Conspiracy Theory or Truth?

What makes a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory? Is anything fair game anymore, or are certain hypotheses still unimaginable in this 21st, postmodern century? In the spirit of fair and intriguing debate, I give you the first in an ongoing series of petite analyses and links to some prominent sites authored by or dedicated to the theories of certain figures who have, as of late, been featured prominently in Jewish conservative media.

Part I: Historical and Investigative Research Edited by Francisco Gil-White

Professor Gil-White's official biography can be found here. Brevity being the soul of wit, I'll sum it up and state that Gil-White, by all appearances, is a fairly young guy with a PhD in biological and cultural Anthropology from UCLA who taught psychology at the University of Pennsylvania until he was fired for researching the ties between Nazi Germany and the PLO.

Gil-White's research papers that make up the majority of the site's content focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, with special attention payed to America's relationship with the former and the effects of this relationship on the latter. While his writing proves to be somewhat academic and heady at times, his theories are intriguing. However, his perspective, like most, requires some readjustment. For example, Gil-White argues that anti-Semitism exists,

"Because Judaism is the original mass movement of the political left. For this reason, the Western ruling classes have always persecuted the Jews and taught ordinary gentiles to hate them, lest ordinary people learn from the Jews that they have a right to live in freedom and equality."

Now, is Gil-White operating on the easily disputed notion that classical liberalism belongs to the left of the political spectrum? Or, is he referring to the political left of today, rife with communists and socialists who are, in and of themselves, anti-Semitic? Perhaps Gil-White's greatest problem is that his language is fed by modern academic terminology, the definitions of which depend on the complex web of lies and half-truths woven by today's intelligentsia.

Recently featured on Israpundit, Gil-White's main argument regarding America's relationship with Israel and the Arab Middle East is summed up by Ted Belman:

"Most of the information referenced, was known to me but he put it together in a very compelling fashion to make the point that it was American policy to create a Palestinian state that would be the means to destroy Israel. As you know, this is in line with the Secret War against the Jews by John Loftus."

I must question the black and white vision of the American relationship with Israel and the Jewish people provided by theoreticians such as Gil-White and Loftus. While American foreign policy regarding Middle East issues can certainly and easily be called into question in regards to U.S./Israeli relations (i.e. "The Road Map to Peace") can we so easily conclude that the entirety of the American government is pitted against Israel? Is it fair to make such blanket judgements towards a government that is based on a division of power among branches as well as officials? Surely, it has already been determined that the State Department is the source of at least 90% of the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist rhetoric that comes out of Washington. Would a restructuring of our bureaucracies, a redistribution of powers, and the thorough housecleaning that comes with such drastic measures put an end to the creation and implementation of America's anti-Israel policies? If so, what kind of action will trigger these massive changes?

Certainly, established political groups and media bigwigs will avoid pro-Israel changes at all costs. Will grass-roots activism gain enough momentum to swing the pendulum? The Progressive, or Bull-Moose Party worked for Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and as recently as the 2004 election, Karl Rove's targeting of the Evangelical population in America's heartland helped swing a close election to George W. Bush's favor. Obviously, grass-roots movements can work, but they require leaders who aren't afraid to stand up for unpopular positions. Most importantly, especially in reflection upon George W. Bush's radical shift from pro- to anti-Israel after his 2004 victory, success requires a leader who is willing to stand firm upon their convictions, no matter how unpopular they may be. President Ronald Reagan proved that this can happen, even in a postmodern world jaded with cynicism and a complete lack of faith and honor.

Whether or not Gil-White's theories are true, they are certainly thought-provoking, and therefore worthy of discussion, if only because they provide a critical eye on questions that most outlets in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere avoid asking. Conspiracy or Truth? Or a little bit of both and a lot of neither? In any case, in this world where free press rules and information travels along virtual superhighways, a careful surveillance of literature like Gil-White's is worthy not only for the information it offers, but for the fact that it is yet another varied voice in a media that is rapidly becoming nothing more than a Murrow-esque ballyhoo, transforming the rigorous din of the free press into an echo chamber of propaganda worthy of Goebbels himself.