Two statements by long-standing critics of "Neoconservatism" and of the Zionist experiment in Palestine, aka Israel, have caught my eye. The first is by my friend Taki Theodoracopulos, writing in the Spectator of March 25th ("Climate of Fear") and the second is by Professor Stephen Walt in his Foreign Policy blog of March 17th. 

First, Taki: "Freedom of speech is not for everyone, certainly not for those who dare point out that militant Islam is the greatest danger to our way of life in the past two centuries, and that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians constitutes war crimes and genocide."

It is clear that Israel has committed many war crimes since 1948 and that its overall policy from the start amounted to genocide for the non-Jews it was displacing, with many of the survivors sitting in refugee camps for decades. Please note that this circumstance has not stopped the U.S. Congress and Senate from voting lopsided resolutions in favor of such policies, most recently in Gaza. The interlopers in Tel Aviv, who were/are mostly from Eastern Europe, have gotten away with it; indeed, they have thrived on it. Their rotten record is obvious, and is staring everybody in the face every day. 

As for Taki's second pronouncement, "...militant Islam is the greatest danger to our way of life in the past two centuries", I must take exception. The greatest danger to our way of life is ourselves. Among other disasters, great and small, we in the West created militant Islam. In large part it was created by the American foreign policy establishment, acting in accordance with the wishes of Washington's corrupt politicians, who wanted first and foremost to garner favor with the Zionist apparat in America, aka the Israel Lobby. This counter-productive and un-American foreign policy, based upon an arrangement involving domestic American politics, enabled the perpetrators who stole Palestine from the Palestinians to get established and legitimized. It now insures the perpetuation of that original crime, and derails any attempt to undo the crime or ameliorate it.

"Militant Islam" is blowback from such madness, pure and simple. In response to Tel Aviv's ongoing state terrorism, passively and actively supported by Washington, a small group of militants, mostly Arabs, have turned to individual acts of terrorism, guerilla warfare and suicide bombings from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean and beyond. 

Unless Taki has somehow become an unwitting dupe of Zionist propaganda, which is unlikely, I believe he was not actually referring to "militant Islam" as such. I think what he is most concerned about, and rightly so, is the broader problem of massive immigration of non-Europeans into Europe, a goodly number of whom are from predominately Muslim countries. All of my European friends are worried about it. (Obviously, America has a related immigration problem, which is helping to bankrupt the country, starting with California, but that is another story.)

Like myself, Taki has a European outlook. He is concerned about the health and integrity of Europe. But again, who is responsible for the unbalanced immigration policy that allowed such a massive influx of foreigners? Clearly, Europe is responsible, from Greece to Ireland. (Likewise in America: it is not so much the fault of the people coming in; but rather the fault of the people in authority allowing them to come in.) Once inside Europe, Muslim communities were bound to be upset by America's policy in the greater Middle East, which policy is insane and de facto determined by Tel Aviv. European leaders act powerless and defer to Washington in these matters, which is not helpful. Germany in particular can do nothing, even though it is by far the most important country in Europe. Washington has become a tributary of Tel Aviv, and the EU is a tributary of Washington.

Now, Walt: "Contrary to what some critics think, the reason some of us keep writing about U.S. Middle East policy is not because we have some weird obsession with Israel, Jewish-Americans, Christian Zionists, or whatever. It is rather because the Middle East is an important strategic area, the United States is in deep trouble there, our recent policies have been mostly failures, and the various problems we face there soak up an enormous amount of time, attention, and resources. If we can get our policy straightened out for the good of all concerned, I'd be happy to turn to other topics."

At first blush, this sounds fine. But on second reading, does it not ignore the core of the problem, to wit, the blatant injustice of the entire setup? Can we continue to do that? I am wondering if it is now impossible in America to address the central issue of Zionism, without being considered an extreme eccentric. For me, the fact that the Middle East is "an important strategic area" is a side issue, almost beside the point. I realize that Professor Walt, like his colleague, Professor Mearsheimer, is from the so-called realist school of American foreign policy. But just how realistic is it to accept, in effect, the status quo imposed upon Palestine and the surrounding area by the Zionists in the aftermath of World War II?

Truth to tell, all of Palestine is occupied territory. A great crime has been committed. Restitution is in order. I come from the Dale Carnegie school of foreign affairs. The goal is to win friends and influence people. I want my country to do the right thing, as opposed to embracing the wrong thing. In the long run, as a side benefit, isn't that approach more realistic, simply by being less counter-productive?

What, after all, are "American interests" in the Middle East and elsewhere? What is the point of all this Sturm und Drang? What would be wrong with a concept of morality in play prior to proclaiming an entitled, presumed interest based upon strategic necessity? Success in commerce will be the natural reward for doing what is just and honorable. As it is, America is stuck with the horrible blowback, both political and economic, from confidence tricks and from supporting one godawful wrong thing after another.