The controversial issues of Israeli/Zionist/Jewish involvement in 9/11 and influence on U.S. policies and public opinion; the exploitation/misrepresentation of the evidence by Judeophobes; and the use of these issues to disrupt and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, are all 100% on topic in this thread. Have at it- while observing the Rules http://www.911blogger.com/rules - loose nuke

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2906&sid=cb97162f1539bab4642fab0983a224f5
ZIHOP as Limited Hangout by Danse

In 1982, the Israeli strategic planner Oded Yinon penned a policy report calling for the balkanization of the entire middle east. He wrote:

"Iraq is first. Rich in oil, and internally torn, it is guaranteed as the
initial target. Its dissolution is even more important than of Syria. Egypt will then be torn apart, like a second Lebanon. ...The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural for dissolution. The matter is inevitable, especially in Saudi Arabia."

A few years earlier, an American strategic planner named Miles Ignotuis detailed
the "rapid deployment and strike force" prepared to seize "Saudi oil fields, installations and airports." He argued that a “real boogeyman” was necessary to frighten the American populace before such a scheme could be put into practice.

“The London Sunday Times confirmed:

"The National Security Council compiled a detailed review of a top secret Department of Defense plan to invade Saudi oil fields. The plan code, named Dharan Option Four, has been drawn up by the Pentagon and provides for a U.S. attack on oil fields that contain 40 percent of the world’s known reserves."

“Intelligence and military analyst Robert Tucker addressed the feasibility of seizing Arab oil fields by direct military intervention in Commentary in January 1975, in his article entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention": "Without intervention," he concluded, "there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing more than a superficial resemblance to the disaster of the 1930s."

He described secret U.S. plans of long standing for "intervention in an area which, if effectively controlled, would contain a sufficient portion of present world oil production and proven reserves to break the present price structure by breaking the core of the cartel, politically and economically.

"The Arab shoreline of the Gulf," he concluded breathlessly, "is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." (Schoenman)

We can go back indefinitely, but let’s stop at 1958 for the time being:

“In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year).” (Chomsky)

The American state does not require “Zionist infiltration” to engage in imperialism. If a particular state reaches a critical quantity of power in relation to other states it will attempt to expand that power. As Napoleon famously said, “Ambition is never content, even on the summit of greatness”.

This thesis is confirmed by the entire history of civilization. Indeed, of the eight recently developed primary states, six were created by conquest.

The Military Industrial Complex did not arise from some flaw in the American character, nor indeed from Zionism. It arose, simply put, because capital requires more capital, power more power still. Powerful states act out. “Small states are virtuous only because of their weakness.” (Bakunin).

Israel did not create this juggernaut; she is indeed an essential partner and participant in the war on terror myth and obviously benefits from it to no end, but the MIC will keep on humming along regardless. Israel’s goals, or at least the goals of the hardcore Jewish supremacists who formulate Israeli policy, gel neatly with that of the American power elite at present. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that American policy in the middle east (with the exception of Palestine) would be drastically different in the absence of a Zionist state. This is crucial to understand. If we concentrate all of our attention on Zionism we will ignore the roots of the problem.

There was an interesting controversy in Leftist circles (especially amongst Leftist Jews) in the wake of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay "The Israel Lobby". Having struggled for so long to bring light to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, usually to no avail, the majority of leftists welcomed the paper as a ray of sunshine. A few voices, however, attempted to put things in a broader perspective. Joseph Massad wrote:

“While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full of awe-inspiring well- documented details about the formidable power commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by these studies let alone explained.

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies. Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not.”

Finkelstein more or less agreed, arguing that it was not a question of either/or. (this “either/or” thing seems to be a major problem – some truthers seem incapable of entertaining to ideas in their heads simultaneously, even when the two ideas compliment each other).

The "either-or" framework -- the Lobby or U.S. strategic interests -- isn't, in my opinion, very useful:

(1) Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. If for different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis -- and Israelis projected themselves as -- experts on the"Arab mind." Accordingly the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years (months?) this or that Arab country needs to be banged up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.”

The Israeli influence making things worse. There is certainly no doubt about that. Israel does not have a “right to exist” in its present form any more than a serial killer has the “right” to enter my home, steal all of my possessions and kill my family. I do not believe in a “two-state” solution. I believe in a directly democratic “state” in “Israel” and “Palestine” where religion and race have no bearing on individual and collective rights. The same applies to my home country.

Ultimately, however, the Mearsheimer/Walt piece is actually an excellent example of the sort of elitist, backward nationalism that characterizes Israeli policy itself. It does not concern me whether Israel is a liability for the US “national interest”. The “national interest” has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of 90% of the population. In the case of Israel, I’m far more interested in the rights of Palestinians than whether American support for Israel negatively affects her image on the world stage. If soft-imperialist critiques from the establishment help end US support for Israel – more power to them. Brzezinski warning of a potential false flag attack on Iran was a welcome development even though we all know he’s human slime.

What is often missing in similar soft-imperialist critiques of Israel is the same sense of perspective. Any perspective at all.,

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that I’ll be viewed as an Israeli apologist for writing this thread. But you’d be wrong to think I’m trying to shield Israel from the wrath of the 911 truth movement. Quite the contrary, those familiar with my posts know that I have long tried to highlight the Israeli role in 911, both in my writing and my video work. The problem I see is that the pendulum appears to be swinging so far in the other direction that the arguments are no longer rational. Atta’s pork chops – meet the wandering Jew. If you don’t agree with the premise that Israel and alleged “dual-loyalty” Jewish people are responsible for nine-tenths of the world’s ills you’re a “disinfo shill”.

In many ways I’m reminded of Eric Hufschmid and Wing TV, though I won’t stoop to labeling people “disinfo agents” simply because I disagree with their tactics or ideologies.

“ZIHOP” – our “outside job” by Mossad in conjunction with “dual loyalty Jews” and (perhaps) some otherwise decent upstandin’ Murikan folk in the upper echelons caught with their pants down thence blackmailed by Jews – is an absurd premise. It’s cartoon stuff.

I’m supposed to forget about the countless non-Zionist false flag operations prior to 911? I’m supposed to think Andrew Marshall is cowering in fear of Binny Netanyahu, wringing his hands over his failure to stop the attacks? I’m supposed to think Mossad would go up against her sugar daddy’s 14 plus alphabet agencies without a green light? All those strategists itching for conquest and ongoing Keynesian support in the wake of Glasnost needed Zionists to yank their chain? Really? Is Dick Cheney a crypto-Jew? He’s not interested in oil or geopolitics or suppressing dissent in the homeland but glorious Zion?

Not. Bloody. Likely.

Zionism is quickly becoming every bit the boogeyman as Al-Qaeda and the “NWO”. Instead of turbans and all-seeing-eyes we have skull-caps and menorahs. They hate our freedoms. I think that’s the allure – blaming an “alien” or “other” allows one to keep faith in one’s own governing institutions. It’s comforting, just like the official myth. When you’ve become this ugly anything is better than looking in the mirror.

Zihop is a limited hangout.