An absolutely excellent, fair and reasonabe article. I congratulate Mr Murphy on his courage, as those who have exposed the dangers of Israelophilia are subjected to all kinds of smears and persecution. PS I should also add that as a youth I bought the phoney narrative of little Israel fighting against nasty Arabs for its survival. So, when the 1967 war between Israel and the arabs broke out, I went to the Israeli Embassy in Rome and volunteered to go to help. The Embassy had called for people to go to Israel and help run the civil services whilst all Israelis were fighting in the Army. Israel triumphed in 7 days so I was not called. Well, I have since seen the light and realised how the Zionist state led by Netanyahu is a threat to justice and peace in the Middle East...and further afield.
America did not go to war on behalf of Israel. Your prejudice blinds you to America's own reasons. It coordinated with an ally which is not the same as 'on behalf of'. An article of innuendo and half-truths.
This was basically an attempt at a Venezula decapitation 2.0. Find out why the US attacked Venezula (hint: it wasn't Israel) and you'll know why they attacked Iran.
Basically, oil. The role of the petrodollar in American economy, and the ensuing American imperialism in the Mid East, to which Iran is the foremost threat, are nothing new. US strategists have been thinking about how to beat them to ensure greater control of the region for a long time now.
You're correct. In a 2008 (!) strategist book called Which Path to Persia?, there's a chapter called "Leave it to Bibi" which highlights the option to let Israel start the war to lay the blame on them. We're more or less seeing that happen in real time. The US' imperialist strategy in the Middle East is nothing new.
Iran is a declared enemy of America that supports enemies of US interests locally (Hezbollah, PMF, Houthi, prev. Assad, etc) and globally (China and Russia), at its weakest point in decades and within range of breaking out to a nuclear weapon. It’s a cold calculation.
I didn’t realize the Irish obsession with Israel extended to the right wing.
Israel does not need to be our friend, anymore than your local policeman does, but is a hedge against the rise of our motivated and capable enemies in the Middle East. We've both our own objectives. Frank's opinion about Zionism as a source of chaos is a common trope, but if Israel disappeared tomorrow there would still be despots and chaos in region.
Honest question, if the U.S. “went to war on behalf of Israel,” then a U.S.–Iran cease‑fire that restrains Israel cannot be squared with that claim.
The cease fire reveals that the U.S. was acting on behalf of its own interests, not Israel’s — and Israel is now left exposed to the consequences of a cease‑fire it did not choose.
The war may not have been a smart war - that's a different question entirely. But how does the cease-fire square with the "America went to war on behalf of Israel"?
Most of the world went to war for the sake of Kuwait (the first Gulf war) The US got involved in Bosnia (with then president Clinton explicitly warning beforehand that there would be US casualties) and other peace keeping missions. It was never for the sake of a "friend". It was always due to the realization that one of the parties is getting too aggressive and their aggression won't stop there. The US involvement in Iran is a similar story.
I stopped caring whether I was anti-Semitic about a year ago. In a moment, all the cognitive dissonance evaporated and I could see it for what it was. Brilliantly described above.
Excellent (and brave?) article. The statement that many British Jews have dual loyalty may be an “antisemitic trope”, but it is also obviously true therefore we should be able to say it. Right-wingers who hold up their hands in horror at this truth are perfectly willing to admit that British Pakistanis, Indians, etc have dual loyalty so why not British Jews? (One difference between these other ethnicities and British Jews is that British Jews only began to adopt an Israeli identity after they had arrived in Britain - the Jewish journalist Ben Judah describes this phenomenon in his 2015 article “We are all Zionists now”, which I recommend.)
Edwin Montagu pointed out in 1917 that there is a fundamental contradiction between the idea of a Jewish nation (semantically indistinguishable from the antisemitic concept of International Jewry) and the idea that British Jews are as British as their non-Jewish compatriots. He predicted that if Zionism succeeded, people would tell Jews such as him to go back home to Palestine. His prediction has so far proven false, either because of the taboo against antisemitism or because most British people have little contact with British Jews and do not understand the extent to which they identify with Israel. But if prominent British Jews continue to repeatedly conflate Jews and Israel, might British people start to question the Britishness of their Jewish fellow citizens, just as many currently question the Britishness of Muslim citizens who are obsessed with Gaza?
As for why turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Palestinians has become a litmus test of British patriotism for many right wingers, I attribute this in part to the ongoing Americanisation of British politics. British Conservatives have adopted the views of American Republicans. (Mrs Thatcher’s view of the conflict was very different from that of Kemi Badenoch.)
An absolutely excellent, fair and reasonabe article. I congratulate Mr Murphy on his courage, as those who have exposed the dangers of Israelophilia are subjected to all kinds of smears and persecution. PS I should also add that as a youth I bought the phoney narrative of little Israel fighting against nasty Arabs for its survival. So, when the 1967 war between Israel and the arabs broke out, I went to the Israeli Embassy in Rome and volunteered to go to help. The Embassy had called for people to go to Israel and help run the civil services whilst all Israelis were fighting in the Army. Israel triumphed in 7 days so I was not called. Well, I have since seen the light and realised how the Zionist state led by Netanyahu is a threat to justice and peace in the Middle East...and further afield.
America did not go to war on behalf of Israel. Your prejudice blinds you to America's own reasons. It coordinated with an ally which is not the same as 'on behalf of'. An article of innuendo and half-truths.
Fell for it again award
Said a closed mind unable to cope with the idea that America has its own reasons.
And what would those reasons be?
Try reading outside sites that merely affirm your prejudices. There are plenty.
Such as?
This was basically an attempt at a Venezula decapitation 2.0. Find out why the US attacked Venezula (hint: it wasn't Israel) and you'll know why they attacked Iran.
Basically, oil. The role of the petrodollar in American economy, and the ensuing American imperialism in the Mid East, to which Iran is the foremost threat, are nothing new. US strategists have been thinking about how to beat them to ensure greater control of the region for a long time now.
Next year in Jerusalem, Shlomo.
You're correct. In a 2008 (!) strategist book called Which Path to Persia?, there's a chapter called "Leave it to Bibi" which highlights the option to let Israel start the war to lay the blame on them. We're more or less seeing that happen in real time. The US' imperialist strategy in the Middle East is nothing new.
Iran is a declared enemy of America that supports enemies of US interests locally (Hezbollah, PMF, Houthi, prev. Assad, etc) and globally (China and Russia), at its weakest point in decades and within range of breaking out to a nuclear weapon. It’s a cold calculation.
I didn’t realize the Irish obsession with Israel extended to the right wing.
America has interests all over the world and should defend them (as long as the costs aren’t too high)
A lot of disingenuous bollocks in here. Or maybe just lack of intelligence.
Either way, red meat to the midwit woke right so well done.
Israel does not need to be our friend, anymore than your local policeman does, but is a hedge against the rise of our motivated and capable enemies in the Middle East. We've both our own objectives. Frank's opinion about Zionism as a source of chaos is a common trope, but if Israel disappeared tomorrow there would still be despots and chaos in region.
Honest question, if the U.S. “went to war on behalf of Israel,” then a U.S.–Iran cease‑fire that restrains Israel cannot be squared with that claim.
The cease fire reveals that the U.S. was acting on behalf of its own interests, not Israel’s — and Israel is now left exposed to the consequences of a cease‑fire it did not choose.
The war may not have been a smart war - that's a different question entirely. But how does the cease-fire square with the "America went to war on behalf of Israel"?
Most of the world went to war for the sake of Kuwait (the first Gulf war) The US got involved in Bosnia (with then president Clinton explicitly warning beforehand that there would be US casualties) and other peace keeping missions. It was never for the sake of a "friend". It was always due to the realization that one of the parties is getting too aggressive and their aggression won't stop there. The US involvement in Iran is a similar story.
Intresting article.
All we (European Civilisation) gains from the Zi0 NeoCon agenda is high inflation and waves and waves of refugees.
The Right has to get off the Zi0 containment plantation once and for all.
This is a very good summary.
I stopped caring whether I was anti-Semitic about a year ago. In a moment, all the cognitive dissonance evaporated and I could see it for what it was. Brilliantly described above.
Excellent (and brave?) article. The statement that many British Jews have dual loyalty may be an “antisemitic trope”, but it is also obviously true therefore we should be able to say it. Right-wingers who hold up their hands in horror at this truth are perfectly willing to admit that British Pakistanis, Indians, etc have dual loyalty so why not British Jews? (One difference between these other ethnicities and British Jews is that British Jews only began to adopt an Israeli identity after they had arrived in Britain - the Jewish journalist Ben Judah describes this phenomenon in his 2015 article “We are all Zionists now”, which I recommend.)
Edwin Montagu pointed out in 1917 that there is a fundamental contradiction between the idea of a Jewish nation (semantically indistinguishable from the antisemitic concept of International Jewry) and the idea that British Jews are as British as their non-Jewish compatriots. He predicted that if Zionism succeeded, people would tell Jews such as him to go back home to Palestine. His prediction has so far proven false, either because of the taboo against antisemitism or because most British people have little contact with British Jews and do not understand the extent to which they identify with Israel. But if prominent British Jews continue to repeatedly conflate Jews and Israel, might British people start to question the Britishness of their Jewish fellow citizens, just as many currently question the Britishness of Muslim citizens who are obsessed with Gaza?
As for why turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Palestinians has become a litmus test of British patriotism for many right wingers, I attribute this in part to the ongoing Americanisation of British politics. British Conservatives have adopted the views of American Republicans. (Mrs Thatcher’s view of the conflict was very different from that of Kemi Badenoch.)