Skip navigation.

I've Heard That Song Before

Posts tagged with "Israel lobby"

Backlash Coming for Isreal Lobby?

Wednesday, 22. November 2006, 16:51:55

OpEd News - 11/19/06
by Sameh Abdelaziz

Open Letter to the American Jewish Community
The mid-term election is always about local issues, but this did not stop the American public from voicing their anger and frustration at a branch of government that probably had little to do with the over all performance of the executive branch.

This type of reaction has a single name. It was a backlash.

I am concerned the next two years will bring to America a much larger backlash, and this time it will be against a minority in America.

The backlash this time will be against the American Jewish community. I come from a minority and I know how it feels to see in the eyes of your neighbors, your colleagues, or people you never saw before, a question that you could not answer. Are you patriotic?
The success AIPAC, Conference of Presidents and many other Jewish organizations achieved by supporting candidates on both sides of the isle, guarantees that the new majority will not change the American policy in the Middle East substantially.

Therefore, the Jewish organization unlimited success might be the reason behind an uncontrollable demise of their influence. If this happens Israel will be a loser, but the American Jewish community will pay even a bigger price.

In the last few months, the American public discovered that all our investment over the last five years in American lives and treasure failed. It failed in making us safer, it failed in making us stronger, it failed in making us more influential.

In the last few months, I read opinion editorials in major publications such as the Washington Post and New York Times that I never thought a year ago was possible, articles that described Israel as the major reason of our failing policies worldwide. The more stunning phenomena are the comments on articles supporting the American policies in the Middle East. The comments without exceptions mentioned Israel as the culprit for our failures.

The internet is not any better, hundreds of Blogs full of angry words talking about the price the Americans are paying for unconditional support to Israel, talking about war crimes, usage of chemical weapons, indiscriminate killings in Gaze and Lebanon that constitutes genocide. Discussions on how these actions create the next generation terrorists and the responsibility of Israel.

In addition, we see academic papers addressing the same issue and regardless of the immediate and relentless attack on the authors and their credibility, regardless of the scientific value of the paper itself, the publication confirms the overall sentiment because simply few years ago none of this would have been possible. Few years ago a statement describing Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and the only ally we have were enough, not any more!

There are also widespread discussions on the tail wagging the dog, or Israel using America's power to fight their wars and the price we pay for the American Jewish insistence on putting Israel's interests ahead of America's interests.

This last discussion is the most alarming one, where the allegiance of a minority or representatives of a minority questioned. This movement might be the elites talking, it might not be as widespread as I think it is, but things can change, the anger can pick up steam. Support for Iraq war was in the seventy percent, where is it now?

The options America has in Iraq are very limited, either to pack and leave chaos behind, which will catch up with us eventually.

Alternatively, use the deteriorating environment to find a solution not only for Iraq but also for the chronicle disease that is the grand father of terrorism in the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The solution of the Middle East conflict will happen only when America pressures Israel to stop the current policies in the
region and withdraw to the 67 boundaries.

America will not pressure Israel until the American Israeli lobby allows this to happen, or the American people feel enough rage to enforce this to happen. If the latter it will be through a backlash against the Jewish community as whole.

Will the AIPAC be smart enough to lead Israel and America towards a final solution that will allow both countries to prosper?

Will AIPAC miss the boat?

The answer to this question will be determined in the next few months, and the victim or the winner will be the old Jewish couple living next door, and the rest of us!

Full Text

Dying For Israel

Saturday, 18. November 2006, 08:12:39

Congress and the Senate are in Democratic control, Rumsfeld has resigned, and mainstream media calls it all a referendum against the war. America is fed up. America wants change.
"America in No-Win War for Israel"
by Harmony Grant

Yes, America has spoken. But about what? America hasn’t said no to tax cuts, individual freedom, traditional marriage, or many other aspects of conservatism. America wasn’t saying “no” to limited government and individual freedoms, to the first Amendment or the right to bear arms.

America was saying “no” to a Republican party steered by neoconservative Zionism.

The dots will never be connected by mainstream media, but the facts are there. In midterm elections, America yelled “no” to an Israel-first agenda that left American boys dead in Iraq, squandered American money and reputation, and, oh yeah, caused the deaths of 44,206 Iraqi civilians.

There’s only one tiny problem: Americans don’t know who they’re mad at. The lefties among us think the war was about oil; the loyal Republicans think the war was about national security. Few are looking at the neoconservative Jews (Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, among others) who crafted this war on behalf of Israel.

As Ari Shavit, writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz bluntly stated,
The war in Iraq was conceived by twenty-five neo-conservative intellectuals, most of them Jews, who are pushing President Bush to change history. -- April 9, 2003
Americans don’t like what’s being done in their name, but they don’t even see who’s doing it. It’s like screaming at your brother while your dad is beating you.

We went into Iraq primarily to make the Mideast safe for Israel. It wasn’t about terrorism. It wasn’t about oil. It was about a tiny desert state the size of New Jersey whose American supporters happen to pretty much control the Mideast policy of the US government.

Unfortunately, this will remain true whether the colors of the House and Senate are red or blue. AIPAC boasts that during the midterm elections campaign, “nearly every viable candidate met with AIPAC professional staff members and submitted a position paper summarizing his or her views on U.S. Middle East policy.” Wanting to reassure Jewish voters leaning Democrat, AIPAC assured America that Congressional support for Israel would remain in force no matter which party was in power.

Arabs hope otherwise. They’re glad Rumsfeld is out and Bush is going down. Check out BBC’s selection of quotes from Arab media; it paints a pretty clear picture (“Mid-East media hail Bush defeat,” Nov. 9, 2006).

Palestinian daily Al-Quds says naively: “We hope this will lead to a review of the aspects of US foreign policy which many Americans oppose, including the blind bias to Israeli policy at the expense of Palestinian and Arab rights.”

They can keep hoping till the sea turns to Kool-Aid, but as much as 60 percent of Democratic funding comes from Jewish constituents. We’re more likely to see Al Gore deny global warming than to see Democrats stand against Zionist interests. So much for the “referendum.”

But keep steaming, America. Read the news reports of 19 Gazan women and children killed in their sleep by the IDF last week.

Stay tuned for the coming invasions of Iran and Syria

Maybe someday you’ll get fed up enough to pass a referendum on the real issue: Jewish control of American resources and foreign policy, for the sake of the state of Israel.

Visit the author's website: Harmony Grant

And We Are Here to Help

Monday, 6. November 2006, 08:21:43

,

President George W. Bush suggested the U.S. military should be authorized to co-ordinate responses to emergencies, such as hurricanes and should have a part, within the U.S., in police activities to prevent terrorism.
Southern Party of Georgia
by Norman Black

The Posse Comitatus Act

The president’s suggestion is as misguided as is his foreign policy. Safe responses to emergencies within the U.S. include complete civilian control and preventing the military from engaging in police activities. Improving security for the U.S. and its citizens requires major changes to U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, a civilian agency, is currently responsible for coordinating responses to emergencies. It did a bad job, during recent hurricane disasters, but has the potential to do good response co-ordination, if properly funded and not directed by political hacks.

Response to emergencies within the U.S. would be better, if Congress and President Bush ensured that the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security is competent to respond promptly and appropriately. If the agency is to accomplish this, it must also be headed by qualified persons, and not by unqualified political friends of the U.S. president, politicians, or political contributors.

The U.S. military is currently banned from taking part in arrests, searches, evidence seizure and other police-type activities, within the U.S. The June 18, 1878 law that bans it is the Posse Comitatus Act. (The U.S. Coast Guard and National Guard personnel, when controlled by state governors, are not included in the act.) The law was championed by southern legislators that had experienced, until 1876, occupation and law enforcement by the U.S. military.
Those that oppose allowing the U.S. military to have a part in policing the U.S. know that the U.S. military is the agency that instructs the military establishments of foreign dictators in ways to torture prisoners. It has a long history of this in Central America and now teaches its lessons elsewhere in the world. Prisoner abuse, in Iraq and the U.S. Naval Base, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been mild compared with what is done by U.S.-allied militaries in third world and developing nations.
In 1993, the nation saw, at the siege of the Branch Dravidians religious compound, at Waco, Texas, a result of U.S. military “advisors”, coaching the FBI and U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms besiegers. The siege was ended when they attacked and caused the deaths of 86 Branch Dravidians, including men, women and 17 children.

The men that wrote the U.S. Constitution feared a politically active military. The framers of the Posse Comitatus Act feared participation in law enforcement by the U.S. military. They knew their history and were aware that every military establishment is a constant threat to representative democracy. For that reason, they placed the military under the president, as a partial safeguard. They also ensured that the U.S. military was extremely tiny, during peacetime.
The unfair treatment of Palestinians, by Israel, causes major loathing of the U.S. by Moslems and ensures a continual flow of recruits to kill U.S. forces and those associated with them.

The U.S., which is Israel’s international support, can end most Moslem hatred of it quickly, by opposing Israel’s destruction of the Palestinians; forcing Israel’s withdrawal completely from the West Bank and the removal of its wall from around the West Bank; and forcing Israel to restore to the Palestinian Authority all land taken, from Palestine, in violation of the U.N. partitioning decision that created Israel.

President Bush’s multiple standards show clearly in his silence about Israel’s nuclear weapons and weapons’ grade fuel production, while he threatens, lectures, and tries to isolate Iran, because Iran wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. This is transparent hypocrisy and is wins no friends internationally. It is, therefore, counter-productive for U.S. homeland security.

The difficulty in reforming the one-sided U.S. policy that favors Israel is that every elected U.S. official that has advocated it has been the target of attacks and replacement. U.S. and foreign Zionists have repeatedly demonstrated their unhindered ability to intervene in the U.S. electoral process to defeat anyone that advocates ending the U.S.’s one-sided support for Israel.

In order to change this situation, Americans must be willing advocate this change; speak against those that oppose it; and support any politician brave enough to advocate a U.S. Mid-eastern policy independent of Israel’s. Right now, U.S. politician fear to do so, for fear of Zionist machinations against them.

Until the policies discussed here are changed, there can be no real U.S. security, except through constant war abroad and restriction of freedom at home. In the meanwhile, President Bush seems intent on actions and inactions that perpetuate the threats to Americans’ security internationally and reduce their freedom at home. :worried:

Read Article

MAUP

Saturday, 4. November 2006, 06:07:00

,

The university has achieved the highest academic recognition awarded in the nation of Ukraine. It is recognized by the UN and other international bodies of University accreditation and it has educated more high government officials of Ukraine than any other. Up until the Jewish pressure of last year even President Yushchenko, served on its governing board.

The administration building of the largest Ukranian university, MAUP, which the Jewish
extremists seek to destroy
davidduke.com - 11/03/06

Duke refutes Jewish Forward newspaper article

MAUP allows its professors academic free speech. Like any large university, MAUP professors represent a wide range of opinion. The reason why the Zionists are trying to destroy the university is because the university president, Dr. Schokin, as well as a number of tenured professors at the university are critical of Zionism, and have held conferences and published books on the subject.

The Jewish extremists are determined to shut down any speech and destroy any person that dares to expose them, so they now pursue a vicious campaign to destroy the largest university in Ukraine as well as ruin Dr. Schokin.

Of course, if the Jewish extremists are successful they will deprive over 50,000 of the best and brightest Ukrainian students from getting affordable university training and prevent this nation which is emerging from communism, from getting the skilled graduates it needs.

But, no matter, the interests of the Jewish power brokers are obviously to be put ahead of any other interest no matter how beneficial it may be to a nation.
The point can well be made that the Iraq War was primarily driven by powerful Jewish influence in media and politics. Israeli partisans such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were the chief promoters of the war, and their Jewish extremist allies in the Pentagon, such CIA official in charge of Iraq, Stuart Cohen, provided the bogus intelligence, while other Jewish extremists in the press pushed for the war in spite of the obvious fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Even professors at the most prestigious school of government in the United States, the Harvard University JFK School of Government, now say almost exactly what I say. In their recent paper, “Israel and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Walt and Mearsheimer expose the powerful Jewish forces who are dictating US policy around the world. The Forward article will also show how they dictate policies toward Ukraine!

As far as racial “selectness” (sic) is concerned, “selectness” a nonexistent word that The Forward makes up, any fair researcher can discover quite readily the extreme ethnocentrism that exists in the Jewish community, and anyone can research the Talmud and Halachah and learn the core hatred of non-Jewish humanity (Jewish law accepted by 90 percent of the religious Jews in the world).

I urge readers to go to read my recent article on Halachic Law or simply the Daat Emet website in Israel and learn how basic Jewish scripture teaches that non-Jews are “not men,” i.e., not human beings but animals. You can even read an article by a Jewish scholar on that very subject on the Daat Emet site, “Only Jews are men.”

Obviously the Jewish extremists don’t want Gentiles to learn about this hateful racism.

This Jewish racism is far more extreme than anything that even Hitler said or wrote. In Mein Kampf, Hitler recounts seeing a ear-locked, caftaned Jew as young man and asks, is this a Jew, is this a German? Jewish Law at its core goes way beyond distinguishing between nationalities. It says that a Gentile is not only not a Jew but is not even a man, only an animal. If you are a new listener or reader, before you dismiss what I say -- check it out for yourself. You will find I am absolutely accurate.
Where does Israel or the organized Jewish community think it has the right to try to stop freedom of speech and political freedom in another nation? Israel demanded that Schokin and his party be banned in Ukraine. Is there any nation of Europe that would dare to demand that another nation restrict its internal political freedom?

Israel and the Jewish extremists obviously think that have that right, and they certainly do have the power. They can’t always simply demand and get their way, but they have other ways to exert their power over other nations. They have already used their power to completely dominate the American political and media establishment and prevent even a discussion of issues critical to the well being of United States and many other nations, such as our disastrous, Israeli-controlled Mideast Policy.

Now they are trying to do the same thing in Ukraine where they are in the process of consolidating their power. Unfortunately, their blackmail and strong-arm tactics are somewhat succeeding. Here’s the quote from The Forward:
The pressure on MAUP has been increasing during the past year . . . According to Jewish activists, when Congress was deciding whether to end these restrictions on Ukraine, the decision became linked to the Ukrainian government’s promise to rein in MAUP . . . The Ukrainian government has not ignored these requests. The government’s ministry of education has shut down a number of MAUP’s regional branches over the past few months.
What is happening in Ukraine can happen to any nation. It happened to Switzerland in the bogus Jewish Swiss Bank Accounts case. Jews were able to get the American government and courts to essentially blackmail the Swiss to face economic ruin or give into one of the most horrendous cases of extortion in history.

Jewish extremism, supremacy, and power are real. If they continue to have power over our nations, there cannot be freedom. And, as you can see by the Jewish extremist promotion of the “Clash of Civilizations,” there will be increased terrorism, destruction, hatred and war across the planet unless we free ourselves from their pernicious power.

David Duke

Read Article

Not Everyone Wants a Free Internet

Monday, 16. October 2006, 16:14:52

, ,

National Prayer Network
by Harmony Grant - 10/12/06

Cyberspace Stays Free, ADL Mourns

While liberal Jewish activists have worked successfully to punish and silence politically incorrect speech in much of Europe, America maintains a fragile freedom. The Anti-Defamation League, architect of Orwellian “anti-hate” laws, is frustrated about it.

This was apparent in the Sept. 12 speech given by Christopher Wolf, chair of both the ADL Internet Task Force and the International Network Against Cyber Hate. He spoke at the 3rd International Symposium on Hate on the Internet sponsored by B'nai Brith, ADL’s parent organization.

In his speech, Wolf sourly admitted the difficulty in corralling thought criminals on the web, especially since America provides a “legal haven” for that hatred.

The US is a haven because we don’t yet have a federal hate laws bill, despite ADL’s aggressive attempts to pass one. A federal hate bill would severely limit free speech, and triple the penalties for crimes motivated by “bias” or “hate” against certain protected groups, like homosexuals. It would establish a vast anti-hate bureaucracy similar to the one in Canada, where Christian pastors have been punished merely for quoting from “hate literature” --- the Bible!

Most countries of Europe (and 46 states in the union) have ADL-designed hate laws already. France, Germany, and Austria are examples of the most stringent; in these countries, you can be prosecuted just for questioning the six-million figure of the Jewish holocaust.

ADL is pleased with its success in banning free speech in these nations of Europe.

But America remains a loose cannon, a cowboy land of free speech where religions can still be criticized, homosexuality can still be publicly condemned, and ADL can still call Israel’s mildest critic an “anti-Semite.”

And, to ADL’s dismay, the borderless internet can beam American-made “hate sites” into other lands.

Unable to wield the law the way they’d like, ADL is trying a different tactic.

In his speech, Wolf advocates less legal ambush and more handwringing or, in his words, “exposing hate speech for its deceitful and false content.”

Wolf points out that attempts to prosecute “hate criminals” have backfired several times recently. For example, “The case brought against Yahoo! to enforce the French law that prohibits the selling or display of neo-Nazi memorabilia in the end trivialized the speech codes directed at Holocaust questioners, and created a series of precedents that could prove unhelpful in future, more serious prosecutions.”

In other words, the web is hard turf to police.

Wolf compares hunting down “cyberhaters” to chasing cockroaches: “squashing one does not solve the problem when there are many more waiting behind the walls – or across the border. Many see prosecution of Internet speech in one country as a futile gesture when the speech can re-appear on the Internet almost instantaneously, hosted by an ISP in the United States.” :up:

Don’t think for a minute that Wolf doesn’t want ADL-defined “haters” behind bars! He praises the recent prosecution of revisionist Ernst Zundel, and only advocates caution because he wants to make sure legal precedents are strong enough. For this reason, Wolf urges a judicious and careful use of the law,

and ever more passionate “counter speech” against “haters.”

Certainly there are extremists who misuse the internet to advocate outright violence. But ADL doesn’t want just violence prosecuted; the league’s ultimate goal is to outlaw politically incorrect speech, especially moral criticism of homosexuality and other expressions of Christian conscience.

The aim of hate laws was evident in the UK’s debate last winter over a Religious and Racial Hatred Bill that would have made the Bible an illegal piece of “hate literature” in Britain. (The bill was ultimately moderated. “Threatening,” but not insulting, religious language is now banned.)

Wolf’s speech is both heartening and gloomy. Heartening, because it reveals the frustration of ADL attempts to crack down on internet speech. But also gloomy, as it shows the fervor of ADL to control the thoughts and words of the entire world.

If they can’t regulate cyberspace through the law, they may be able to use the economy. Jewish-led telephone and cable giants, such as Verizon and Comcast, are working to control the content of the web. They are pouring millions into Congress, lobbying for permission to commercialize the internet and gain the right to discriminate against and exclude “cyberhaters.”

But, for now, America and the internet remain fertile soils for free debate of political and moral truths. Yes, weeds grow there, too. But a few weeds in a flourishing garden are far preferable to a paved parking lot.

The best way to keep the internet free right now is to keep the big phone and cable companies from making a business of it. Legislation encouraging phone and cable takeover of the internet has already passed the House of Representatives.

Your US senators need to hear from you today . . .

Harmony Grant, the niece of Rev. Ted Pike, is a staff writer and researcher for the National Prayer Network. For more of her articles go to www.hisnamesake.blogspot.com

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Friday, 13. October 2006, 02:16:35

,

davidduke.com 10/10/06

Dr. Mearsheimer Adopts Dr. Duke’s Position on Iraq War and the 9/11 Attacks!

Here are the first few lines of an article in the NY Sun on September 29.*
It shows how Dr. John Mearsheimer, co-author of the Harvard School of Government paper, Israel and US Foreign Policy, is now making the identical arguments that Dr. David Duke has been making for years. Even before the Iraq War began, David Duke was saying all over the world that the principle power behind the war was the Israel lobby.

Within three weeks of the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2001, David Duke in a classic article How Israeli Terrorism and American Treason Caused the 911 Attacks, showed how the primary motivation of Osama bin Ladin and the hijackers was not hatred of democracy or our freedoms, but anger over American support of Israel’s war crimes.

For years, Dr. Duke has been pointing out the Jewish extremist manipulation of the American political sysem and the media. Instead of being honored for his groundbreaking research and analysis done long before that of Walt and Mearsheimer, Stephan Walt recently said he finds it “abhorrent that David Duke would use their research on behalf of his agenda.”

If anything, Walt and Mearsheimer have built upon the research and thesis of David Duke. Every reader of www.davidduke.com knows that David Duke has researched the issue thoroughly and has many original citations in his book Jewish Supremacism on these issues years before Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a single line about the issue.

David Duke has had the intellectual foresight and the visceral courage to say the things that Walt and Mearsheimer are just now saying after tens of thousands of Americans have already been wounded and thousands dead in Iraq. David Duke’s work has prepared the way for Walt and Mearsheimer to say the things they now say, but instead of giving him credit for his courageous, groundbreaking work, they suggest that David Duke is using their work for his own agenda.

Every reader of davidduke.com, and every listener of the David Duke Internet Radio Program knows that David Duke has expounded every thesis of Walt and Mearsheimer years before they wrote a single word on the issue.

We are happy that Walt and Mearsheimer have now adopted David Duke’s position on these vital issues, but we abhor the fact that they have chosen to join the Dershowitz’s and Kalb’s and Perle’s in unjustly attacking the man who has led the effort to expose the Jewish Lobby.

* Website: davidduke.com

Fool Us Once . . .

Saturday, 9. September 2006, 09:16:03

, ,

"Fool us once, shame on you! Fool us twice, shame on us!" -- Get ready folks, G.W. and the neocon boys are trying to pull the same stunt again with Iran using the same "war on terror" propaganda. If you ask me, we need to have a war on Zionism -- That's where the real terror is! :mad:
News24.com - 09/08/06

Saddam not linked to al-Qaeda

Washington - There is no evidence confirming that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab and his al-Qaeda associates, according to a senate report on pre-war intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President George W Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released on Friday by the senate intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group, Iraqi National Congress, had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005, assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, neither harbour, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda. Zarqawi was killed by a US airstrike in June this year.

The long-awaited report, said senator Carl Levin, a member of the committee, is "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaeda.

Website: news24.com

Zionist Brags About Death and Destruction

Monday, 21. August 2006, 08:26:57

, ,



CounterPunch - 08/16/06
by John Walsh

"My fellow American," Howard Friedman, President of AIPAC, begins his letter of July 30 to friends and supporters of AIPAC, "Look what you've done"!

After warning that "Israel is fighting a pivotal war for its life," by which he means Israel's wanton slaughter and all-out destruction in Lebanon, Freiedman condemns "the expected chorus of international condemnation of Israel's actions" and Europe's call for "a cease-fire immediately."

Then he exults:
only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. . That nation is the United States of America--and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of America Jewry.
Here I must take issue with President Friedman since I bet that most Jewish Americans, in contrast to the AIPAC crowd, were horrified by the slaughter in Lebanon. In fact if anyone other than President Friedman wrote this, he would be accused of fabricating a Jewish plot and labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist and scurrilous anti-semite.

How do we do it"? President Friedman asks a little further on. The answer is "decades of long hard work which never ends." Not only is it hard work--but it's eternal.

However, President Friedman is not content with generalities and gives us some of AIPAC's trade secrets. Here are two notables:
AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship--so it's clear where they stand on the subject.
Would it not be great to see these "position papers"? I wonder how many candidates would release them? And what do the candidates get for all this effort? A pat on the back?
Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos. They are VERY busy people and they know that they can count on AIPAC for clear-eyed analysis.. We present this information in concise form to elected officials. The information and analyses are impeccable--after all our reputation is at stake. This results in policy and legislation that make up Israel's lifeline.
Another way to read this is that the pea-brained hillbillies who make up most of the Congress can be led by the nose if the memos are simple enough. Testimony to this fact enters my mailbox, as I write, in the form of a must-read interview with Noam Chomsky, which details just how distorted the discussion of Israel and the war on Lebanon has become in the U.S.
President Friedman closes with the exhortation: "Now is the time for us, American Jews, to stand up and tell our elected officials that they must demand Iran halt its pursuit of atomic arms."

In other words, next stop Iran if AIPAC can swing it. And in that lies a great danger. The Bush administration is losing ever more of its base and only the neocon establishment and AIPAC remain securely in its camp. (Even some of the born-agains are deserting.)

With the November elections coming, Rove and Bush desperately need AIPAC support, and so they may be even more susceptible than usual to its demands for going after Iran. Indeed this is a dangerous time.

Read Article

Attention Please: Nations of Europe

Wednesday, 9. August 2006, 08:58:59

, ,

The Foreign Secretary spoke his mind on the Middle East — and became a target in Washington.
The Times - 08/07/06
by William Rees-Mogg

How the US fired Jack Straw

WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.

I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.
- - -

Yesterday the Mail on Sunday went back for a second look at the story in the light of subsequent events, particularly the Israeli counter-attack on Lebanon. A US source told them that “Mr Straw’s views did not find favour in the White House and its concerns were passed on to the British Government”. That confirms that the Foreign Secretary was effectively dismissed by an American President.

This is not entirely unprecedented, but the precedent is a bad one. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain wanted to pursue his policy of appeasement, which was opposed by the young Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden. Chamberlain conspired with the Italian Ambassador in London, Count Grandi, at a Downing Street meeting. Eden was virtually forced to resign on the appeasement issue.

I do not know of any other example of a British Prime Minister allowing a foreign power, friendly or otherwise, to decide a senior Cabinet appointment.

Mr Straw was in a relatively strong political position at the time that he was moved to the job of Leader of the House of Commons. His statement on Iran must have been calculated. He was probably right to think that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran, because that might have led to a critical rise in the oil price — experts talk of a price of between $100 and $150 a barrel. It could also have led to a Shia revolt in Iraq. If Iran had been attacked, by the US or by Israel, Mr Straw might have resigned rather than give Britain’s support.

It is also possible that Mr Straw was moved sideways because Mr Blair already had preliminary information that Israel planned to hit back hard at any aggression by Hezbollah. When the Hezbollah kidnapping and the Israeli counter-attack took place, the United States and Britain jointly refused to call for an immediate ceasefire.

The fighting, with its terrible impact on Lebanon, has now continued for four weeks. There is an allegation that Israel’s plans for the counter-strike were given to the Americans, and that information was passed to the Prime Minister. These questions will be pressed if Parliament is recalled. Obviously Mr Straw’s potential resignation in these circumstances would have been very difficult for the Prime Minister.
- - -

THE AMERICAN NEOCONS, including Donald Rumsfeld and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, still take a more messianic view on the possibility of democratising the Middle East.

The Bush-Blair partnership is still poised uneasily between the hawks of the Pentagon and the doves of
the State Department.

It was a bad mistake for Tony Blair to sack Jack Straw, who was handling this divergence rather well. It was
also an insult to our national independence.

The “who knew what and where” issue will not go away. If there is no immediate and effective ceasefire in Lebanon, there will be increasingly urgent demands for the recall of Parliament. Lebanon will be raised at the Labour Party conference, as will Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Labour Party is pro-Palestinian, critical of Israel, and hostile to the Bush Administration. Many Labour Members of Parliament want a new leader, if only to save their seats. The annual July political crisis started in April this year, and will still be running in November.

Read Article

Pat Buchanan: This Is <i>Not</i> Our War

Saturday, 22. July 2006, 05:48:08

, , ,


No, This Is Not Our War
by Pat Buchanan - 07/21/06

My country has been "torn to shreds," said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the "barbaric destruction," said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing.


But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S. built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs, and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us. - Response

"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli air strikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water, and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at The Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did.

But these neoconservatives [Zionists] care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied us into war in Iraq.

"Why wait?" How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran? How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah, if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shi'ites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaeda is the B team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?
- - -
What is Kristol's moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the "Iranian act of aggression" against Israel, and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons.

But . . . there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which it has signed but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran's nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always. And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." -- It's your war.

Website: antiwar.com

The Israel Lobby: Nazionism

Friday, 23. June 2006, 10:18:41

,

The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel.


The Israel Lobby is directing Washington's foreign policy to promote Israel's interests, regardless of negative effects on the United States' own interests.

Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other security council members."

Washington is consistently blocking Arab states' efforts to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy Agency's agenda.


"Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

The Israel Lobby is the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape United States foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

In the first week of March, 2006, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its largest-ever annual Policy Conference in Washington D.C., attracting more than 5,000 pro-Israel activists from the United States and several foreign countries.

Almost two thirds of the US Congress and Senate members attended the AIPAC conference this year, in addition to top US officials and policymakers, and made speeches dedicated to the welfare and undisputed support of Israel.

Addressing the conference, new Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, vowed never to allow anti-Israel legislation be discussed.
As the new House majority leader, I can assure you
that under my leadership, legislation that is in any
way perceived as anti-Israel will not be considered
in the House of Representatives.
On methods employed by the Lobby to guarantee the continuous flow of support to Israel, the study says the
Lobby relies on two "broad strategies".

First, it wields significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch to support Israel down the line.

Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel's side in the policy debates of the day.

The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in good part because most American commentators hired are pro-Israel. This pro-Israel bias is reflected in the editorials of major newspapers, many of which are Jewish owned.

Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are becoming increasingly difficult to hide.

Read Article

Israel Lobby: U.S. Foreign Policy

Sunday, 18. June 2006, 19:34:31

,

Kansas City Star
June 16, 2006
IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY MAKING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY? - YES
Every year, the United States gives Israel a level of support that far exceeds what it provides to other states.

Israel also gets a variety of other special deals and consistent diplomatic support. This generosity cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War, but it is a strategic burden in the war on terror.

The “special relationship” with Israel is due largely to the Israel lobby — a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who openly work to push U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. These organizations believe their efforts advance both American and Israeli interests. We do not.

John J. Mearsheimer - University of Chicago
Stephen M. Walt - Harvard University
Read Article
"The Israel Lobby" - Download

Both Parties Sell Country to Highest Bidder

Wednesday, 14. June 2006, 05:44:36

, ,

Aljazeera Magazine
by William Hughes
Kevin Zeese is the director of Democracy Rising, an organization working to end the Iraqi war and the Occupation. He is an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, who is looking to bring together, in a unity campaign, the Green, Populist and Libertarian Parties, along with disenchanted members of the state’s Democratic and Republican organizations.
We know that both parties are selling the country to the highest bidder. So, in a historical context, where do you want to be? Republicans controlled by corporations? Democrats controlled by corporations? Or, with some independent movement that is going to challenge the lack of representation of the people.

I think in a historical context, we know where we want to be...What we do now will have an effect. We make a difference. So, waking people up to make a difference is very important to moving things forward electorally.

We’ve got to break the two party straight jacket, so people can vote for what they believe in and make their own choice. The two parties treat all of us as children, as lazy morons, who are stuck watching too much TV...So, many voters feel trapped.
The general election, in Maryland, is set for Nov. 7, 2006. Zeese has labeled the two opposition parties as “corporate dominated.” He has written that if there was ever a moment for Marylanders
“to get organized” and to “throw the bums out,” it’s right now.

The Baltimore Sun also wrote that Zeese is “addressing issues that major parties won’t, such
as challenging U.S. policy in Israel and a tax-reform plan that would exempt an individual's first $100,000 in income from taxation.”

Richard Cohen, who writes for the Washington Post, said that 65 percent of the Democratic Party’s resources comes from the hard right Israel Lobby and 35 percent of the Republican Party’s resources comes from the same place.

As of today’s date, 2,475 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and another 17,869 seriously wounded. We won’t know, however, for years what effects the radioactive depleted uranium dust has had on the health, and sanity, of those required to serve in Iraq, as well as on the 27 million people of that unfortunate country.

The cost to U.S. taxpayers for the conflict now stands at $286 billion. The number of Iraqis slain may be as high as 300,000. In addition to the disgraceful Abu Ghraib torture scandal, recent reports indicate that some of the U.S. troops may have engaged in war crimes by intentionally slaughtering unarmed Iraqi civilians, including children.

Meanwhile, the prime architect of the Iraqi war, the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a grotesque Neocon, has come out of this debacle smelling like a rose. He was rewarded with the high paying sinecure of the presidency of the World Bank in Washington, D.C.

Read Article

A Brutal Occupation

Saturday, 3. June 2006, 09:39:49

, ,

How much longer should the U.S. underwrite the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories?


"Rather than rushing to pass the Anti-Palestinian Terrorism Act of 2006, it is the time for the United States to re-evaluate the relationship with Israel. Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, has been receiving 25% to 30% of U.S. foreign aid for decades. This tiny country has been receiving as much foreign assistance as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Carribean combined. This funding has made the United States taxpayer the underwriter of the occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

And, this occupation is not just illegal – it is brutal. The killing of civilians, the assassination of political leaders, the destruction of fruit orchards, the plowing of homes, routine mass searches of the population, the separation of Palestinians from water supplies, the separation of farmers from their fields and the division of towns with the security wall – all combine to make this 39 year occupation among the harshest in the world. It is so ugly that hard line pro-Israel forces work hard to prevent the U.S. taxpayer from knowing what they are funding, e.g. the recent closing of a play about the death of Rachel Corrie – a U.S. citizen murdered by Israel while trying to block the destruction of Palestinian homes.

Sadly, this occupation is not only 'starving and humiliating' an entire people it is making Israel weaker and less secure. The Israeli economy was the major political issue in the most recent election with poverty on the rise in Israel. Israel is more politically isolated in the world community, anti-Semitism is on the rise throughout the world and Israelis are less secure. If the occupation was successful there would not be a need to build the so-called 'security wall' that is currently under construction. If Israel were secure it would not be advocating for a dangerous military strike against Iran."

Read Article

This should prove . . . interesting?

Wednesday, 31. May 2006, 06:22:41

, , ,

There are now significant signs of an impending collision between Mexican separatists and Jews in California.

The signs were first manifested during the state's 1998 election primary when a Mexican defeated the Jewish candidate Richard Katz in the state's 20th Senate District and when a wealthy Jew, Ron Unz, was successful in having an anti-bilingual education initiative approved by the state's electorate.

The battle lines between Mexicans and Jews in California have been drawn and they have been drawn most clearly in the City of Los Angeles.

The Jews of California, about 3% of the state's population, have an overwhelming and disproportionate share of the state's wealth which they utilize effectively to wield immense influence on the state's political apparatus, principally through dominance of the Democratic Party.

Both U.S Senators of the state are ladies of Jewish descent and there is no sector of California society, either private or public, in which Jews are not significant policy makers. The sectors that they can not control directly, they will control indirectly through the purchase of influence as well as the cunning manipulation of ethnic and other minorities.

The Mexican candidate's victory in the 20th Senate District has been a turning point in the relationship between Mexicans and Jews. It is the very first time that a significant clash for political control, at the state level, has taken place between the two ethnic groups.

Read More

Necessary Illusions

Saturday, 27. May 2006, 20:33:07

,

There have long been efforts to identify anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in an effort to exploit anti-racist sentiment for political ends;
One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all
Israeli diplomat Abba Eban argued, in a typical expression of this intellectually and morally disreputable position. But that no longer suffices. It is now necessary to identify criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism -- or in the case of Jews, as "self-hatred," so that all possible cases are covered. . . .

The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] of B'nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities. . . .

The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.

These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.

The ADL was condemned by the Middle East Studies Association after circulation of an ADL blacklist to campus Jewish leaders, stamped "confidential."

Practices of this nature have been bitterly condemned by Israeli doves -- in part because they fear the consequences of this hysterical chauvinism for Israel, in part because they have been subjected to the standard procedures themselves, in part simply in natural revulsion.

from: "Necessary Illusions"
by: Noam Chomsky

Read Full Text

Media Fails To Demonize Iran

Saturday, 27. May 2006, 03:26:38

, , ,

Antiwar.com /05/23/06
by Jim Lobe

A story authored by a prominent U.S. neocon regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive color badges circulated around the world before it was exposed as false.

The article by Iranian-American Amir Taheri, was initially published in Friday's edition of Canada's National Post, which ran alongside the story a 1935 photograph of a Jewish businessman in Berlin with a yellow, six-pointed star sewn on his overcoat. The Post subsequently issued a retraction.

Taheri's story, however, was reprinted by the New York Post, which is owned by pro Israel media baron Rupert Murdoch, and picked up by the Jerusalem Post, which also featured a photo of a yellow star from the Nazi era over a photo of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Another neocon publication, the New York Sun, also noted the story Monday, claiming that the specific report that special badges were required by the legislation had been "incorrect."

Juan Cole, president of the U.S. Middle East Studies Association, described the Taheri article as "typical of black psychological operations campaigns," particularly in its origin in an "out of the way newspaper that is then picked up by the mainstream press" – in this case, the Jerusalem Post and the New York Post.

A former U.S. intelligence official described the article's relatively obscure provenance as a "real sign of a disinformation operation."

Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, a public relations firm that lists a large number of leading neocons, including Richard Perle, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, and Joshua Muravchik, among its clients.

Major boosters of the war with Iraq, Benador clients, who also include former Central Intelligence Agency chief James Woolsey and former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky, have also called for the Bush administration to take a hard line against Iran.

The newspapers that so far have run the story are similarly identified with a hard line against Tehran. The National Post, which was bought from Conrad Black, a close associate of Perle's, is controlled by David and Leonard Asper, who have accused the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of being anti-Israel.

Similarly, the Sun has consistently taken positions consistent with the right-wing Likud Party in Israel on Middle East issues, while Murdoch owns the strongly pro-Israel Weekly Standard and Fox News, in addition to the New York Post.

Read Article

Free Speech - Hate Speech: Who Decides?

Friday, 28. April 2006, 02:36:00

, ,


Good Riddance to Morris Dees and the SPLC

Thursday, 27. April 2006, 05:43:22

, ,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, led by Morris Dees, has recently launched attacks against Fox News and CNN for supposedly promoting "racism and white supremecy." However, the days of unbridled slurs and slander against anyone critical of the SPLC agenda may soon come to an end. Darby Larry, the democratic candidate for Alabama Attorney General, has promised legal action against the center if elected.

WHEN ELECTED Attorney General for the State of Alabama I intend to launch a thorough probe into possible illegal activities by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I believe a probe will expose evidence sufficient to empty the SPLC's coffers and run them out of the State of Alabama.

I have obtained copies of FBI teletypes and other documents in an ongoing federal court case in Utah that indicate Morris Dees (SPLC founder and chief counsel) and the SPLC had prior knowledge of the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and failed to act responsibly, allowing the bombing to go forward, killing 168 persons.

Jesse C. Trentadue, whose brother was tortured and killed while in federal custody because he looked like a suspect in the OKC investigation, won a $1.1 million judgment against the FBI based on intentional infliction of emotional distress. Still suspicious about his brother's death, Trentadue sued the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act in order to acquire more information.

The FBI has obstructed justice in this case or has been reluctant to release all information it has on Dees, the SPLC, and their complicity in the OKC Bombing.

On March 29, USDC Judge Dale A. Kimball ordered the FBI to conduct additional searches of its records and turn them over to Trentadue. The order specifically referred to information about the SPLC that the FBI referred to in documents, but were never produced as proof.

The SPLC, an advocate for open borders allowing for the current Mexican invasion of the South, is believed to have had an informant working with Timothy McVeigh; the alleged informant or employee of the SPLC conveniently escaped to Mexico.
- - -
The SPLC is quick to label good citizens as "haters" or "racists" -- while the SPLC itself foments the things its supporters believe it fights. The SPLC, exposed as a "non-profit" fraud by the Montgomery Advertiser before that newspaper was purchased by Gannett, has long acted to instill hatred and prejudice against Alabama and its good people by creating an impression that the South is a bad place, all for the purpose of spreading its foreign ideologies, bilking gullible donors of millions of dollars each year in the process.

-- Darby Larry
More: Council of Conservative Citizens

It's Not Funny.

Tuesday, 25. April 2006, 10:28:32

, ,


1 2 Next »

Showing posts 1 - 20 of 39.