An Essay on the Israel Lobby that the American Media Won't Publish

[Rohirrim]

(IMO, A crucial read for every American, INCLUDING those who support Israel)

---------------------------------------------------
A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.

Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’
--------------------------------------
There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’

AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’.
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’
------------------------------------------------
The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby.
--------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.
------------------------------------------------------

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.

------------------------------------------------------

Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the 1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

-------------------------------------------------------

The essay is long, but contains critical information that every American should be aware of.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[yavoon]

I say we destroy the zionists. obviously they control the world and our media. the racist and criminal united states must be stopped, but first we have to get rid of the zionists.

UNITE!

[Rohirrim]

I say we destroy the zionists. obviously they control the world and our media. the racist and criminal united states must be stopped, but first we have to get rid of the zionists.

UNITE!

You obviously didn't read a word of it, clown.

[yavoon]

You obviously didn't read a word of it, clown.

I've read it all now, I'v read it all before. should see my thread about the muslims and leftists getting together. well the jew hating is coalescing rather nicely as well.

its funny to me how often this happens. how often the jews have been demonized just like this. "they control everything." there's somewhere between 15 million and 20 million jews in the WORLD. there are only 2 countries w/ over 1 million jews, the US and israel.

they are probably the safest group EVER INVENTED to hate. have u ever seen a jew burn anything in effigy? have u ever seen a jew scream in the streets for ppl to die? has one single coffee shop in germany been blown up by a suicide jew? hell until 50 years ago they didnt even shoot back, which is probably what is REALLY pissing off the muslims and the leftists. all of a sudden the most harmless boogey man ever created started shooting back. the ****ing crime of it all.

[Rohirrim]

I've read it all now, I'v read it all before. should see my thread about the muslims and leftists getting together. well the jew hating is coalescing rather nicely as well.

its funny to me how often this happens. how often the jews have been demonized just like this. "they control everything." there's somewhere between 15 million and 20 million jews in the WORLD. there are only 2 countries w/ over 1 million jews, the US and israel.

they are probably the safest group EVER INVENTED to hate. have u ever seen a jew burn anything in effigy? have u ever seen a jew scream in the streets for ppl to die? has one single coffee shop in germany been blown up by a suicide jew? hell until 50 years ago they didnt even shoot back, which is probably what is REALLY pissing off the muslims and the leftists. all of a sudden the most harmless boogey man ever created started shooting back. the ****ing crime of it all.

Since the essay has nothing whatsover to do with "Jew hating" or any kind of anti-Semitism whatsover, I can only assume your attack is an attempt at killing debate, a tactic that the AIPAC is famous for.

[yavoon]

Since the essay has nothing whatsover to do with "Jew hating" or any kind of anti-Semitism whatsover, I can only assume your attack is an attempt at killing debate, a tactic that the AIPAC is famous for.

oh by no means I dont want to kill debate. I'm perfectly happy to let u go on till ur hearts content about how the jews control everything. about how all debate is silenced, as u say by the evil jews who wont let us know that they control everything.

please, go on.

[Rohirrim]

Go here to read how this essay is being attacked before anyone has a chance to debate its arguments. AIPAC does not allow debate as yavoon so aptly points out.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/weiss

While criticisms of the lobby have circulated widely for years and been published at the periphery, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper stands out because it was so frontal and pointed, and because it was published online by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where Walt is a professor and outgoing academic dean. "It was inevitably going to take someone from Harvard [to get this discussed]," says Phyllis Bennis, a writer on Middle East issues at the Institute for Policy Studies.

[yavoon]

Go here to read how this essay is being attacked before anyone has a chance to debate its arguments. AIPAC does not allow debate as yavoon so aptly points out.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/weiss

While criticisms of the lobby have circulated widely for years and been published at the periphery, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper stands out because it was so frontal and pointed, and because it was published online by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where Walt is a professor and outgoing academic dean. "It was inevitably going to take someone from Harvard [to get this discussed]," says Phyllis Bennis, a writer on Middle East issues at the Institute for Policy Studies.

I never pointed any such thing out, and I stated that I was perfectly happy w/ u having ur debate. afterall how could I have heard this so many times before if I didnt want ppl talking?

ur only problem roh is u have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. I think ghaff's here would be very willing to show u the true grandeur of what u are only scratching the surface of. the true control the jews have. and what is control w/o being able to silence debate! which of course makes u a victim.

so now ur a victim roh, of the evil jewish conspiracy to silence debate about the evil jewish conspiracy to control everything.

[Rohirrim]

Your attempts at extremism are an excellent way of attempting to kill the ideas in this essay. It's called the straw man. Before anyone has a chance to come to the table with an open mind and read the essay and discuss the issues, you label the piece as extremist. I don't know what ax you have to grind in this debate, but it is obviously personal.

What these very distinguished authors ,whose credentials are unassailable (which is why you haven't launched any personal attacks against them - yet) are offering, is that it is time we debate our relationship with Israel. Did Israel, and its American lobby, unduly influence our involvement in Iraq? Are American soldiers dying in the service of another state's policies? Israel has as much wealth as South Korea. Why do we give them more foreign aid than any other state in the world? No other state in the ME can come close to Israel in sheer military power. Why do they need our unlimited defense? Why can't we debate these issues in our government? In our media?

[Rohirrim]

These professors were first asked to write this article by The Atlantic. But after they submitted the essay the editors refused to publish it, saying that the writing wasn't good enough.

[yavoon]

Your attempts at extremism are an excellent way of attempting to kill the ideas in this essay. It's called the straw man. Before anyone has a chance to come to the table with an open mind and read the essay and discuss the issues, you label the piece as extremist. I don't know what ax you have to grind in this debate, but it is obviously personal.

What these very distinguished authors ,whose credentials are unassailable (which is why you haven't launched any personal attacks against them - yet) are offering, is that it is time we debate our relationship with Israel. Did Israel, and its American lobby, unduly influence our involvement in Iraq? Are American soldiers dying in the service of another state's policies? Israel has as much wealth as South Korea. Why do we give them more foreign aid than any other state in the world? No other state in the ME can come close to Israel in sheer military power. Why do they need our unlimited defense? Why can't we debate these issues in our government? In our media?


what straw man, the jews secretly control things while not allowing debate is exactly what thi is saying and is exactly what u r saying and its exactly what is said by leftists and muslims throughout the world. if direct correlation is now straw man I think the term has ceased to have meaning.

I have no desire to attack the authors, regardless of their "credentials." and I welcome all ppl who want to read the essay to read the essay. I see ur victimhood is going into fullswing though. as it feels pretty bizarre for me to being make some declaration that I dont mind ppl reading things.

[Rohirrim]

what straw man, the jews secretly control things while not allowing debate is exactly what this is saying and its exactly what is said by leftists and muslims throughout the world. if direct correlation is now straw man I think the term has ceased to have meaning.

I have no desire to attack the authors, regardless of their "credentials." and I welcome all ppl who want to read the essay to read the essay. I see ur victimhood is going into fullswing though. as it feels pretty bizarre for me to being make some declaration that I dont mind ppl reading things.

I'm curious why you're getting all emo about it. As the Nation article clearly points out, the so called "leftists" are just as chicken to discuss these issues as any other public figures in America. Do you deny that the Jewish lobby is more powerful than the NRA? It's easy enough to find on the internet. The only lobby more powerful than AIPAC is the AARP. We all know that no American politician will touch the "third rail" of American politics (SSI/SSA) because of AARP. Why can't we talk about why no American politician will touch anything having to do with Israel? Why can't we discuss whether or not the interests of Israel are not necessarily the same as the interests of the United States?

The "secret world control" of the Jews is a fantasy. AIPAC is not. Let's forget about world control and get specific: What influence did Israel's lobbying efforts have on Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

[epicSocialism4tw]

We really need something to identify those subversive Jews. If they really are squelching debate and making all of our foreign policy issues in our stead, we need to squeeze them out from behind the scenes and to put some sort of identifier on them. They almost look white, but not quite. Its hard to tell.

Jews and their interests should be fully removed from the political process. They have no right to their own political agendas.

Here, I've got an idea...lets do this.

We can put one of these on their chest:
http://beiderbecke.typepad.com/tba/images/juden_1.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/images/mr05woman.jpeg


We can run them out of their business step-by-step and eventually put them here:http://www.archives.gov/research/ww2/photos/images/ww2-178.jpg


So that eventually, we can put them here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/Image20.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Wow! I knew you were low, dramaqueen, but I didn't know how low. I hope you and yavoon realize that your extremism only serves to prove the point of the essay: Any person who questions Israel's influence on U.S. policy will be attacked and slandered immediately, even using the tragedy of the holocaust to serve the cowardly purpose.

How anti-democratic of you both.

[Rohirrim]

Frankly, I find these extremist reactions amazing.

Perhaps yavoon or dramaqueen would do us all a service and find a single anti-semitic word, phrase, or sentence in the entire essay.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Wow! I knew you were low, dramaqueen, but I didn't know how low. I hope you and yavoon realize that your extremism only serves to prove the point of the essay: Any person who questions Israel's influence on U.S. policy will be attacked and slandered immediately, even using the tragedy of the holocaust to serve the cowardly purpose.
How anti-democratic of you both.


You asked for it. Dont complain and whine to me.

[alkemical]

Ro~

I've done research on how much money AIPAC gives to US politicans - it's quite interesting. Also interesting - was a lobbyist by the name of jack abramoff had done some work for AIPAC.

[alkemical]

You asked for it. Dont complain and whine to me.


No, Ro~ didn't ask for it. Go to opensecrets.org and look for the AIPAC funding -

[Rohirrim]

If I posted an essay bringing into question the effect of the AARP lobby on social security, would I be an agist?

[epicSocialism4tw]

No, Ro~ didn't ask for it. Go to opensecrets.org and look for the AIPAC funding -

It's no secret that there are pro-Israel lobbies that have their own agendas. There is a PAC for everything under the sun.

Why should we be so suspicious of the pro-Israel lobby? Could they be up to something? What are these Jews doing? Could they have been the root cause of the Iraq war?

The Israel lobby may have a bit of influence in some areas, but they arent making our decisions to go to war or even contributing enough influence to that cause to make a difference. That's just out and out insane.

It makes sense that Israel would be our ally. They are a functional, stable democracy in a region full of loons that we would like stabilized.

[Rohirrim]

Obviously, you didn't read the essay.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Obviously, you didn't read the essay.

I scanned your essay.

It said essentially what has been said about the Jewish influence on politics for ages. There is some underlying, foreboding, secretive power that wipes mens wills and minds from making critical decisions against Israel. Politicians are all hypnotized by zionism and Israeli propaganda. The pro-Israel lobby is able to implement a PR plan through backdoor tactics that projects them in a positive light.

There's nothing new under the sun, Rohirrim. This (if I can so term it as your friend's essay does) anti-Israel lobby propaganda has been around for a long time. The Jews have money, influence, and are evidently a bunch of hypnotists.

The article is nothing more than an education on what a PAC does.

[Rohirrim]

I scanned your essay.

It said essentially what has been said about the Jewish influence on politics for ages. There is some underlying, foreboding, secretive power that wipes mens wills and minds from making critical decisions against Israel. Politicians are all hypnotized by zionism and Israeli propaganda. The pro-Israel lobby is able to implement a PR plan through backdoor tactics that projects them in a positive light.

There's nothing new under the sun, Rohirrim. This (if I can so term it as your friend's essay does) anti-Israel lobby propaganda has been around for a long time. The Jews have money, influence, and are evidently a bunch of hypnotists.

The article is nothing more than an education on what a PAC does.

Friends? Why don't you at least take a moment to read the background of these professors emiritus from Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, who wrote the article. At least.

So, in the Llama universe, the AARP can dictate American public policy regarding social security, the NRA can basically dictate gun policy, but the poor little Israel lobby (second most powerful in the U.S.) has no power whatsover. I guess they should ask for a refund?

[alkemical]

It's no secret that there are pro-Israel lobbies that have their own agendas. There is a PAC for everything under the sun.

Why should we be so suspicious of the pro-Israel lobby? Could they be up to something? What are these Jews doing? Could they have been the root cause of the Iraq war?

The Israel lobby may have a bit of influence in some areas, but they arent making our decisions to go to war or even contributing enough influence to that cause to make a difference. That's just out and out insane.

It makes sense that Israel would be our ally. They are a functional, stable democracy in a region full of loons that we would like stabilized.



Maybe you should read some israeli press where they joke about how they dictate american policy......

[epicSocialism4tw]

Friends? Why don't you at least take a moment to read the background of these professors emiritus from Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, who wrote the article. At least.
So, in the Llama universe, the AARP can dictate American public policy regarding social security, the NRA can basically dictate gun policy, but the poor little Israel lobby (second most powerful in the U.S.) has no power whatsover. I guess they should ask for a refund?


I think it's important that we note that lobby groups are the source of information in every segment of government. They give money, they give information, they give consultation. Its not a question of whether or not they can dictate policy, they DO have an influence on policy.

That's the way American politics works, like it or not.

Personally, I think that the Israel lobby is an important one. If Iran wants to bring it's case to the table, play the game the right way and be heard. Show up with some good-will cash. Bring in your statisticians. Threats and abnoxious claims about the historicity of the holocaust arent going to open the door wide enough for them to have a platform.

That's why there is a difference in the way both are treated on the house and senate floors. Israel understands democracy. Iran understands tyranny. Its a fundamental difference that has given Israel a voice and has made Iran nothing but a clanging cymbal.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Israel shows up to the table with money and information.

Iran shows up to the table with threats of nuclear attack.

You tell me which one is going to be better received?

[Spider]

Israel shows up to the table with money and information.

Iran shows up to the table with threats of nuclear attack.

You tell me which one is going to be better received?

If Bush is in charge ........Israel threatens Nukes ,Bush will invade Greenland

[N.O.Bronco]

Read half of it, very intresting so far. Ive got to go to the gym but ill finish it when i get back.

As for Llama - seriouslly if you feel obligated to bash the poster and the article at least do the favor of reading it. Just by reading half of it and seeing your posts make me realize you didnt even look at the article and that ignorance is shown through your posts.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Read half of it, very intresting so far. Ive got to go to the gym but ill finish it when i get back.

As for Llama - seriouslly if you feel obligated to bash the poster and the article at least do the favor of reading it. Just by reading half of it and seeing your posts make me realize you didnt even look at the article and that ignorance is shown through your posts.


You have no idea what you are talking about.

My point in light of the article is as clear as day.

If you feel obligated to bash the poster, at least do the favor of having some sort of orientation.

[yavoon]

I'm curious why you're getting all emo about it. As the Nation article clearly points out, the so called "leftists" are just as chicken to discuss these issues as any other public figures in America. Do you deny that the Jewish lobby is more powerful than the NRA? It's easy enough to find on the internet. The only lobby more powerful than AIPAC is the AARP. We all know that no American politician will touch the "third rail" of American politics (SSI/SSA) because of AARP. Why can't we talk about why no American politician will touch anything having to do with Israel? Why can't we discuss whether or not the interests of Israel are not necessarily the same as the interests of the United States?

The "secret world control" of the Jews is a fantasy. AIPAC is not. Let's forget about world control and get specific: What influence did Israel's lobbying efforts have on Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

is the NRA some other enemy of urs? I'm sure the jewish lobby, lobby's ppl. its control is no more secret than the NAACP or the NRA or the AARP or the oil companies. I dont like lobby's, and I imagine a lot of other ppl dont like lobby's. but wrapping it up in some psuedo conspiracy where "thus and such wont touch this and such." isn't particularly impressive.

[yavoon]

Wow! I knew you were low, dramaqueen, but I didn't know how low. I hope you and yavoon realize that your extremism only serves to prove the point of the essay: Any person who questions Israel's influence on U.S. policy will be attacked and slandered immediately, even using the tragedy of the holocaust to serve the cowardly purpose.

How anti-democratic of you both.

U R THE BEST VICTIM I KNOW OF, CAN I SUBSCRIBE TO UR NEWSLETTER!

[N.O.Bronco]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

My point in light of the article is as clear as day.

If you feel obligated to bash the poster, at least do the favor of having some sort of orientation.

your points in no way were relevent to anything in that article. When you argue something, you argue on the merits of the content presented to you. When you come into a thread and begn espouting brash generalizations and then concede to claim "i skimmed through it." You tell me two things; first you didnt read the article thus failing the point I made and Two you came here with a pre-conceived idea or agenda and that you are not going to use critical thinking and an open-mind to actually have a relative debate about the points being presented.

You change those points and whatever criticsim you come up with will be better handeled by me and whoever else reads your comments. posting pictures of the holocaust and thinking that the article is some sort of anti-zionist conspiracy theory and then making some unfounded rationalizations for a point you skimmed over without reading the article is the same closed-minded drudge holocaust deniers use.

[epicSocialism4tw]

A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.



That's an awfully simplistic position to have for a congressman serving several masters. I expect an academic to have a more substantial understanding of the situation than this. He's looking at arithmetic when he should be looking at calculus.

[epicSocialism4tw]

your points in no way were relevent to anything in that article. When you argue something, you argue on the merits of the content presented to you. When you come into a thread and begn espouting brash generalizations and then concede to claim "i skimmed through it." You tell me two things; first you didnt read the article thus failing the point I made and Two you came here with a pre-conceived idea or agenda and that you are not going to use critical thinking and an open-mind to actually have a relative debate about the points being presented.

You change those points and whatever criticsim you come up with will be better handeled by me and whoever else reads your comments. posting pictures of the holocaust and thinking that the article is some sort of anti-zionist conspiracy theory and then making some unfounded rationalizations for a point you skimmed over without reading the article is the same closed-minded drudge holocaust deniers use.


It's obvious that you dont understand the subtleties of that statement. There are other posts of mine on this thread that should put it into some sort of context. I do not need a Stanford professor to explain to me how PAC's work.

These professors may or may or may not agree with PACs, but they are being dishonest by claiming that the pro-Israel PAC isnt subjected to the same standards as others in DC. Then he gives half-cocked reasons as to why that is the case. They give no substantial reason as to why the Israel lobby receives special treatment.

The Israel lobby must be doing a pretty darn good job if they receive an immunity that no one else does.

A red flag should go up for you right there.

[N.O.Bronco]

It's obvious that you dont understand the subtleties of that statement. There are other posts of mine on this thread that should put it into some sort of context. I do not need a Stanford professor to explain to me how PAC's work.

These professors may or may or may not agree with PACs, but they are being dishonest by claiming that the pro-Israel PAC isnt subjected to the same standards as others in DC. Then he gives half-cocked reasons as to why that is the case. They give no substantial reason as to why the Israel lobby receives special treatment.

The Israel lobby must be doing a pretty darn good job if they receive an immunity that no one else does.

A red flag should go up for you right there.


from his essay
In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

Its called context and without reading the WHOLE article it is impossible to derive it. so do me a favor the next coment you make about the article do it AFTER reading the WHOLE article, as your remarks continue to show that you have not read it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

from his essay
Its called context and without reading the WHOLE article it is impossible to derive it. so do me a favor the next coment you make about the article do it AFTER reading the WHOLE article, as your remarks continue to show that you have not read it.

Here you go:

The Israel lobby must be doing a pretty darn good job if they receive an immunity that no one else does.

A red flag should go up for you right there.

All lobbies perform the same duties. They play the same game on the same playing field.

You forgot to find a substantive quote that indicates exactly what the lobby is doing that hypnotizes the entirety of both houses, and puts its needs at the forefront of all foreign policy to the detrement of the oil, manufacturing, technology, and other big dollar lobbies with experienced/high profile lobbyists.

[Rohirrim]

from his essay


Its called context and without reading the WHOLE article it is impossible to derive it. so do me a favor the next coment you make about the article do it AFTER reading the WHOLE article, as your remarks continue to show that you have not read it.

Yavoon's and Dramaqueen's responses are no different (except in scale) to the response these writers received once this essay was published. The Nation piece details some of that. I imagine this is why The Atlantic refused to publish it, and the writers had to go abroad. If you think the neocon/Rove attack machine is ugly, you ain't seen nothing. AIPAC makes the neocons look like lightweights. Rather than discuss how the U.S. policy in the ME must evolve, or how the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is one of the key, if not the, key element in ME peace, they lash out at the writers. If we want to make any headway whatsover in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere, we've got to break the chains binding Likud and the Israeli Right with the American Right and especially, the neocons. After reading this essay, I better understand why Pelosi went to Syria. Now I realize it was a very gutsy move. It basically hit the neocon/Likud intransigence right in the gut.

[N.O.Bronco]

Here you go:



All lobbies perform the same duties. They play the same game on the same playing field.

You forgot to find a substantive quote that indicates exactly what the lobby is doing that hypnotizes the entirety of both houses, and puts its needs at the forefront of all foreign policy to the detrement of the oil, manufacturing, technology, and other big dollar lobbies with experienced/high profile lobbyists.

Read the article if you want to hear his argument, until then your points are absolutelly meaningless and your argumnet is without merit. so please get your last word in as im sure you have to, and either leave the thread or read the article and respond accordinglly.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Read the article if you want to hear his argument, until then your points are absolutelly meaningless and your argumnet is without merit. so please get your last word in as im sure you have to, and either leave the thread or read the article and respond accordinglly.

You have to be kidding me.

It is up to you to prove your position. I have ample firepower. You can either criticize them or rebut them. You choose the former, and not the latter. Lets not get too confused here.

You can go to the well of authority and drink, but I'm not touching that tainted water with a ten-foot pole.

Grow your own mind.

[yavoon]

If you think the neocon/Rove attack machine is ugly, you ain't seen nothing. AIPAC makes the neocons look like lightweights.



ahh so u see a little farther into the rabbit hole oh padawan, but still u do not see how far the rabbit hole goes. to truly fight the zionists u need to understand the grandeur of their plans!

[Rohirrim]

ahh so u see a little farther into the rabbit hole oh padawan, but still u do not see how far the rabbit hole goes. to truly fight the zionists u need to understand the grandeur of their plans!

I see you didn't read The Nation piece either. :rofl: No surprise there. Closed minds operate better in the shadow world of ignorance.

[yavoon]

I see you didn't read The Nation piece either. :rofl: No surprise there. Closed minds operate better in the shadow world of ignorance.

funny u talk about operating in the shadow world...

[epicSocialism4tw]

This article is complete garbage.


"Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them."


1.3% of America is composed of Jews. Of whom, as the article writer mentions himself, some percentage are reformed and some percentage are apathetic to Israel's cause.

How that 1.3% can exert control over the remaining 98.7% to the point of complete control is beyond me. That smacks of the same old Jewish conspiracy theories.

Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment

Wow...what a revelation that is! You mean a lobby group would oppose its opposition? No!


The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is ‘dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without qualification’


This must be due to the secretive dark masses of Jews who infiltrate the communications industry.


Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism problem.


Goodness...Arafat was an utter joke and a significant part of the terrorist problem.

16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.

this is a huge part of why Israel is an ally. This strategic advantage cannot be understated. It is very useful for us. These professors claim that it is a an underhanded exchange, but this is in fact one of the most important factors in our relationship with Israel. In a shrinking world economy, strategic relations in that region are critical. Israel is the best business partner.

[epicSocialism4tw]

funny u talk about operating in the shadow world...

The Jews swindled the Americans out of the shadow world long ago. Our government is just a pawn for the Jews.

[Rohirrim]

funny u talk about operating in the shadow world...

Go on. Explain yourself. Take a point made in the essay. Argue against it. Answer this one: Is your support for Israel's continued oppression of non-Jews purely political, or does it rely on some scriptural basis?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Middle Easterners have grown up hating the Jews for decades. It has very little to do with economics or with social issues.

It has everything to do with radical Islam.

You are kidding yourself if you believe anything else.

[mhgaffney]

I just received this op/ed from my colleague Lenni Brenner, a well-known anti Zionist Jew, and the author of several books. Brenner writes frequently about the role of Jews and Zionism in American politics. As usual, his acerbic prose is on target. He points out that while Jews make up only about 2-3 % of the American population, they comprise 24% of the super rich. Therefore Jewish campaign contributions play a disproportionate role in US politics -- and US foreign policy.

But Brenner thinks the days of the "special relationship" with Israel (meaning: Israel right or wrong) are numbered. He argues for publicly funded elections -- and sees a day coming when the Israeli lobby will have to get in line with everyone else. I agree. MHG

www.word-power.co.uk/platform/PlatformStyle-345

"In this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings."

Soros Kicked AIPAC. Obama Kicks Soros. Let's Kick All Three.
By Lenni Brenner

It is a sign of the changing political times that the 3/12 American Israel
Public Affairs Committee Washington conference received much more candid journalistic treatment than AIPAC events have ever received. The NY Times 3/14 report, "Clinton and Obama Court Jewish Vote," got right to the point:

"As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama compete for Jewish
donors and voters, Mrs. Clinton is following a tried-and-true rule of hers from New York -- support Israel to the last -- while Mr. Obama is trying a more delicate strategy that hit some bumps this week."

Clinton never stops pandering to New York's ultra-right Zionists. In an age
when most young educated Jews escape from Judaism and marry gentiles, the 'feminist' candidate is constantly in sex-segregated Orthodox Jewish synagogues, telling them of her great love of Israel, which of course comes from her heart, not from their check books. Her same ol' same ol' speech was remarked on, but Obama is the new comet in the Democratic sky and the Times focused on what was different in his "I am pro-Israel" speech.

"Several Jewish conference-goers said they were concerned by Mr. Obama's
remark Sunday in Iowa where ... he said, 'Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people'.... Obama put the blame on the stalled peace efforts with Israel and on the refusal of the Palestinian government to renounce terrorism."

Obama represents Illinois, "the land of Lincoln." But he models himself after the state's other great philosopher, Al Capone. Chicago's Mafia leader
proclaimed and proved that "kind words and a machine gun will get you more than kind words alone." Obama has a history of telling Arab-Americans that he 'feels the pain' of the Palestinians -- while he supports giving billions in weapons to their oppressors.

The Times coverage of Obama was distinctive for the paper, in giving
competition "for Jewish donors and voters" as the purpose of both leading wannabe Democratic candidates. Since Hitler, for good and bad reasons, writing about Jewish political money has been the great 'no-no' of America's capitalist media. In 1991, I interviewed Harold Seneker, editor of the "Forbes 400" issue of the magazine, for an article in the 2/11 Nation. I estimated that Jews, about 2.5% of Americans, were consistently circa 20% of the 400 richest Americans. He wanted to write a story on it. "Its a success, both for the Jews and capitalism."

But publisher Malcolm Forbes wouldn't let him. He remembered the period after Hitler's 1933 victory inspired American anti-Semitic propaganda about 'Jewish money.' He agreed with Seneker's thesis, but didn't want responsibility for even a slight possible rise in anti-Semitism resulting from an article.

The taboo's negative has been mass media silence about the impact of Zionist money on US domestic and foreign policy since Harry Truman, wanting Jewish campaign contributions, supported Israel's creation in the run up to the 1948 presidential election. But today many journalists, Jew and gentile, are critical of Israel re the Palestinians, zealotry for Bush staying in Iraq and threats of bombing Iran. For them, not talking about Jewish money means not dealing with capitalist America's massive political corruption. Thus the March 2 Forward, New York's prestigious 'Jewish community' weekly, had no hesitation in running "How Many, How Much?," a graph estimating Jews as 24% of the current Forbes 400 listing of the "nation's richest."

Most Jews aren't rich. And among the rich, the most famous political donor,
George Soros, isn't a Zionist. The 3/23 Forward declared that he just dropped a political bomb of "near-nuclear force" on American Zionism. The billionaire's article in the post-dated 4/12 New York Review of Books,
www.nybooks.com/articles/20030, argues that the US does Israel a disservice in ritually backing it:

"While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed .... One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties .... Politicians challenge it at their peril because of the lobby's ability to influence political contributions."

He long ago left Judaism behind, but he kept quiet about this because he "did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of Israel." But now its time for the American Jewish community "to rein in the organization that claims to represent it."

Soros is a Tory reformist. He funds narcotics law reformers and other
worthy-issue groups. But the Drug Policy Alliance, which got 30% of its funds from Soros, welcomed Republican conventioneers to New York in 2004, even as a massive anti-war march protested against Bush and his party's war. Now he wants Israel to negotiate with Hamas. "Fortunately Saudi Arabia, whose position is also precarious, has a genuine interest in promoting a settlement based on two states." He wants the Saudis to lean on Hamas while the US pressures Israel into negotiating itself out of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Never mind that Saudia is a vicious despotism. Ignore US arms to it and
Israel. Forget that the American people have absolutely no interest in arming either criminal government. If Soros got his wishes fulfilled, the result would be "Bantustine," guarded by Israel and America's Arab satraps.

Many Americans also want Israel to deal with Hamas, concerned for horrific
Palestinian living conditions, without sharing the billionaire's naive imperial
mentality. But nuking AIPAC was too much for Obama. His campaign immediately announced that

"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions. But on this issue, he and Senator
Obama disagree. The US and our allies are right to insist that Hamas -- a
terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction -- meet very basic
conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."

Soros is modern proof of Sancho Panza's proverb. He told Don Quixote that "in this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings," and Soros gave
the Democrats $28 million in 2004, knowing his party to be demagogues pandering after Zionist cash, vainly hoping that they would beat Bush. The 3/21 Sun, New York's Zionist daily, was 'right on the money' when it explained Obama's problem. Even if we presume that he really is troubled by the Palestinians' wretched conditions.

"The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising."

Soros cash would buy Obama media ads in Democratic primaries. But taking it means AIPAC billionaires buying ads for Clinton. On the other hand, denouncing Soros doesn't mean him running ads against Obama. And, if he gets nominated, he can reasonably expect Soros to fund him against the Republican. Soros's guileless reformism has ended him up with less, not more, influence in inner circles of his lesser evil.

Democrats hustling Zionist money reaches surreal proportions. Party leaders rage against Jimmy Carter -- their own ex-president! -- for denouncing Israeli apartheid. Obama distances himself from his party's biggest funder. But now the party may have to pay a liberal price for its money chasing. Liberal Jews and gentiles see Obama as anti-Iraq war. But many dislike Israeli policies. If anti-war lefts Keep the AIPAC/Soros/Obama affair in front of their eyes, Obama dumping on Soros can operate to make them suspicious of their party as a real anti-war lesser evil. It doesn't take a high tech crystal ball to see Obama's crisis as our opportunity. If we get our own act together, the anti-war movement can move out of the wings and into the center of the America's political stage.

Soros has more money than educated anti-war Democrats but they don't have more brains than him. For now, they would still vote for any hawk the Democrats pick in 08, as a lesser evil to any Republican. But if we start an internet convention, ASAP, to pick a genuine anti-war presidential candidate by the end of 2007, committed to running against the bipartisan hawk-parties, many will sign on as they come to understand that the US military isn't going to get out of the Middle East, whether the Democrats win or lose.

In 2000 and 2004 they worried that voting for Nader meant electing Bush. But now Democrats run Congress, and they aren't kicking Bush out of Iraq. Working for a Democratic victory as a lesser anti-war evil is no longer axiomatic for such types. In fact, if a left party came to life and drew enough votes from the Democrats to elect a Republican, every pundit, right to left, would understand this to mean that the anti-war movement was growing in number and determination to end all of America's wars, once and for all and forever.

Liberals voted Democrat in 1968 and 1972, fantasizing that their party would end the Vietnam war. It lost. But Nixon's Attorney General stared out of the White House at a gigantic march. Nixon read the handwriting on the
wall: Get out -- or get more radical explosions at home.

We have a better and worse situation. Bush is losing the confidence of
millions of Americans and the Democrats aren't gaining it. But neither are the divided anti-war demonstrators. Nevertheless, we have the same task in 2007 and forever more: We must build a massive united street movement to get US imperialism out of the Middle East and everywhere else, from now to eternity.

Henceforth, no one can talk intelligently about US Middle Eastern policy
without discussing AIPAC, Obama and Soros. We must shout from the rooftops about Zionist campaign contributions. Anti-Semitism is "a fire that has burned itself out" in modern America. It won't spring up from the ashes if we take care. Lecture audiences laugh when I rhetorically defend our politicians:

"Rich Zionists can't just walk in on a Democrat and bribe him! No way!! They must sit in his waiting room with all the other bribe-givers until its their turn!!!"

US politics is the story of unending corruption since New York's Tammany Hall and other 19th century political machines, when Jews, rich or poor, were a minuscule percentage of the population, and Zionists were non-existent. We cannot seriously educate the public about the 'legalized bribery' of Zionist campaign contributions to the modern Republicratic Washington machine without putting it in its matrix of general grafting. We won't persuade most Americans to end Zionist buying of our rulers, alone. Nor should we try, when we certainly can mobilize millions who already want abolition of private election contributions, with publicly funded elections taking their place. In context, documented exposure of Zionism's perfidious role is not only legitimate, it is a perfect educational example of America's government of the rich, by the rich, for the
rich, which must perish from the earth.

***

Lenni Brenner is the author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, and
editor of Jefferson & Madison On Separation of Church and State: Writings on Religion and Secularism. He blogs at www.smithbowen.net/linfame/brenner, and can be reached at BrennerL21@aol.com.

[ak1971]

I just received this op/ed from my colleague Lenni Brenner, a well-known anti Zionist Jew, and the author of several books. Brenner writes frequently about the role of Jews and Zionism in American politics. As usual, his acerbic prose is on target. He points out that while Jews make up only about 2-3 % of the American population, they comprise 24% of the super rich. Therefore Jewish campaign contributions play a disproportionate role in US politics -- and US foreign policy.

But Brenner thinks the days of the "special relationship" with Israel (meaning: Israel right or wrong) are numbered. He argues for publicly funded elections -- and sees a day coming when the Israeli lobby will have to get in line with everyone else. I agree. MHG

www.word-power.co.uk/platform/PlatformStyle-345

"In this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings."

Soros Kicked AIPAC. Obama Kicks Soros. Let's Kick All Three.
By Lenni Brenner

It is a sign of the changing political times that the 3/12 American Israel
Public Affairs Committee Washington conference received much more candid journalistic treatment than AIPAC events have ever received. The NY Times 3/14 report, "Clinton and Obama Court Jewish Vote," got right to the point:

"As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama compete for Jewish
donors and voters, Mrs. Clinton is following a tried-and-true rule of hers from New York -- support Israel to the last -- while Mr. Obama is trying a more delicate strategy that hit some bumps this week."

Clinton never stops pandering to New York's ultra-right Zionists. In an age
when most young educated Jews escape from Judaism and marry gentiles, the 'feminist' candidate is constantly in sex-segregated Orthodox Jewish synagogues, telling them of her great love of Israel, which of course comes from her heart, not from their check books. Her same ol' same ol' speech was remarked on, but Obama is the new comet in the Democratic sky and the Times focused on what was different in his "I am pro-Israel" speech.

"Several Jewish conference-goers said they were concerned by Mr. Obama's
remark Sunday in Iowa where ... he said, 'Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people'.... Obama put the blame on the stalled peace efforts with Israel and on the refusal of the Palestinian government to renounce terrorism."

Obama represents Illinois, "the land of Lincoln." But he models himself after the state's other great philosopher, Al Capone. Chicago's Mafia leader
proclaimed and proved that "kind words and a machine gun will get you more than kind words alone." Obama has a history of telling Arab-Americans that he 'feels the pain' of the Palestinians -- while he supports giving billions in weapons to their oppressors.

The Times coverage of Obama was distinctive for the paper, in giving
competition "for Jewish donors and voters" as the purpose of both leading wannabe Democratic candidates. Since Hitler, for good and bad reasons, writing about Jewish political money has been the great 'no-no' of America's capitalist media. In 1991, I interviewed Harold Seneker, editor of the "Forbes 400" issue of the magazine, for an article in the 2/11 Nation. I estimated that Jews, about 2.5% of Americans, were consistently circa 20% of the 400 richest Americans. He wanted to write a story on it. "Its a success, both for the Jews and capitalism."

But publisher Malcolm Forbes wouldn't let him. He remembered the period after Hitler's 1933 victory inspired American anti-Semitic propaganda about 'Jewish money.' He agreed with Seneker's thesis, but didn't want responsibility for even a slight possible rise in anti-Semitism resulting from an article.

The taboo's negative has been mass media silence about the impact of Zionist money on US domestic and foreign policy since Harry Truman, wanting Jewish campaign contributions, supported Israel's creation in the run up to the 1948 presidential election. But today many journalists, Jew and gentile, are critical of Israel re the Palestinians, zealotry for Bush staying in Iraq and threats of bombing Iran. For them, not talking about Jewish money means not dealing with capitalist America's massive political corruption. Thus the March 2 Forward, New York's prestigious 'Jewish community' weekly, had no hesitation in running "How Many, How Much?," a graph estimating Jews as 24% of the current Forbes 400 listing of the "nation's richest."

Most Jews aren't rich. And among the rich, the most famous political donor,
George Soros, isn't a Zionist. The 3/23 Forward declared that he just dropped a political bomb of "near-nuclear force" on American Zionism. The billionaire's article in the post-dated 4/12 New York Review of Books,
www.nybooks.com/articles/20030, argues that the US does Israel a disservice in ritually backing it:

"While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed .... One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties .... Politicians challenge it at their peril because of the lobby's ability to influence political contributions."

He long ago left Judaism behind, but he kept quiet about this because he "did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of Israel." But now its time for the American Jewish community "to rein in the organization that claims to represent it."

Soros is a Tory reformist. He funds narcotics law reformers and other
worthy-issue groups. But the Drug Policy Alliance, which got 30% of its funds from Soros, welcomed Republican conventioneers to New York in 2004, even as a massive anti-war march protested against Bush and his party's war. Now he wants Israel to negotiate with Hamas. "Fortunately Saudi Arabia, whose position is also precarious, has a genuine interest in promoting a settlement based on two states." He wants the Saudis to lean on Hamas while the US pressures Israel into negotiating itself out of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Never mind that Saudia is a vicious despotism. Ignore US arms to it and
Israel. Forget that the American people have absolutely no interest in arming either criminal government. If Soros got his wishes fulfilled, the result would be "Bantustine," guarded by Israel and America's Arab satraps.

Many Americans also want Israel to deal with Hamas, concerned for horrific
Palestinian living conditions, without sharing the billionaire's naive imperial
mentality. But nuking AIPAC was too much for Obama. His campaign immediately announced that

"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions. But on this issue, he and Senator
Obama disagree. The US and our allies are right to insist that Hamas -- a
terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction -- meet very basic
conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."

Soros is modern proof of Sancho Panza's proverb. He told Don Quixote that "in this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings," and Soros gave
the Democrats $28 million in 2004, knowing his party to be demagogues pandering after Zionist cash, vainly hoping that they would beat Bush. The 3/21 Sun, New York's Zionist daily, was 'right on the money' when it explained Obama's problem. Even if we presume that he really is troubled by the Palestinians' wretched conditions.

"The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising."

Soros cash would buy Obama media ads in Democratic primaries. But taking it means AIPAC billionaires buying ads for Clinton. On the other hand, denouncing Soros doesn't mean him running ads against Obama. And, if he gets nominated, he can reasonably expect Soros to fund him against the Republican. Soros's guileless reformism has ended him up with less, not more, influence in inner circles of his lesser evil.

Democrats hustling Zionist money reaches surreal proportions. Party leaders rage against Jimmy Carter -- their own ex-president! -- for denouncing Israeli apartheid. Obama distances himself from his party's biggest funder. But now the party may have to pay a liberal price for its money chasing. Liberal Jews and gentiles see Obama as anti-Iraq war. But many dislike Israeli policies. If anti-war lefts Keep the AIPAC/Soros/Obama affair in front of their eyes, Obama dumping on Soros can operate to make them suspicious of their party as a real anti-war lesser evil. It doesn't take a high tech crystal ball to see Obama's crisis as our opportunity. If we get our own act together, the anti-war movement can move out of the wings and into the center of the America's political stage.

Soros has more money than educated anti-war Democrats but they don't have more brains than him. For now, they would still vote for any hawk the Democrats pick in 08, as a lesser evil to any Republican. But if we start an internet convention, ASAP, to pick a genuine anti-war presidential candidate by the end of 2007, committed to running against the bipartisan hawk-parties, many will sign on as they come to understand that the US military isn't going to get out of the Middle East, whether the Democrats win or lose.

In 2000 and 2004 they worried that voting for Nader meant electing Bush. But now Democrats run Congress, and they aren't kicking Bush out of Iraq. Working for a Democratic victory as a lesser anti-war evil is no longer axiomatic for such types. In fact, if a left party came to life and drew enough votes from the Democrats to elect a Republican, every pundit, right to left, would understand this to mean that the anti-war movement was growing in number and determination to end all of America's wars, once and for all and forever.

Liberals voted Democrat in 1968 and 1972, fantasizing that their party would end the Vietnam war. It lost. But Nixon's Attorney General stared out of the White House at a gigantic march. Nixon read the handwriting on the
wall: Get out -- or get more radical explosions at home.

We have a better and worse situation. Bush is losing the confidence of
millions of Americans and the Democrats aren't gaining it. But neither are the divided anti-war demonstrators. Nevertheless, we have the same task in 2007 and forever more: We must build a massive united street movement to get US imperialism out of the Middle East and everywhere else, from now to eternity.

Henceforth, no one can talk intelligently about US Middle Eastern policy
without discussing AIPAC, Obama and Soros. We must shout from the rooftops about Zionist campaign contributions. Anti-Semitism is "a fire that has burned itself out" in modern America. It won't spring up from the ashes if we take care. Lecture audiences laugh when I rhetorically defend our politicians:

"Rich Zionists can't just walk in on a Democrat and bribe him! No way!! They must sit in his waiting room with all the other bribe-givers until its their turn!!!"

US politics is the story of unending corruption since New York's Tammany Hall and other 19th century political machines, when Jews, rich or poor, were a minuscule percentage of the population, and Zionists were non-existent. We cannot seriously educate the public about the 'legalized bribery' of Zionist campaign contributions to the modern Republicratic Washington machine without putting it in its matrix of general grafting. We won't persuade most Americans to end Zionist buying of our rulers, alone. Nor should we try, when we certainly can mobilize millions who already want abolition of private election contributions, with publicly funded elections taking their place. In context, documented exposure of Zionism's perfidious role is not only legitimate, it is a perfect educational example of America's government of the rich, by the rich, for the
rich, which must perish from the earth.

***

Lenni Brenner is the author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, and
editor of Jefferson & Madison On Separation of Church and State: Writings on Religion and Secularism. He blogs at www.smithbowen.net/linfame/brenner, and can be reached at BrennerL21@aol.com.


just a matter of time before mlaughney chimes in..

[yavoon]

Go on. Explain yourself. Take a point made in the essay. Argue against it. Answer this one: Is your support for Israel's continued oppression of non-Jews purely political, or does it rely on some scriptural basis?

israel is the most liberal democracy in the entirity of the middle east. muslims/whoever else has more freedoms, rights and opportunities in israel then anywhere else.

obviously no1 is perfect, and the israeli's haven't even always tried to be perfect. they have played in a lot of mud and they are more liberal today than they were 50 years ago. so there is ample room to write hit pieces on israel to fuel whatever political bent u like.

but if u give two ****s about liberalism or democracy, israel is the horse. israel allows gay arab women to meet in public, in safety. they'd be killed anywhere else in the middle east. israel allows muslim members of the knesset(parliment), the rest of the arab states persecute their minorities. israel even allows anti-israeli muslim members of the knesset.

and the best part is, all that foundation leaves the ability to get better, just like the foundation of the constitution said "all men are created equal" and america trudged on w/ slavery.

if u hate liberalism and democracy then sure back hamas, oppose israel. its the only logical thing to do, afterall there are very few jews in the world and a great many muslims. u would certainly get more friends by helping the muslims destroy israel then by helping the jews keep it alive.

[epicSocialism4tw]

America's government of the rich, by the rich, for the
rich, which must perish from the earth.


I hope that this dude isnt an American, because that is treason.

[yavoon]

I hope that this dude isnt an American, because that is treason.

ur just a sheeple. ur day will come u zionist sheeple!

[Spider]

I hope that this dude isnt an American, because that is treason.

it is not ..... how is that treason ? our government should be by the people for the people , not the rich or cooperations.............to believe anything else is anti American and treason

[Spider]

ur just a sheeple. ur day will come u zionist sheeple!

LOL no doubt you are stupid enough to believe this .......... I doubt angry does , I think he misread it .. you are stupid enough though

[mhgaffney]

Middle Easterners have grown up hating the Jews for decades. It has very little to do with economics or with social issues.

It has everything to do with radical Islam.

You are kidding yourself if you believe anything else.

If someone drove you from your house, then bulldozed it (along with your property), ripped up your olive groves and orange trees, then erected new homes for someone else on your land -- would you be pissed?

That's exactly what happened in Palestine.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If someone drove you from your house, then bulldozed it (along with your property), ripped up your olive groves and orange trees, then erected new homes for someone else on your land -- would you be pissed?
That's exactly what happened in Palestine.

That's not why Arabs dislike the Jews.

They tossed the Palestinians out long before the Jews had a chance to be villified for breathing. Nobody's knocking down Jordan's door to force the Palestinians there.

[mhgaffney]

That's not why Arabs dislike the Jews.

They tossed the Palestinians out long before the Jews had a chance to be villified for breathing. Nobody's knocking down Jordan's door to force the Palestinians there.

Huh? What the &^)#@ ar you talking about?

You are just another American (a Wasp?) who doesn't know sheeit from shinola..

Get your hands on a copy of Benny Morris's book THE ORIGINS OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM.

That's the medicine for what ails you. But take my word, it's a bitter pill.

The book documents in graphic detail the ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967 of 700,000 Palestinians by the Zionist army.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Gaffer, you're nuts.

Nobody in that region wants the Palestinians. They have been rejected by every Muslim nation in the region.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Great, Rohirrim...you have created a monster here.

You put out a calling card for the Gaff.

;D

[Rohirrim]

I know one of the great turning points in the Irish problem (that has now led to real peace) was when Americans of Irish descent stopped supporting the IRA.

[mhgaffney]

Gaffer, you're nuts.

Nobody in that region wants the Palestinians. They have been rejected by every Muslim nation in the region.

Nuts?

No, just informed. Two weeks ago at a major Arab summit the Arab nations again extended to Israel the 2002 peace offer made by Saudi Arabia. This was an offer not only to recognize Israel but for full normalized relations -- trade, cultural ties, the works.

The sole condition: that Israel withdraws from the occupied territories and allows the Palestinians to have their mini state.

And once again, Israel thumbed its nose at the offer. In fact, this peace offer was so serious that Condy Rice even went to Jerusalem to pressure PM Olmert. But, to no avail. As usual, Olmert told Rice how it is and she came back home with her little tail between her legs.

Once again -- the tail wagged the dog.

The truth is that these Arab peace offers make the Zionists REALLY nervous. The thing they hate more than anything else is the threat of peace.

If you don't know what I'm talking about it's cause you just haven't been paying attention. You and a lot of other people.

[El Minion]

Here's an attempt to discuss Israel's role on Bush's reasoning to invade Iraq, that the mass media didn't raise.

--------------------------
What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq
President Bush won't discuss two big reasons he wants to invade Iraq.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, Oct. 24, 2002, at 3:40 PM ET

So, why exactly is Iraq different from North Korea? Both are founding members of President Bush's "axis of evil," and both deserve that honor. North Korea has now admitted to a nuclear weapons development program on about the same timeline as what we only suspect about Iraq. So, why are we barely complaining in one case and off to war in the other?

Bush addressed this conundrum the other day. "Saddam Hussein is unique," he explained. "He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years … and for 11 years he has said, 'No, I refuse to disarm.' " The North Koreans, by contrast, said, "Yes, we will disarm"—they promised to stop building nukes in exchange for help in developing peaceful nuclear power—and then they didn't do it. I guess that's a difference, but it sounds as if we're punishing Saddam for his honesty.

Bush's public case for going to war against Iraq is full of logical inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies. It reeks of ex-post-facto: First came the desire, and then came the reasons. But this raises a troubling question, especially for opponents of Bush's policy: If his ostensible reasons are unpersuasive even to him, what are his real reasons? There must be some: Nobody starts a war as a lark. It would be easier to dismiss the whole exercise if there were an obvious ulterior motive. Without one, you are left wondering, "Am I missing something?"

Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe. They do not think the concern over potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is negligible or insincere, but they do think that "oil and Israel" is a pretty good summary of what, for President Bush, makes Iraq different from your run-of-the-mill evil dictatorship. Yet this presumption about Bush, and these issues themselves, barely appear in the flood of speculation and argument about Bush War II.

"President Bush" is, of course, a metaphor. Much Washington political commentary and analysis is basically a discussion of what or whom the term "President Bush" is a metaphor for. Is it Karl Rove? Is it still Karen Hughes, although she has decamped? Even more than most presidents, Bush is regarded as the sum total of his advisers. Regarding Iraq, the advisers themselves are also used as metaphors, often in plural to signify a stereotype. "The Cheneys and the Rumsfelds" evokes a retro world of confident white CEOs in suits, oil barons, and the military industrial complex. "The Wolfowitzes and the Richard Perles" evokes—well, you know what it evokes.

The idea that oil is a factor in official thinking about Iraq shouldn't even be controversial. Protecting oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was an explicit—though disingenuously underemphasized—reason for Bush War I. After all, we couldn't claim to be fighting to restore democracy to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, let alone Iraq. This time around, the fact that Bush and Cheney are both oil men is suggestive, but the implication is not clear. A war to topple Saddam will raise oil prices in the short run but probably lower them in the longer run by stabilizing the supply. An oil man could have sincerely mixed feelings about these prospects. Surely, though, even a sensible opponent of the war ought to register a steady oil supply as one of the better reasons for it.

The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. But the consequence of this massive "Shhhhhhhhh!" is to make a perfectly valid American concern for a democratic ally in a region of nutty theocracies, rotting monarchies, and worse seem furtive and suspicious.

Having brought this up, I hasten to add a few self-protective points. The president's advisors, Jewish and non-Jewish, are patriotic Americans who sincerely believe that the interests of America and Israel coincide. What's more, they are right about that, though they may be wrong about where that shared interest lies. Among Jewish Americans, including me, there are people who hold every conceivable opinion about war with Iraq with every variation of intensity, including passionate opposition and complete indifference. Jews are undoubtedly overrepresented in what little organized antiwar movement there may be (thus feeding another variant of the anti-Semitic stereotype).

Why and whether an American war against Iraq would be good for Israel is far from clear and is the subject of vigorous debate in Israel itself—but not in America. Theories range from the mundane to the exotic to the paranoid: Clearing out a neighborhood troublemaker before he gets the bomb is reason enough. Or, deposing Saddam will set off a complex regional chain reaction that will somehow turn the Arab nations into peaceful bourgeois societies. Or, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon actually wants a huge regional conflagration that he can use as an excuse and cover for expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank. In any event, the downside risk for Israel—of carnage, military and civilian—is like America's, only far greater.

But we'd better not talk about it.

Michael Kinsley is American editor of Guardian Unlimited (London) and the founding editor of Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2073093/
Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

[alkemical]

Ex-AIPAC staffers say Condi leaked them classified info (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/29053/edition_id/550/format/html/displaystory.html)


alexandria, va. | Two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee say Condoleezza Rice was their informant on sensitive national security matters.

The claim, laid out in a courtroom Friday, April 21, intensified the drama surrounding a trial that could further roil a Washington political establishment already consumed by cases involving “official” and “unofficial” leaks.

The trial date, originally scheduled to begin April 25, has now been set for Aug. 7, even as the judge in the case continues to suggest the case might not go to trial at all.

In last week’s pretrial hearing, lawyers for Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, persuaded federal Judge T.S. Ellis III to allow a subpoena for the secretary of state and three other current and former Middle East policy officials.

Rosen and Weissman were indicted last August on charges that they relayed classified information to fellow AIPAC staffers, journalists and diplomats at the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

[Rohirrim]

Kinsley was the only one with the guts to bring it up. He was quoted in the essay ("the proverbial elephant in the room"). It's clear that these writers are not focusing on Jews in general, the same as Kinsley, but on the right wing, Sharon and the Likud, and their linkage with the neocons who permeate the Bush administration and who in fact, dreamed up this whole Iraq fiasco. I found it interesting that Sharon was the first individual noted as coming up with the idea that flowers will greet the American "liberators" and, once Saddam is gone, everything will be absolutely peachy in the ME. It's almost a verbatim foreshadowing of Cheney's stance. Bush still clings to that fairy tale.

As Americans, we should be able to get an answer to the question; Were we coerced into invading Iraq by agents of Israel?

[bendog]

The problem with comparing the Jewish Lobby to the NRA or any other lobby is that the Jewish Lobby is in effect the agent of a foreign govt. So, when a guy with longstanding ties to the Jewish lobby (Doug Feith) "inappropriately" uses intelligence to justify going to war, in which we take tens of thousands of casualties and pretty much wreck the volunteer army for a decade, the question becomes ... is he a traitor?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I can't read the yavoon post's because I'm not in possession of any translator that handles those cryptograms but who would have ever thought that Mad Yak's immediate answer would be "religious persecution"?

Just a thought, why do we funnel billions into Israel which is the only nuclear power in the region and well able to defend themselves?

[alkemical]

I can't read the yavoon post's because I'm not in possession of any translator that handles those cryptograms but who would have ever thought that Mad Yak's immediate answer would be "religious persecution"?

Just a thought, why do we funnel billions into Israel which is the only nuclear power in the region and well able to defend themselves?


Would it be money laundering for the billions we send over there (tax payer dollars), and a chunk of it gets funneled back through AIPAC to the politicians in the US gov't - is that money laundering?

[alkemical]

Also another question:

Zionism does exist. You can have the state in where - the jewish people believe they should have their own state - because some how "they are gods chosen people". Then you have the exremists whom believe that only israel should exist in the holy land.

Zionism is part of the arab/israel conflict - where as israel doesn't think palestinians should have their own land - yet israeli's should.

Basically it's a bunch of two year olds in a sand box who can't share.

F' 'em all - I don't care about israel - they don't do anything for me. I don't care about the palestinian cause - they don't do anything for me.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Also another question:

Zionism does exist. You can have the state in where - the jewish people believe they should have their own state - because some how "they are gods chosen people". Then you have the exremists whom believe that only israel should exist in the holy land.

Zionism is part of the arab/israel conflict - where as israel doesn't think palestinians should have their own land - yet israeli's should.

Basically it's a bunch of two year olds in a sand box who can't share.

F' 'em all - I don't care about israel - they don't do anything for me. I don't care about the palestinian cause - they don't do anything for me.This is basically how I feel. But I do care about billions of our tax dollars disappearing in a black hole over there.

[alkemical]

This is basically how I feel. But I do care about billions of our tax dollars disappearing in a black hole over there.

That i do care about as well.

[alkemical]

http://www.washington-report.org/archives/March_2006/0603028.html

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism

Indeed, it was this terror funding of Israeli far-right militiamen that tripped Abramoff up, since the FBI discovered that he had misled Indian tribes into giving money to the Jabotinskyites, and then began wondering if he had defrauded the tribes in other ways. (You betcha!) The Indian leaders were furious when they discovered they had been used to oppress another dispossessed indigenous people, the Palestinians, calling it “Outer Limits bizarre” and saying that they would never have willingly given money to such a cause.

Newsweek’s Mike Issikoff reported last May that Abramoff diverted $140,000 from a charity ostensibly to benefit inner-city youths to militant Israeli colonists who had usurped land in the Palestinian West Bank. Issikoff wrote:

“Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as ‘security’ equipment. The FBI, sources tell Newsweek, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients…”

[alkemical]

Media seeks public access in upcoming AIPAC lobbyists’ trial (http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/new_singleEdit.asp?rVal=19707412113505&origin=emailRefer&individual_SQL=4/10/2007@14554.htm)


ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — News organizations filed documents in federal court Monday opposing a government request to close portions of an upcoming trial of two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act.

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are concerned the government wants to keep large portions of evidence in the case out of public view when former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman go to trial.

Defense attorneys have expressed a similar concern, filing a motion to ''Strike the Government's Request to Close the Trial.''

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III rejected a similar motion filed last month and said at the time that he thought defense lawyers were being overdramatic in portraying the government as seeking to ''close the trial.''

In rare cases, courts have allowed the government to use what is called ''the silent witness rule,'' in which a jury sees certain evidence against the defendants that is never made available publicly.

Rosen and Weissman are accused of violating a rarely prosecuted World War I-era law that bars the receipt and disclosure of national defense information.

[El Minion]

The Israel-Palestine debate is right out of the Bush playbook: You are either with us or against us. Jimmy Carter, the humanitarian, got heavily criticized for even questioning Israel's policies towards Palestinians (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7999232.story?coll=la-home-commentary):

-----------------
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.
By Jimmy Carter
JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman's in Pasadena.

December 8, 2006

I SIGNED A CONTRACT with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.

We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.

The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

[bendog]

Folks are confusing anti-semitism with fear of the Jewish Lobby and Likud. American Jews have never been a threat to America. In fact they've pushed for tolerance and civil rights and fought in every war.

The Jewish Lobby id financed by a minority, and the expansionist uber-zionist agenda COINCIDES WTH THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S AGENDA. Both socially in the United States, where the RR wants to push the old testament as social policy, and in the Mid East, where the RR wants Israel to reestablish the Jewish Kingdom and rebuild the temple ... to usher in the rapture. You don't have to look much further than the guys bushii has do prayer breakfasts ... including Ted Haggard. Further, the neocon notion for using the military to secure economic forays into the third world fits nicely with the Likud concept of using the IDF as a colonizing power.

[alkemical]

Bendog,

I've learned there's a difference between anti-semitism & anti-zionism

[Rohirrim]

It really reminds me of the IRA and the American Irish. Myself, and many in my family, supported the IRA for decades because we wanted a unified Irish republic, free of all English interference, no matter what the cost. We would not forgive or forget the ancient wrongs. It was schooled into the children. My grandmother went to her grave cursing the Black & Tans. Eventually, even our own family in Ireland were writing that the cost was becoming too great and the violence on both sides was out of control. It had become a form of madness; Feeding on itself. There had to be a political solution.

I see a lot of similarities in Israel. The hard heads keep banging away at each other while the Jews of America, for numerous reasons ranging from guilt to zeolatry, keep funding the bloodshed and squelching debate. As a descendant of the Irish, I don't find it too difficult at all to sympathize with the Palestinians. There are many parallels you could draw between the Intifada and the Irish War of Indepence - including acts of terrorism on both sides.

I think the Jews of America, who support AIPAC, must begin discussing the questions that the writers of the essay, Jimmy Carter and others have raised. They must face the ugly possibility that American soldiers are dying in Iraq in order to support an oppressive regime in Tel Aviv that their funding is helping to support. They must also face the fact that the lobby they support is vigorously attacking even the possibility of open debate on Israel in the United States - a distinctly anti-democratic position.

The zealots like Dershowitz will never be convinced that a new dialogue has to take place. But when I look at Ireland now, I can see that it is possible. Even Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are now having a dialogue, which is something I would have declared totally impossible just five years ago. Ireland has come out of its long nightmare and is now blossoming like never before. The same is possible in Israel, but the American Jews must cease their support of the hardliners.

[yavoon]

It really reminds me of the IRA and the American Irish. Myself, and many in my family, supported the IRA for decades because we wanted a unified Irish republic, free of all English interference, no matter what the cost. We would not forgive or forget the ancient wrongs. It was schooled into the children. My grandmother went to her grave cursing the Black & Tans. Eventually, even our own family in Ireland were writing that the cost was becoming too great and the violence on both sides was out of control. It had become a form of madness; Feeding on itself. There had to be a political solution.

I see a lot of similarities in Israel. The hard heads keep banging away at each other while the Jews of America, for numerous reasons ranging from guilt to zeolatry, keep funding the bloodshed and squelching debate. As a descendant of the Irish, I don't find it too difficult at all to sympathize with the Palestinians. There are many parallels you could draw between the Intifada and the Irish War of Indepence - including acts of terrorism on both sides.

I think the Jews of America, who support AIPAC, must begin discussing the questions that the writers of the essay, Jimmy Carter and others have raised. They must face the ugly possibility that American soldiers are dying in Iraq in order to support an oppressive regime in Tel Aviv that their funding is helping to support. They must also face the fact that the lobby they support is vigorously attacking even the possibility of open debate on Israel in the United States - a distinctly anti-democratic position.

The zealots like Dershowitz will never be convinced that a new dialogue has to take place. But when I look at Ireland now, I can see that it is possible. Even Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are now having a dialogue, which is something I would have declared totally impossible just five years ago. Ireland has come out of its long nightmare and is now blossoming like never before. The same is possible in Israel, but the American Jews must cease their support of the hardliners.

so israel is the IRA and palestine is britain?

thats the dumbest ass backwards analogy ever. nowhere in the IRA in britain was anywhere near the propaganda of hatred that exists now in the middle east and palestine.

the IRA were a bunch of second grade schoolgirls in comparison to the islamic terrorists. the IRA called in before hand on places it bombed so fewer ppl(hopefully no1) died. the muslims show up at rush hour just to make sure as many ppl die as possible.

there hasnt existed a single leader in the history of palestine who wanted peace. there have only been different views of jihad. arafat wanted a long jihad, involving consistant bombings, but w/ mostly massive birth rates and endemic discrimination. hamas wants a quicker jihad w/ glorious military victory. and u think what the israeli's decide matters? the height of stupidity.

[alkemical]

It really reminds me of the IRA and the American Irish. Myself, and many in my family, supported the IRA for decades because we wanted a unified Irish republic, free of all English interference, no matter what the cost. We would not forgive or forget the ancient wrongs. It was schooled into the children. My grandmother went to her grave cursing the Black & Tans. Eventually, even our own family in Ireland were writing that the cost was becoming too great and the violence on both sides was out of control. It had become a form of madness; Feeding on itself. There had to be a political solution.

I see a lot of similarities in Israel. The hard heads keep banging away at each other while the Jews of America, for numerous reasons ranging from guilt to zeolatry, keep funding the bloodshed and squelching debate. As a descendant of the Irish, I don't find it too difficult at all to sympathize with the Palestinians. There are many parallels you could draw between the Intifada and the Irish War of Indepence - including acts of terrorism on both sides.

I think the Jews of America, who support AIPAC, must begin discussing the questions that the writers of the essay, Jimmy Carter and others have raised. They must face the ugly possibility that American soldiers are dying in Iraq in order to support an oppressive regime in Tel Aviv that their funding is helping to support. They must also face the fact that the lobby they support is vigorously attacking even the possibility of open debate on Israel in the United States - a distinctly anti-democratic position.

The zealots like Dershowitz will never be convinced that a new dialogue has to take place. But when I look at Ireland now, I can see that it is possible. Even Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are now having a dialogue, which is something I would have declared totally impossible just five years ago. Ireland has come out of its long nightmare and is now blossoming like never before. The same is possible in Israel, but the American Jews must cease their support of the hardliners.

Nice post - i may have some follow up questions later.....

[yavoon]

Bendog,

I've learned there's a difference between anti-semitism & anti-zionism

anti-zionism is the politically correct way of hating jews. I can't remember the last time someone called themselves an anti semite. but if u look at the club membership of the anti-zionists u get all the worlds great terrorist leaders, all the especially rabid leftist hate groups and all the wonderful muslim despots.

[Rohirrim]

anti-zionism is the politically correct way of hating jews. I can't remember the last time someone called themselves an anti semite. but if u look at the club membership of the anti-zionists u get all the worlds great terrorist leaders, all the especially rabid leftist hate groups and all the wonderful muslim despots.

Man, you should be the professor emeritus of the University of Talking Out Your Ass. Zionism is the concept that there should exist a strictly Jewish state, in other words, a theocratic/political entity, in the world. It's a concept that flies directly in the face of every tenet of the U.S. Constitution. And as far as the analogy above, which not surprisingly, went over your head like a cruise missile, the Palestinians are in much the same situation the Irish were in and the oppressive power was the British - in the analogy, the Israeli government.

[yavoon]

Man, you should be the professor emeritus of the University of Talking Out Your Ass. Zionism is the concept that there should exist a strictly Jewish state, in other words, a theocratic/political entity, in the world. It's a concept that flies directly in the face of every tenet of the U.S. Constitution. And as far as the analogy above, which not surprisingly, went over your head like a cruise missile, the Palestinians are in much the same situation the Irish were in and the oppressive power was the British - in the analogy, the Israeli government.

if thats true then zionism has already been defeated and ur slaughtering the greatest straw man ever.

there are muslims in the knesset.

like I've said several times, israel is the most liberal/democratic country in the middle east. so perhaps u can come into reality.

so now u think the IRA are the palestinians? like I said before, the IRA were school children compared to the palestinians, and the palestinians oppress their own ppl far worse than the israeli gov't does. ur analogy is just awful, ur conception of israel is awful and ur definition of zionism creates the largest straw man ever constructed.

[Rohirrim]

if thats true then zionism has already been defeated and ur slaughtering the greatest straw man ever.

there are muslims in the knesset.

And they have about as much power as the Irish members of Parliament had in the 19th century.

like I've said several times, israel is the most liberal/democratic country in the middle east. so perhaps u can come into reality.

Which is like saying you're the tallest person in Lilliput.

so now u think the IRA are the palestinians? like I said before, the IRA were school children compared to the palestinians, and the palestinians oppress their own ppl far worse than the israeli gov't does. ur analogy is just awful, ur conception of israel is awful and ur definition of zionism creates the largest straw man ever constructed.

I would need a super tanker to haul all that bull**** away.

[alkemical]

anti-zionism is the politically correct way of hating jews. I can't remember the last time someone called themselves an anti semite. but if u look at the club membership of the anti-zionists u get all the worlds great terrorist leaders, all the especially rabid leftist hate groups and all the wonderful muslim despots.


Wrong. But then being jewish from my mothers side - maybe i'm more qualified on the subject than ye with an agenda.

[yavoon]

And they have about as much power as the Irish members of Parliament had in the 19th century.



Which is like saying you're the tallest person in Lilliput.



I would need a super tanker to haul all that bull**** away.

so not even democratic elections in a liberal gov't are enough for ur ass huh? the great jewspiracy must keep moving! GLORY TO HAMAS AND THE GLORIOUS RESISTANCE!

DOWN W/ THE DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL ZIONIST ENTITY!

[yavoon]

Wrong. But then being jewish from my mothers side - maybe i'm more qualified on the subject than ye with an agenda.

dont need to take my word for it. look at the membership of ur little anti zionist club. and claiming some meandering jewish heritage hardly makes u right. but it might get u invited to ahmidenijad's next holocaust denial conference. u should call him and see if u can be of use in the fight against the zionists and the lies of the holocaust.

[Rohirrim]

so not even democratic elections in a liberal gov't are enough for ur ass huh? the great jewspiracy must keep moving! GLORY TO HAMAS AND THE GLORIOUS RESISTANCE!


DOWN W/ THE DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL ZIONIST ENTITY!

Your one effed up puppy. Don't bother responding. I'm wasting no more time on your ignorant ass.

[mhgaffney]

Someone posted this:

The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.

This was a reference to the role of AIPAC (the Israel lobby).

But there's also another elephant in the room: Israel's nuclear weapons program. The US gov't has never officially acknowledged that it exists.

And yet everyone knows that it does. Israel has at least 200 nukes aimed at every city in the Arab world. And yet, not one word about this -- even as we prepare to attack Iran with another round of shock and awe-- and why?

To stop Iran from getting nukes! It's the same old WMD argument the neo cons used to attack Iraq. Same old same old.

The whole world sees our hypocrisy.

Iran has offered to give up its nuclear ambitions if the US and Israel will do likewise. And that's the only way out of our current predicament. Let us start by insisting that Israel sign the NPT and open its nuclear sites to inspectors.

Is anyone listening?

[alkemical]

dont need to take my word for it. look at the membership of ur little anti zionist club. and claiming some meandering jewish heritage hardly makes u right. but it might get u invited to ahmidenijad's next holocaust denial conference. u should call him and see if u can be of use in the fight against the zionists and the lies of the holocaust.



Why would i call the president of iran? I'm sure the conversations would be as productive as the ones i have with you...... But then again you only want to use us jewish people for your agenda.

[yavoon]

Your one effed up puppy. Don't bother responding. I'm wasting no more time on your ignorant ass.

I see u followed up ur jewspiracy w/ a nice 9/11 shot. very enlightening. I'm sure its all massive coincidence though.

[yavoon]

Why would i call the president of iran? I'm sure the conversations would be as productive as the ones i have with you...... But then again you only want to use us jewish people for your agenda.

my agenda of defending liberalism? oooooooo. quick better makeup a conspiracy for me!

[alkemical]

Ohh maybe you can misspell some words and throw some more insults since ya ain't got **** to stand on sonny.

[yavoon]

Ohh maybe you can misspell some words and throw some more insults since ya ain't got **** to stand on sonny.

what **** to stand on? I'm not one to go around disproving good jewspiracies.

though I do think this site is pretty cool.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

[alkemical]

what **** to stand on? I'm not one to go around disproving good jewspiracies.


http://www.ejectejecteject.com/



No you only wish to use us jewish people for your agenda. Imagine that someone wanting to use my people for an agenda. You are nothing but a gollum.

[yavoon]

No you only wish to use us jewish people for your agenda. Imagine that someone wanting to use my people for an agenda. You are nothing but a gollum.

u already made this post here:

"Why would i call the president of iran? I'm sure the conversations would be as productive as the ones i have with you...... But then again you only want to use us jewish people for your agenda."

somehow I doubt ur the representative of ur ppl. but I like the combination of conspiracy directed at me and the indignation. its great.

unfortunately I will continue to defend liberalism, even if it is "ur ppl" who are the liberals. afterall, I'm confident that atleast some of them believe in liberalism and aren't weasally relativists like u.

[alkemical]

You are much more a relativist than anyone on this board. Your posts show it time and time again. Again you show you are only using us Jews as a means to your agenda.

[yavoon]

You are much more a relativist than anyone on this board. Your posts show it time and time again. Again you show you are only using us Jews as a means to your agenda.

more **** against a wall stuff eh? "u call me a relativist! ur a relativst! I'm rubber and ur glue!"

glad u combined ur weak kneed agenda crap w/ ur equally stupid second grade comeback about relativism.

[alkemical]

more **** against a wall stuff eh? "u call me a relativist! ur a relativst! I'm rubber and ur glue!"

glad u combined ur weak kneed agenda crap w/ ur equally stupid second grade comeback about relativism.

I have to make my posts stupid for you to understand them. There's a lesson in relativism for ya.

[yavoon]

I have to make my posts stupid for you to understand them. There's a lesson in relativism for ya.

I seem to have upset ur lil marxist sensibilities.

I apologize.

[alkemical]

I seem to have upset ur lil marxist sensibilities.

I apologize.

How again am i a marxist, or are you just flinging poo again?

[yavoon]

How again am i a marxist, or are you just flinging poo again?

I can only go by what u actually write. its not my fault u parrot marxist rhetoric.

[alkemical]

I can only go by what u actually write. its not my fault u parrot marxist rhetoric.

well then u aren't reading that gr8. U C, if u read any of my posts, you'd see they are anarchistic in n8ture. Sorry to upset your facist view points.

[yavoon]

well then u aren't reading that gr8. U C, if u read any of my posts, you'd see they are anarchistic in n8ture. Sorry to upset your facist view points.

like I said in other thread. gee, an "anarchist" spouting marxist rhetoric, where could one get an idea like that?

"And in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents."
-Noam Chomsky

OH NO's! time to go into denial mode clav. though I do recommend along w/ denial that u add in some attacks back my way. the rubber and glue tactic, not so good. calling me a fascist, while equally untenable, is atleast more standard fare.

[alkemical]

like I said in other thread. gee, an "anarchist" spouting marxist rhetoric, where could one get an idea like that?

"And in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents."
-Noam Chomsky

OH NO's! time to go into denial mode clav. though I do recommend along w/ denial that u add in some attacks back my way. the rubber and glue tactic, not so good. calling me a fascist, while equally untenable, is atleast more standard fare.

Exactly how am i a radical marxist when i'm an anarchist more closely defined with say H.D. Thoreau. I know you haven't read any Thoreau, he uses actual words when he writes. So are you still using basless character smears, or do you have some proof?

PS - If you hate muslims, go enlist and kill some.

[yavoon]

Exactly how am i a radical marxist when i'm an anarchist more closely defined with say H.D. Thoreau. I know you haven't read any Thoreau, he uses actual words when he writes. So are you still using basless character smears, or do you have some proof?

PS - If you hate muslims, go enlist and kill some.

good thing I dont hate muslims then.

this is entertaining watching u in caught denial mode. the weird mix of violent hatred towards me by insinuating I want to kill other ppl and the relative meandering stupidity of ur denials provides an entertaining combination.

[alkemical]

good thing I dont hate muslims then.

this is entertaining watching u in caught denial mode. the weird mix of violent hatred towards me by insinuating I want to kill other ppl and the relative meandering stupidity of ur denials provides an entertaining combination.

How can i deny what i am not? This is just catching you in your own stupidity. How can i be a paranoid person who fears gov't control & be a marxist Yvonne?

Huh - guess your stupidity knows no bounds....lol - i like catching you in your bull**** - unfortunatley it's much too easy and - well you bore me. Have a good day and i love you!

[yavoon]

How can i deny what i am not? This is just catching you in your own stupidity. How can i be a paranoid person who fears gov't control & be a marxist Yvonne?

Huh - guess your stupidity knows no bounds....lol - i like catching you in your bull**** - unfortunatley it's much too easy and - well you bore me. Have a good day and i love you!

umm I've talked to lots of marxists who constantly spout conspiracy theories against the gov't, who indulge in all the sorts of "concerned citizen" crap u indulge in.

I dont know what ridiculously stupid thought got into ur head that marxists dont hold conspiracy theories against the gov't. but its nice that u built an entire post on this stupidity.

I see now ever since I pointed out chomsky's notion that marxists and anarchists are similar after u a self proclaimed anarchist went around spouting marxist rhetoric. that u've upped the completely stupid attack posts against me.

obviously I hit a nerve. BETTER ATTACK!

[alkemical]

umm I've talked to lots of marxists who constantly spout conspiracy theories against the gov't, who indulge in all the sorts of "concerned citizen" crap u indulge in.

I dont know what ridiculously stupid thought got into ur head that marxists dont hold conspiracy theories against the gov't. but its nice that u built an entire post on this stupidity.

I see now ever since I pointed out chomsky's notion that marxists and anarchists are similar after u a self proclaimed anarchist went around spouting marxist rhetoric. that u've upped the completely stupid attack posts against me.

obviously I hit a nerve. BETTER ATTACK!


Actually you are the one that attacked me - and have not proved anything about me - other than insinuation - that i'm a marxist. While people whom are marxists may use anarchists to instill volitility in a society to ursurp control from the established gov't of the state - There's one problem - since anarchists are very much opposed to any form of nanny-state - they don't see the long term hijack planned out. It's no different that someone using another race or religion to further propogate their agenda.

Now i've attacked you - but only in retort - you are the one whom flaims wildly calling everyone stupid whom doesn't agree with you - or even better - when they prove your bull**** - is well bull ****.

But i love you and it's late - so why don't you come to bed :)

[yavoon]

Actually you are the one that attacked me - and have not proved anything about me - other than insinuation - that i'm a marxist. While people whom are marxists may use anarchists to instill volitility in a society to ursurp control from the established gov't of the state - There's one problem - since anarchists are very much opposed to any form of nanny-state - they don't see the long term hijack planned out. It's no different that someone using another race or religion to further propogate their agenda.

Now i've attacked you - but only in retort - you are the one whom flaims wildly calling everyone stupid whom doesn't agree with you - or even better - when they prove your bull**** - is well bull ****.

But i love you and it's late - so why don't you come to bed :)

so u quote marxist rhetoric, claim to be an anarchist, and I dig up a very fitting quote from chomsky declaring how marxists and anarchists are infact very similar and u go all bat ****.

face it clav, if u didnt say it, I wouldn't have anything. ur the person typing this stupid crap.

and didnt in ur last post say that I bored u and that I should have a good day?

I'm eagerly awaiting ur next misstep that u will get all haughty about and deny then flame me for. I'm seeing a pattern here, dont show clav a mirror.

[alkemical]

*Kisses*