…by Jonas E. Alexis
If you have never read what the Founding Fathers said about foreign entanglements, perhaps it is time to do so, since Israel is obviously invading the United States by subterfuge. George Washington specifically lamented that the United States ought to disengage in finding monsters to kill from abroad and must focus on building a government based on morality.
Only then will the United States become “respectable in the eyes of the world.” Once that happens, said Washington,
“none of the maritime Power, especially none of those who hold possessions in the New World or the West Indies shall presume to treat them with insult or contempt.”
America, Washington continued, “is remote from Europe and ought not to engage in her politics or wars.” Washington declared in his Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us…is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson said: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” John Adams saw the same thing, going so far as to say that America “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
Washington had the insight to conclude that
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
“The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
These ideas have profound implications even today. And both Washington and Immanuel Kant were implicitly saying the same thing with respect to morality here. If you exclude morality from any political and intellectual enterprise, then that enterprise will eventually crumble. Morality is practical reason, and practical reason provides the basis for reasonable agreement.
The Neoconservative ideology completely turned the Founding Fathers’ foreign policy upside down by implicitly and explicitly rejecting practical reason. Instead of practical reason, Neocons advocate perpetual wars in the Middle East and around much of the world for Israel—wars that have already cost America trillions upon trillions of dollars and thousands of precious lives.
In that sense, the Neoconservative revolution as a Jewish political and ideological movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies.
Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, themselves philo-Semitic scholars, declare that the Neoconservative movement is “in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.” The Neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.
This point became more interesting when it was discovered that Israel has maintained covert operations against the U.S. on multiple levels, including smuggling illegal weapons for years, while the Neoconservative machine says nothing about this issue and keeps propounding that Israel is a model of Western values in the Middle East.
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish Neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel’s espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most value their careers and lives.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. In the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,” Israel is a major country that pops up quite often.
This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents, and U.S. officials for years. One former U.S. intelligence official declared,
“There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States. They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons… aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable.”
In 1991 the Israeli tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined. “I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf War. I said, ‘No, go away,’ and reported it to counterintelligence.”
Covert operations were done by the Israelis in “a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic document. Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted.”
Yet this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of Commentary, is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
The Israeli regime has obviously figured out that politicians in the United States do not want to challenge them, so the regime is slowly moving to other territories in the United States as well. Kanas has passed a law last July saying that teachers have to pledge allegiance to the state of Israel in order to be able to maintain their employment. The law, Newsweek tells us,
“prohibits the state from entering into a contract with any individual or company boycotting Israel—for instance, requiring school teachers to declare support of Israel.”
Mark Dankof has properly called this “Zionist Stalinism at work.” One teacher in Kansas by the name of Esther Koontz was completely shocked by this new form of Stalinism. The Jewish Daily Forward reports:
“All Esther Koontz wanted to do was train fellow Kansas math teachers to be more effective in the classroom. Everything was set: She had completed the special training program. She had signed up to help schools in need of assistance. She’d even gotten requests from several schools via the state Department of Education and had indicated she was available to do training for them.
“Last July, the consultant running the state program asked her to fill out one more form. It required Koontz to certify to the department that as a contractor she was “not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.
“But Koontz was engaged in a boycott of Israel. She was boycotting goods and services offered by Israeli companies and by international companies operating in Israel’s exclusively Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.
“A Mennonite Christian, Koontz was doing so in conformance with her church’s endorsement of an Israel boycott and with her own convictions. And as a Christian, she felt unable to sign the affirmation untruthfully.”
What was really her crime? Koontz said:
“I avoid Sabra hummus and, rather than use a SodaStream, I purchase soda water. It also means that I avoid using certain websites and apps like Priceline.com, TripAdvisor, and Airbnb.”
Since these products were “either from Israeli companies or from companies working in Israel’s West Bank settlements,” she made a personal commitment to avoid them.
Well, obviously that was an unpardonable sin. You simply can’t say that you are going to avoid certain products from Israel, and you can’t tell other people you are avoiding these products! Where is that in the Constitution? How did we get here? Who is imposing this draconian law upon us? Is this part of practical reason? We can boycott any product from any country, but Israel has to be the exception? Koontz says:
“My participation in this boycott is based on my political, religious, and moral beliefs, including my support for Palestinians’ human rights. I participate in this boycott to protest the Israeli government’s actions, as well as the U.S. government’s support for those actions.”
VT and people of reason would agree. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that “Supporters of the Kansas law—and similar laws that have been enacted in other states—maintain that economic boycotts do not fall under the category of protected political speech.”
Oh, really? I honestly didn’t know! I guess I and many other Americans have a lot of catching up to do. So, what’s next? Eric Mandel of the Jerusalem Post responded to this debacle by saying:
“‘Let’s be clear. The right to express one’s point of view, no matter how contentious or odious, is a constitutionally protected right.’ But ‘the attempt to expand the meaning of speech to include commercial transactions,’ he wrote, is another matter.”
Mandel is certainly out of his depth here because there is no way that he can support this implausible and incoherent thesis from any document of the United States. If he is right, why is the Israel regime currently boycotting Iran? Why does Netanyahu continue to say that the West must stop any deal with Iran? Can Mandel universalize his principle here?
Mandel is essentially defending his own regime’s invasion of Kansas. Americans must certainly unite and fight this un-American and wicked invasion.
-  Quoted in Norman A. Graebner and Richard Dean Burns, Foreign Affairs and the Founding Fathers: From Confederation to Constitution, 1776-1787 (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2011), 129.
-  Ibid.
-  Halper and Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10.
-  See Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush (New York: Perseus Books, 2008); John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2007).
-  See Grant F. Smith, Divert!: NUMEC, Zalman Shapiro and the Diversion of U.S. Weapons Grade Uranium into Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program (Washington DC: Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, 2012). For similar studies, see Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
-  Philip Giraldi, “The Spy Who Loves Us,” American Conservative, June 2, 2008.
-  Ibid.
-  Justin Raymondo, “Trotskyites for Romney,” Antiwar.com, October 17, 2012.
-  Giraldi, “The Spy Who Loves Us,” American Conservative.
-  See “France, Israel Cited in CIA Espionage Study,” LA Times, August 15, 1996; Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, “Israel Has Long Spied on U.S., Say Officials,” LA Times, September 3, 2004.
-  Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, “Israel Has Long Spied on U.S., Say Officials,” LA Times, September 3, 2004.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Omri Ceren, “The Times’s Spectacular Bias Against Israel,” Commentary, September 8, 2012.
-  Linley Sanders, “Hurricane Victims Must Support Israel to Get Relief, Texas City Demand,” Newsweek, October 20, 2017.
-  Larry Cohler-Esses, “This Math Teacher From Kansas Has Sparked A Huge Legal Feud Over BDS,” Forward, October 13, 2017.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.