called back nuclear loaded planes that were headed to Cairo. https://web.archive.org/web/20140704030539/http:/judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-most-incredible-story-never-told.html "Sacrificing Liberty" is a very good documentary on this topic: https://www.sacrificingliberty.com/ There was absolutely no need for Israel to get the US into that war against Egypt. At the time of the attack (two days before the war’s end), Israel had essentially beaten Egypt soundly and had complete air supremacy. Having the US involved would add numerous complications and the US might force Israel to give back the Sinai just like what happened in 1956. The other commonly offered explanation is that it was to cover up Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs. But that didn’t happen until the next day. Those fighters were dispatched from the carriers to investigate and repel the forces attacking the Liberty. They would not need nukes for that. The attack was deliberate but it was not done for the above reasons which are misdirection. My suspicion is that the Israelis knew or feared that Liberty intercepted communications regarding nuclear weapons that Israel had recently acquired as an insurance policy if the war went badly for them and they needed to deter an Egyptian counter-invasion of Israel. The investigation of the attack was covered up to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/middleeast/1967-arab-israeli-war-nuclear-warning.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now