Before I go any further, I have to point that I believe that all of Israel should be a Jewish state. Just as there is a Persian state in the region, and several Arab states, there must be a Jewish state. But there is a limit to Israeli expansion, and its violence against defenseless and caged Palestinians must be stopped by pressure from the international community.
Putting that aside, let's try to put into focus the real problem facing the Middle East peace process. It is not a lack of desire for peace by the majority of the people, that much we can all agree on. The problem originates from obstruction of the peace process by Israel's extremist leaders, who have absolutely no sympathy for the humanity and rights of the Palestinian people. For decades Israeli leaders have disrespected international law by imposing its will on the Palestinian people by force. Meanwhile, the United Nations stands meekly in the distance, with no force behind its words because the biggest thug in the room is Israel's special friend, the United States.
The two countries are not so much joined at the hip, but tied firmly together with a short rope that was squeezed tight by diabolical criminals in both the United States and Israel who are keeping their motives and aims hidden from the global public; and it is a rope that pits both nations against majority civilized opinion in the Middle East, Europe, South America, and increasingly, in North America. This same rope could later be used for a future purpose: the hanging of the heads of both states (pre-9/11 and post-9/11 leaders), as well as other responsible actors for torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Their criminal acts range from the destruction of the Twin Towers (by both the U.S. and Israel), the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan (by the U.S.) and the destruction of Gaza (by U.S. and Israel).
I don't want to be too simplistic here because there is always a danger in thinking that you understand history and events so much that you can develop a simplistic view, and present it to the world. I like complicated answers because they tend to be more truthful. Questions like who stands beside God, and who is a traitor may lead to easy answers, but they won't lead to solutions, and peace. I'm more interested in peace than in punishment, and being able to point a finger at the bad guy and say "Hey, look, that's the bad guy." I think we've learned enough already due to the events in the past nine years that good guys and bad guys are not easy to pick out. Our judgments about such things must be more nuanced. That doesn't mean there aren't bad guys in the world, in fact, government leaders, government insiders, and government-owned reporters/journalists are the bad guys of our era, they are the villains of our time, but, we should not be quick to judge someone's innocence/guilt and their lack of patriotism until there is clear evidence that proves their guilt.
I say all this because I don't like throwing the word "traitor" around, which appears in the title, and which has to do with Republican and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor who recently sided with the Israeli PM over the President of the United States in a very public way. Treason is a very a serious word, and I'm not injecting it for shock value. It should only be used when there is serious proof that treason has been committed because the word triggers feeling of revenge and the deep instinct of patriotism, which once unleashed, cannot be shoved back into the box without some blood being poured.
What is treason exactly? A political community include complicated networks of people and interests, for instance in the U.S. Congress there are many interests that a representative has to balance; his constituents, his paymasters who keep him in his seat, his party, and of course, his country - which gets lost in all of the juggling. It is easy to just say that a traitor is one who goes against his country. But what if that person has higher aims, like that of saving the planet which in his/her mind requires a world government? Do we then excuse that person because his/her motives were good and noble in the light of history, or do we look past the motives, and reject the premise as false - that saving the planet doesn't require a centralized world government, or that the planet doesn't need to be saved. But what if the person who committed the treason sincerely believed that he was doing good, do we dismiss his sincerity, and what he thought was the right thing for the future generation of the species, and simply look at the deed - if you go against your country, you are a traitor?
Another question; do we judge the historical consequences of the act of treason? If you do, then by what measure do you judge historical effects? Do you judge as a person living in 2010, or can you envision a future time, say, in 2110, when things have changed. For instance, a global government in 2010 sounds traitorous and despicable, and indeed it is because the people behind it are authoritarian-minded and loathe freedom, but in 2110 will the idea of a global government be judged as necessary, and visionary? I don't know, but let's be real, nothing is simple and clear-cut. History evolves, and our thoughts evolve with it.
Weren't the Founding Fathers traitors against the Crown? If you say no, then you're not a member of the British monarchy. Let's not forget that without England there wouldn't be an America. "If this be treason," said Patrick Henry, "make the most of it." Today we look back and say that the Founding Fathers were correct in starting a new political community. Will future generations look back on the current traitors who are setting up a world government behind the scenes and reflect that they were entirely in the right? I think it depends on whose ideas win out, which means at the end of the day, whose ideas are the best.
"Treason" said Talleyrand, "is a matter of dates." But, what if it is not a matter of dates? What if we believe that treason is a matter of principles like liberty, and equality. If you act against the freedom of the individual, and the general welfare of all in any way and in any period then you are a traitor. Should we use that standard by which we judge acts of treason? Part of the problem is that we need standards about what constitutes treason in a political community. America has a constitution, but according to the Bush administration the constitution is a piece of paper, so are Bush and the neocons a bunch of traitors who deserve to be hanged? A lot of people say yes.
In a previous post I mentioned a definition of treason by author Carl J. Friedrich from his great book "The Pathology of Politics: Violence, Betrayal, Corruption, Secrecy, and Propaganda." Friedrich got the definition from a German writer named Margret Boveri, and it states: "When I create the impression of being something which I am not: a friend, a democrat, a nationalist, a Communist, a loyal citizen, a fighter for an idea, an obedient soldier, a sectarian, and then I act contrary to this impression, I am a traitor." (Friedrich, pg. 117).
Here is another quote from that book that will clarify for us what it means to betray, and the complexities of treason. The quote appears in the beginning of the chapter entitled "The Ubiquity of Betrayal, And Its Political Significance":
"In revolutionary times betrayal becomes so common that it tends to lose its stigma, its morally pejorative connotation. Except where complete unity of commitment and loyalty are possible, conflict between two groups to which a person belongs or between two individuals to whom he is committed will occasionally force upon him conduct which to one or the other will appear as betrayal and will in fact be such a betrayal. The case of the man caught in a fight between his wife and mother is the most familiar instance, and one of the most perplexing. He cannot "choose," though both may insist that he do so. Political treason must be seen in this perspective, not only because it gives an intuition of the psychological perspective, but also because it brings out the trap-like inescapability which forces men to become traitors willy-nilly." (Friedrich, pg. 81- 82).In the U.S. Congress, where there is "complete unity of commitment and loyalty" there is a clear line that marks treason. A member of Congress swears an oath to protection the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But, again, nothing is black and white in the minds of men. Who are the enemies, and are we right that they are our enemies? Is Iran the enemy of America, or is Israel? What if the real enemy is the military industrial complex that is owned by the private banking cartel. What if members of congress can't distinguish between real enemies and fake enemies, between the truth, and lies. Well, here I don't need to say "what if" because most U.S. representatives probably don't know that the 9/11 attacks were committed by the deep state in the U.S. and the deep state in Israel.
Most U.S. representatives support Israel because they mistakenly view the country as one of America's few allies in the Middle East, and feel that America has a duty to protect Israel from the nasty Arabs and the encroaching Persians. Loyalties run deep, and emotions run high in these congressmen who don't know any better. Like slaves, they listen to what the heads of state in Israel and the heads of state in America say without questioning their statements, and their policies. I don't think they are committing treason against the United States by siding with Israel 100 percent of the time, even when America's national security is threatened, because it requires intelligence to commit treason, and they have none. Instead, they are committing an error that derives from their ignorance, and of course, their error could ultimately lead to America's demise. By siding with Israel in its march for war, the Congress could very well deliver the final knockout punch to America as we know it. Read what Juan Cole has to say about this in his November 1st post called "On How War with Iran might Destroy the United States." It is very insightful.
Not all congressmen are committing an error. Some, of course, are committing treason in public daylight like Eric Cantor, who directly acted against the policy of the White House, and the authority of the President by courting Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Read what Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly has to say about Cantor's act of treason:
If our political system made more sense, this would be an astounding scandal that would dominate the discourse.At the end, Benen asked: "Where's the outrage?"Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader.
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," read a statement from Cantor's office on the one-on-one meeting. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."
This just isn't normal. Laura Rozen called the meeting itself "unusual, if not unheard of." But it's what Cantor said that's astounding.
We're talking about a powerful member of Congress engaged in foreign policy, vowing to a foreign government to oppose the administration's policies regarding that government. Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency said he can't remember any U.S. official ever doing this. "[T]o have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary," Kampeas said this week.It is that and more. Cantor not only met in private with a foreign leader to undercut the foreign policy of the elected American president, he proceeded to brag about it.
I'll repeat it here in my post: Where is the outrage? Forget pitchforks, there should be guillotines on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Former President George H.W. Bush said back in 1992 to White House correspondent Sara McClendon that "If the American people really knew what we had done, we would be chased down the street and lynched." I don't know if this quote is true or not, but it is widely circulated across the internet by legitimate websites, and it rings true. The likes of Bush, Obama, Reid, Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Cantor, and other elected representatives know deep down that they are betraying the American people by siding with big criminal banks, big corporations, and starting big wars. They made promises of peace and no nation building, and they took an oath to defend the Constitution, but once in office all that is discarded, and they are effectively saying "f*ck You" to the American people. "We are in charge, you are not, and if you care to disagree, then say hello to our little friends at the little fema camps that we have set up across the country, and to our little thugs who you used to know as police officers."
"Betrayal," said Friedrich, "is a violation of trust rather than allegiance. What such a traitor does is to act differently from the way others had reason to expect on the basis of their relationship." (Friedrich, pg. 82). America is full of such traitors. The relationship between the people and the government is completely broken. In such a state, the gods of chaos rule. The only remedy is public enlightenment of the treason that is taking place and public confrontation with the traitors. Holding rallies to restore sanity, or holding rallies to restore Christianity, will not fix anything. There needs to be a rally to restore truth, and trust. Both are the basis of a peaceful, healthy, and fruitful society.
