| Author | Message | | sharkman | | Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:42 am Post subject: how israel corrupts and controls the us congress and media |
| i know it is the pro-israel aipac lobby that has great influence as you can see how much each member of congress gets at:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Bush's domestic politics and the pro-Israeli tilt
By James O. Goldsborough
San Diego Union-Tribune
April 25, 2002
How are Americans to understand President Bush's kowtowing to
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?
Told to withdraw Israeli forces from the West Bank "without delay,"
Sharon refused. As Israel reduced the Jenin refugee camp to rubble
using U.S.-supplied arms, Bush praised him as a "man of peace." The
man of peace now wants to dictate the composition of a U.N.
fact-finding mission, approved with U.S. support, into Jenin.
As former President Carter pointed out Sunday, presidents don't just
spin their wheels. Presidents have power levers. In the case of
Israel, said Carter, the levers are two: We provide $10 million per
day in aid to Israel; we supply Israel weapons for defensive
purposes only, not for attacks on refugees.
Bush is having a rocky time. He rides high approval ratings because
of Sept. 11, but faced with the complexity of Middle East politics,
he is at sea. A man of domestic politics, he founders in the world
arena, where America has the reputation of being a superpower.
Bush's instinct from the beginning was to pull back from world
affairs. Just as he would be the anti-Clinton, he would be the
anti-Bush I. Those two presidents were too involved in the world,
too busy with alliances, agencies, treaties and all those things
that tie a good Texan down.
Bush wanted to "park" the Mideast. Last fall, when the White House
finally issued a few tepid words of caution about Israel's
bulldozing of Palestinian homes, Sharon accused Bush of Munich-style
"appeasement." To this gross insult to a nation that took no part in
Munich, the White House tut-tutted, asking Sharon to make friendlier
comments, which he did.
This month, however, as Israeli troops invaded the West Bank, Bush
said, "stop." Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the Middle
East to secure a troop withdrawal.
Bush was likely pushed into the Powell trip by his father and Brent
Scowcroft, who are said to have his ear. Neither John Ashcroft, the
fundamentalist zealot who is attorney general, nor Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld expressed support. Tom DeLay, the rabid House whip,
urged fellow born-again Christian Bush to eliminate Yasser Arafat,
not talk to him.
It took some moxie for Bush to "unpark" the Middle East, but then he
collapsed. There's no way to pretty this up. Sharon told him to take
a jump, and he did. Is there a precedent for a presidential mission
coming up so empty? Marshall's trip to Moscow in 1947? Kissinger and
Le Duc Tho in Paris in 1972? James Baker in Geneva with Tariq Aziz
in 1991?
In each of those cases, America reacted decisively. There is a price
to be paid for opposing our interests. That's what power politics is
all about.
Foreign policy can't be driven by parochial interests. A nation that
aspires to leadership must have more to its policy than local
politics. In the Middle East, U.S. leadership is accepted because we
are viewed as an honest broker. Many administrations have kept it
that way. We don't kowtow.
The Bush administration is different. It appears to care more about
political support from American Jews than about a fair Mideast peace
accord. When Bush I and Baker stopped Israel in 1991 from using U.S.
money to build illegal settlements on Arab land, they were attacked
by the pro-Israel lobby. Said Baker: "---- the Jews, they don't vote
for us anyway."
Bush II doesn't accept that. He believes in political realignment.
He thinks he can win the Hispanic vote, which is 75 percent
Democratic. If Hispanics, why not Jews, who voted 4-1 for Democrats
in 2000? It's not just that the Jewish vote in a state such as
Florida might be crucial in 2004, but that being pro-Israel helps
him with conservatives, religious fundamentalists, the South and the
media.
U.S. media are strongly pro-Israel. One criticizes Israel at the
risk of being called anti-Semitic. New York Times columnist William
Safire, who acts as the official media spokesman for Israel, lashes
out at the "ridicule of liberal pundits" like Mary McGrory to Mark
Shields who dare to criticize Israel. All two of them.
Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation, recently compiled a list
of commentators who write on the Middle East. Sixty-five were listed
as supporting Israel, right or wrong. Five were listed as willing to
criticize both Israel and the Palestinians. Another five, only one
of them writing for the national press, was listed as anti-Israel.
Politicians and the media feed off each other. If a politician dares
speak out against Israel, he is pilloried by the Safire 65, and soon
has Jews shouting charges of anti-Semitism at him.
A former California member of Congress told me this story: A
colleague was running for the Senate. AIPAC, the Jewish lobby,
approached him. AIPAC would organize fund-raisers for him in five
cities, each with a guaranteed take of $100,000.
AIPAC asked for only one thing in return: If he won, he would commit
to vote in favor of the $3.5 billion in aid Israel receives annually
from America.
I get my share of anti-Semitic charges. To my accusers, I ask: Why
wasn't I anti-Semitic between 1993 and 2001, during the Oslo peace
process? With Sharon, Israel will never have peace. You confuse
anti-Semitism with anti-Sharonism.
To the latter, I plead guilty. But then, so do many of my Jewish
friends.
truth995 replies:
An omission from the post that most deffnitely should have been included, was the deliberate refusal of the Israelis who had knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack in October 1983 , to alert the Marine Commander in the sector of Beirut where the attack was aimed.
The Israelis deliberately witheld this information though they knew the make, color, and license of the vehicle that was to be used. This was revealed by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky in his "By Way odf Deception".
242 Marines lost their lives.
your post about the israelis keeping info away from the us marines should be sent to marine command if it is indeed accurate..
how credible do you think the information is about about the israeli espionage ring in the usa which is mentioned at the following sites as i hope that the fbi does indeed start monitoring these aol news boards so they can get a reality check as to what the israelis have been allowed to get away with because of the pro-israel (jewish) aipac lobby "bought" congress of ours (as you can see how much each congressman/congresswomen as received from aipac at the first web site which is referenced below)?:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
i don't know how credible any of the information is at the two above referenced web sites, but it is interesting even if some of it is credible.
http://liamhughes.home.mindspring.com/lieberman.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p07s02-wome.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=276379
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=292865
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=298681
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=300084
Incredible how much of a pro-Israel bias there is in the US media as eloquently put forth by Robert Fisk in the following article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=285777
LEST WE FORGET
Many of the events catalogued here been treated in depth in AMEU's
bimonthly publication, The Link. See the website: www.ameu.org.
Additional copies of this Public Affairs Pamphlet #33 are available for $2
a piece; price includes postage. Please make check payable to AMEU, and
send to AMEU, 475 Riverside Drive, Room 245, New York, NY, 10115.
For bulk rates of over 100 copies, call 212-870-2053 or e-mail us at
ameu@aol.com.
Lest We Forget
The Israeli lobby in Washington has successfully influenced the U.S.
Congress to give billions of non-repayable dollars each year to Israel on
the premise that Israel's loyalty and strategic importance to the United
States make it an ally worthy of such unprecedented consideration. Is it?
In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned Americans to avoid a
passionate attachment to any one nation because it promotes "the illusion
of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists."
In 1948, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, an opponent of the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, warned that, even though failure
to go along with the Zionists might cost President Truman the states of New
York, Pennsylvania, and California, "it was about time that somebody should
pay some consideration to whether we might not lose the United States."
Israeli actions over the past 53 years involving U.S. interests in the
Middle East seriously challenge the "strategic asset" premise of the
Israeli lobby. Some of these actions are compiled in the list that follows:
September 1953: Israel illegally begins to divert the waters of the Jordan
River. President Eisenhower, enraged, suspends all economic aid to Israel
and prepares to remove the tax-deductible status of the United Jewish
Appeal and of other Zionist organizations in the United States.
October 1953: Israel raids the West Bank village of Kibya, killing 53
Palestinian civilians. The Eisenhower administration calls the raid
"shocking," and confirms the suspension of aid to Israel.
July 1954: Israeli agents firebomb American and British cultural centers in
Egypt, making it look like the work of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in
order to sabotage U.S.-Egyptian relations.
October 1956: Israel secretly joins with England and France in a colonial-
style attack on Egypt's Suez Canal. Calling the invasion a dangerous threat
to international order, President Eisenhower forces Israel to relinquish
most of the land it had seized.
1965: 206 pounds of weapons grade uranium disappear from the Nuclear
Materials and Equipment Corporation plant in Pennsylvania. Plant president
is Zalmon Shapiro, a former sales agent for the Israel Defense Ministry.
C.I.A. Director Richard Helms later charges that Israel stole the uranium.
June 1967: Israel bombs, napalms and torpedoes the USS Liberty, killing 34
Americans, wounding 171 others, and nearly sinking the lightly armed
intelligence ship. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral
Thomas Moorer, charges that the attack "could not possibly have been a case
of mistaken identity."
http://www.ussliberty.org
http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/
June 1967: Against U.S. wishes Israel seizes and occupies Syria's Golan
Heights.
June 1968: Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir rejects U.S. Secretary of
State William Rogers' Peace Plan that would have required Israel to
withdraw from the occupied territories; she calls upon Jews everywhere to
denounce the plan.
March 1978: Israel invades Lebanon, illegally using U.S. cluster bombs and
other U.S. weapons given to Israel for defensive purposes only.
1979: Israel frustrates U.S.-sponsored Camp David Accords by building new
settlements on the West Bank. President Carter complains to American Jewish
leaders that, by acting in a "completely irresponsible way," Israel's Prime
Minister Begin continues "to disavow the basic principles of the accords."
1979: Israel sells U.S. airplane tires and other military supplies to Iran,
against U.S. policy, at a time when U.S. diplomats are being held hostage
in Teheran.
July 1980: Israel annexes East Jerusalem in defiance of U.S. wishes and
world opinion.
July 1981: Illegally using U.S. cluster bombs and other equipment, Israel
bombs P.L.O. sites in Beirut, with great loss of civilian life. December
1981: Israel annexes Syria's Golan Heights, in violation of the Geneva
Convention and in defiance of U.S. wishes.
June 1982: Israel invades Lebanon a second time, again using U.S. cluster
bombs and other U.S. weapons. President Reagan calls for a halt of all
shipments of cluster bomb shells to Israel.
September 1982: Abetted by Israeli forces under the control of Defense
Minister Ariel Sharon, Lebanese militiamen massacre hundreds of
Palestinians in Beirut's Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. President Reagan
is "horrified" and summons the Israeli ambassador to demand Israel's
immediate withdrawal from Beirut.
September 1982: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rejects President
Reagan's Peace Plan for the occupied territories.
January-March 1983: Israeli army "harasses" U.S. Marines in Lebanon.
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger confirms Marine commandant's report
that "Israeli troops are deliberately threatening the lives of American
military personnel . . . replete with verbal degradation of the officers,
their uniforms and country."
March 1985: Israeli lobby in Washington pressures the U.S. Congress to turn
down a $1.6 billion arms sale to Jordan, costing the U.S. thousands of
jobs, quite apart from the financial loss to American industry. Jordan
gives the contract to Russia. A frustrated King Hussein complains: "The
U.S. is not free to move except within the limits of what AIPAC [the
Israeli lobby], the Zionists and the State of Israel determine for it."
October 1985: Israeli lobby blocks $4 billion aircraft sale to Saudi
Arabia. The sale, strongly backed by the Reagan administration, costs the
U.S. over 350,000 jobs, with steep financial losses to American industry.
Saudi Arabia awards contract to England.
November 1985: Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American recruited by Israel, is
arrested for passing highly classified intelligence to Israel. U.S.
officials call the operation but "one link in an organized and
well-financed Israeli espionage ring operating within the United States."
State Department contacts reveal that top Israeli defense officials "traded
stolen U.S. intelligence documents to Soviet military intelligence agents
in return for assurances of greater emigration of Soviet Jews."
December 1985: U.S. Customs in three states raid factories suspected of
illegally selling electroplating technology to Israel. Richard Smyth, a
NATO consultant and former U.S. exporter, is indicted on charges of
illegally exporting to Israel 800 krytron devices for triggering nuclear
explosions.
April 1986: U.S. authorities arrest 17 persons, including a retired Israeli
General, Avraham Bar-Am, for plotting to sell more than $2 billion of
advanced U.S. weaponry to Iran (much of it already in Israel). General Bar-
Am, claiming to have had Israeli Government approval, threatens to name
names at the highest levels. U.S. Attorney General of New York calls the
plot "mind-boggling in scope."
July 1986: Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy informs the Israeli
ambassador that a U.S. investigation is under way of eight Israeli
representatives in the U.S. accused of plotting the illegal export of
technology used in making cluster bombs. Indictments against the eight are
later dropped in exchange for an Israeli promise to cooperate in the case.
January 1987: Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin visits South Africa to
discuss joint nuclear weapons testing. Israel admits that, in violation of
a U.S. Senate anti-apartheid bill, it has arms sales contracts with South
Africa worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Rep. John Conyers calls for
Congressional hearings on Israel-South Africa nuclear testing.
November 1987: The Iran-Contra scandal reveals that it was Israel that had
first proposed the trade to Iran of U.S. arms for hostages. The scandal
becomes the subject of the Tower Commission Report, Senate and House
investigations, and the Walsh criminal prosecution inquiries.
April 1988: Testifying before U.S. Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and
International Operations, Jose Blandon, a former intelligence aide to
Panama's General Noriega, reveals that Israel used $20 million of U.S. aid
to ship arms via Panama to Nicaraguan Contras. The empty planes then
smuggled cocaine via Panama into the United States. Pilot tells ABC
reporter Richard Threlkeld that Israel was his primary employer. The
arms-for- drugs network is said to be led by Mike Harari, Noriega's close
aide and bodyguard, who was also a high officer in the Israeli secret
services and chief coordinator of Israel's military and commercial business
in Panama.
June 1988: Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian-American advocate of nonviolence, is
deported by Israel. The White House denounces the action, saying, "We think
it is unjustifiable to deny Mr. Awad the right to stay and live in
Jerusalem, where he was born."
June 1988: Amnesty International accuses Israel of throwing deadly, U.S.-
made gas canisters inside hospitals, mosques, and private homes. The
Pennsylvania manufacturer, a major defense corporation, suspends future
shipments of tear gas to Israel.
November 1989: According to the Israeli paper Ma'ariv, U.S. officials claim
Israel Aircraft Industries was involved in attempts to smuggle U.S. missile
navigation equipment to South Africa in violation of U.S. law.
December 1989: While the U.S. was imposing economic sanctions on Iran,
Israel purchased $36 million of Iranian oil in order to encourage Iran to
help free three Israeli hostages in Lebanon.
March 1990: Israel requests more than $1 billion in loans, gifts, and
donations from American Jews and U.S. government to pay for resettling
Soviet Jews in occupied territories. President Bush responds, "My position
is that the foreign policy of the U.S. says we do not believe there should
be new settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem."
June 1990: Officials in the Bush administration and in Congress say that
Israel has emerged as leading supplier of advanced military technology to
China, despite U.S.'s expressed opposition to Israeli-Chinese military
cooperation.
September 1990: Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy asks the Bush
administration to forgive Israel's $4.5 billion military debt and
dramatically increase military aid. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens
expresses concern over expected $20 billion in U.S. arms sales to Saudi
Arabia and asks for an additional $1 billion in military aid to Israel.
Facing rising congressional opposition, White House backs off from plan to
sell Saudi Arabia over $20 billion in military hardware. Bush
administration promises to deliver additional F-15 fighters and Patriot
missiles to Israel, but defers action on Israel's request for more than $1
billion in new military aid. Arens questions U.S.'s commitment to maintain
Israel's military advantage in the Middle East.
October 1990: "Aliya cabinet" chair Ariel Sharon encourages increase in
settlement of Soviet Jews in East Jerusalem, despite his government's
assurances to the U.S. that it would not do so. Bush sends personal letter
to Prime Minister Shamir urging Israel not to pursue East Jerusalem
housing. Shamir rejects appeal.
November 1990: In his new autobiography, former President Reagan says
Israel was the instigator and prime mover in the Iran-Contra affair and that
then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres "was behind the proposal."
January 1991: White House criticizes Israeli ambassador Zalman Shoval for
complaining that U.S. had not moved forward on $400 million in loan
guarantees and that Israel "had not received one cent in aid" from allies
to compensate for missile damage (in Gulf War)." U.S. says comments are
"outrageous and outside the bounds of acceptable behavior."
February 1991: Hours after long-disputed $400 million loan guarantees to
Israel are approved, Israeli officials say the amount is grossly
insufficient. Next day, Israel formally requests $1 billion in emergency
military assistance to cover costs stemming from the Gulf War.
March 1991: Israeli government rejects President Bush's call for solution
to Arab-Israeli conflict that includes trading land for peace. In a report
to Congress, U.S. State Department says Soviet Jewish immigrants are
settling in the occupied territories at a higher rate than the Israeli
government claims. During tour of West Bank settlements, Housing Minister
Sharon says construction of 13,000 housing units in occupied territories
has been approved for next two years. Plans contradict statement by Prime
Minister Shamir, who told President Bush that the Israeli government had
not approved such plans.
April 1991: Prime Minister Shamir and several members of his cabinet reject
U.S. Secretary of State Baker's suggestion that Israel curtail expansion of
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories as gesture for peace. U.S.
calls new Jewish settlement of Revava "an obstacle" to peace and questions
Israel's timing, with Secretary Baker due to arrive in Israel in two days.
Hours before Baker arrives, eight Israeli families complete move to new
settlement of Talmon Bet. U.S. ambassador to Israel William Brown files an
official protest with the Israeli government about establishment and/or
expansion of settlements in the West Bank. Housing Minister Sharon says
Israel has no intention of meeting U.S. demands to slow or stop
settlements. Secretary Baker, in a news conference before leaving Israel,
says Israel failed to give responses he needed to put together a peace
conference.
May 1991: Israeli ambassador to U.S. Zalman Shoval says his country will
soon request $10 billion in loan guarantees from Washington to aid in
settling Soviet Jewish immigrants to Israel. Secretary Baker calls
continued building of Israeli settlements "largest obstacle" to convening
proposed Middle East peace conference.
May 1991: President Bush unveils proposal for arms control in Middle East.
U.S. administration confirms that Israel, which has not signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, has objected to provision on nuclear weapons.
June 1991: Prime Minister Shamir rejects President Bush's call for Israeli
acceptance of a greater United Nations' role in proposed Arab-Israeli peace
talks.
July 1991: Israeli Housing Minister Sharon inaugurates the new Israeli
settlement of Mevo Dotan in the West Bank one day after President Bush
describes Israeli settlements as "counterproductive."
September 1991: President Bush asks Congress to delay considering Israeli
loan guarantee request for 120 days. Ignoring pleas of U.S. administration,
Israel formally submits its request. Prime Minister Shamir says U.S. has a
"moral obligation" to provide Israel with loan guarantees, and that Israel
would continue to build settlements in the occupied territories.
October 1991: The Washington Post reports that President Bush waived
U.S.-mandated sanctions against Israel after U.S. intelligence determined
that Israel had exported missile components to South Africa.
November 1991: Hours after concluding bilateral talks with Syria, Israel
inaugurates Qela', a new settlement in the Golan Heights. Secretary of
State Baker calls the action "provocative."
February 1992: Secretary of State Baker says U.S. will not provide loan
guarantees to Israel unless it ceases its settlement activity. President
Bush threatens to veto any loan guarantees to Israel without a freeze on
Israel's settlement activity.
March 1992: U.S. administration confirms it has begun investigating
intelligence reports that Israel supplied China with technical data from
U.S. Patriot missile system.
April 1992: State Department Inspector issues report that the department
has failed to heed intelligence reports that an important U.S. ally -
widely understood to be Israel - was making unauthorized transfers of U.S.
military technology to China, South Africa, Chile, and Ethiopia.
May 1992: Wall Street Journal cites Israeli press reports that U.S.
officials have placed Israel on list of 20 nations carrying out espionage
against U.S. companies.
June 1992: U.S. Defense Department says Israel has rejected a U.S. request
to question former General Rami Dotan, who is at center of arms procurement
scandal involving U.S. contractors.
July 1992: General Electric Company pleads guilty to fraud and corrupt
business practices in connection with its sale of military jet engines to
Israel. A GE manager had conspired with Israeli Gen. Rami Dotan to divert
$27 million in U.S. military aid with fraudulent vouchers. U.S. Justice and
Defense Departments do not believe that Dotan was acting in his own
interest, implying that the government of Israel may be implicated in the
fraud, which would constitute a default on Israel's aid agreements with the
U.S.
June 1993: U.S. House of Representatives passes bill authorizing $80
million per year to Israel for refugee settlement; bill passes despite $10
billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel and against evidence from Israeli
economists that Israel no longer needs U.S. aid.
October 1993: CIA informs Senate Government Affairs Committee that Israel
has been providing China for over a decade with "several billion dollars"
worth of advanced military technology. Israeli Prime Minister Rabin admits
Israel has sold arms to China.
November 1993: CIA Director James Woolsey makes first public U.S.
acknowledgement that "Israel is generally regarded as having some kind of
nuclear capability."
December 1993: Time magazine reports convicted spy Jonathan Pollard passed
a National Security Agency listing of foreign intelligence frequencies to
Israel that later was received by Soviets, ruining several billion dollars
of work and compromising lives of U.S. informants.
December 1994: Los Angeles Times reports Israel has given China information
on U.S. military technology to help in joint Israeli-Chinese development of
a fighter jet.
January 1995: When Egypt threatens not to sign the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty because Israel will not sign, the U.S. says it will
not pressure Israel to sign.
July 1995: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk demands Israel abolish
import barriers that discriminate against U.S. imports.
November 1995: Israel grants citizenship to American spy Jonathan Pollard.
April 1996: Using U.S.-supplied shells, Israel kills 106 unarmed civilians
who had taken refuge in a U.N. peace-keeping compound in Qana, southern
Lebanon. U.N. investigators, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch
condemn the shelling as premeditated. The U.N. Security Council calls on
Israel to pay reparations. Resolution is vetoed by the United States.
June 1996: U.S. State Department hands Israeli defense officials classified
CIA report alleging Israel has given China U.S. military avionics,
including advanced radar-detection system and electronic warfare equipment.
December 1996: Israeli cabinet reinstates large subsidies, including tax
breaks and business grants, for West Bank settlers. U.S. says the move is
"troubling" and "clearly complicates the peace process." Israeli government
rejects President Clinton's criticism of the settlements and vows to
strengthen them.
February 1997: FBI announces that David Tenenbaum, a mechanical engineer
working for the U.S. army, has admitted that for the past 10 years he has
"inadvertently" passed on classified military information to Israeli officials.
March 1997: U.S. presses Israel to delay building new settlement of Har
Homa near Bethlehem. Prime Minister Netanyahu says international opposition
"will just strengthen my resolve."
June 1997: U.S. investigators report that two Hasidic Jews from New York,
suspected of laundering huge quantities of drug money for a Colombian drug
cartel, recently purchased millions of dollars worth of land near the
settlements of Mahseya and Zanoah.
September 1997: Jewish settlers in Hebron stone Palestinian laborers
working on a U.S.-financed project to renovate the town's main street.
David Muirhead, the American overseeing the project, says the Israeli
police beat him, threw him into a van, and detained him until the U.S.
Consulate intervened. U.S. State Department calls the incident "simply
unacceptable."
September 1997: Secretary of State Albright says Israel's decision to
expand Efrat settlement "is not at all helpful" to the peace process. Prime
Minister Netanyahu says he will continue to expand settlements.
May 1998: 13 years after denying he was not its spy, Israel officially
recognizes Pollard as its agent in hopes of negotiating his release.
June 1998: Secretary of State Albright phones Prime Minister Netanyahu to
condemn his plan to extend Jerusalem's municipal boundaries and to move
Jews into East Jerusalem, particularly in the area adjacent to Bethlehem.
Ignoring U.S. protests, Israel's cabinet unanimously approves plan to
extend Jerusalem's municipal authority.
August 1998: Secretary Albright tells Prime Minister Netanyahu that the
freeze in the peace process due to the settlement policy is harming U.S.
interests in the Middle East and affecting the U.S.'s ability to forge a
coalition against Iraq.
September 1998: Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports that the Israeli
airliner that crashed in Amsterdam in 1992 was not carrying "gifts and
perfume," as the Israelis claimed, but three of the four chemicals used to
make sarin nerve gas. According to the plane's cargo manifest, the
chemicals were sent from a U.S. factory in Pennsylvania to the top secret
Israeli Institute for Biological Research.
November 1998: Israeli Foreign Minister Sharon urges Jewish settlers to
"grab" West Bank land so it does not fall under Palestinian control in any
final peace settlement.
May 1999: U.S. denounces Israel's decision to annex more land to the Ma'ale
Adumim settlement.
June 1999: The Israeli company Orlil is reported to have stolen U.S.
nightvision equipment purchased for the Israeli Defense Forces and to have
sold it to "Far Eastern" countries.
April 2001: Prime Minister Sharon announces plans to build 708 new housing
units in the Jewish settlements of Ma'ale Adumim and Alfe Menashe. U.S.
State Department criticizes the move as "provocative."
May 2001: The Mitchell Committee (headed by former U.S. Senator George
Mitchell) concludes that Jewish settlements are a barrier to peace. Prime
Minister Sharon vows to continue expanding the settlements.
May 2001: U.S. is voted off the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
for the first time since the committee's establishment in 1947. The
Financial Times of London suggests that Washington, by vetoing U.N.
resolutions alleging Israeli human rights abuses, showed its inability to
work impartially in the area of human rights. Secretary of State Colin
Powell suggests the vote was because "we left a little blood on the floor"
in votes involving the Palestinians.
September 2001: Six days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America,
Secretary of State Powell, when asked why America is hated in the Arab and
Muslim world, acknowledges that the deep resentment and anger toward the
United States is due to the Palestinian crisis.
November 2001: Secretary of State Colin Powell calls on Israel to halt all
settlement building which he says "cripples chances for real peace and
security." Benny Elon, a right-wing minister in the Sharon government, says
the settlers aren't worried. "America has a special talent for seeing
things in the short term," he says, explaining that what Powell said he
said only to get Arab support for America's anti-terrorism coalition
against Afghanistan.
March 2002: U.N. Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan calls for immediate withdrawal of
Israeli tanks from Palestinian refugee camps, citing large numbers of
Palestinians reported dead or injured. U.S. State Dept. says the United
States has contacted Israel to "urge that utmost restraint be exercised in
order to avoid harm to the civilian population." | |  | | sharkman | | Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:03 pm Post subject: us congressman endorses israel's ethnic cleansing on us tv |
| for those of you who missed it, us congressman dick armey endorsed israel's ethnic cleansing of the palestinians to chris matthews who is the host of msnbc's "hardball" national television program in the usa as the transcript of such follows (one can check the aipac link at www.whatreallyhappened.com to see how much armey gets from the jewish aipac lobby, or is he one of those christian evangelical types who would rather see israel slaughtering innocent palestinian civilians in the name of religion with a similar mentality to the crusaders of centuries ago):
Subj: Armey's Remarks re Ethnic Cleansing
Date: 5/4/02 8:00:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: nord@
To: PalestineDiary@yahoogroups.com
CC: USS_LIBERTY@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
May 1, 2002 Wednesday:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, host: Congressman Dick Armey of Texas leads the Republicans in the US House of Representatives.
Congressman Armey, Mr. Majority Leader, why is the Congress about to pass a resolution supporting Israel at a time that the president is trying to walk a line between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Representative RICHARD ARMEY (Republican, Majority Leader):
Well, we've had--we feel very strongly in the House of Representatives that we have a moral obligation to protect the safety, security and freedom of Israel. And the Congress wants to speak on that, both bodies want to do so.
We've discussed it with the White House, and everybody is comfortable. We will go--go ahead with that tomorrow. It is very important to the world
that Israel be--the freedom of Israel be protected and honored.
MATTHEWS: What good is this going to do anybody?
Rep. ARMEY: Well, I think, again, we--we want to make the point...
MATTHEWS: To whom?
Rep. ARMEY:
The president of the United States is trying to make a transition in
foreign policy from what it has been to what it must be in the future. We
can no longer appease aggressors in the Middle East. There obviously will
never be a peace. The goal is no Jews between them and the sea, and we must make it very clear that if you want to talk about peace and talk the talk, you must walk the walk, and that must be respect for Israel's right to live freely, safely and securely.
MATTHEWS:
OK. Let's talk about the realities over there. There's a fight between the
Arabs and the--and the Israelis over who owns the Pal--all of Palestine. Do you support the idea that there be a Palestine state alongside Israel?
Rep. ARMEY: I am perfectly content to have a Palestinian state alongside
Israel if it is a state that honors others borders.
MATTHEWS: You are in total, 180 disagreement with Tom Delay who said this week that the entire West Bank belongs to Israel and it belongs to that country that's not an Arab country.
Rep. ARMEY: I...
MATTHEWS: It should not have a statehood.
Rep. ARMEY: No, I'm perfectly content to have a Palestinian state. I am not content to give up any part of Israel for that purpose of that Palestinian state.
MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Tom Delay's, whose resolution you're going to put on the floor tomorrow and schedule, has said that the entire West Bank, he calls it Judean Samaria, belongs to Israel. How can you say that this resolution doesn't support the Delay position which is Israel has a right to grab the entire West Bank?
Rep. ARMEY: No, I--I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank.
I'm also content to have the Palestinians have a homeland and even for that to be somewhere near Israel, but I'm not content to see Israel give up land for the purpose of peace to the Palestinians who will not accept it and would not honor it. It is time to...
MATTHEWS: Well, where do you put the Palestinian state, in Norway? Once the Israelis take back the West Bank permanently and annex it, there's no place else for the Palestinians to have a state.
Rep. ARMEY: No, no, that's not--that's not at all true. There are many Arab nations that have many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and--and soil and property and opportunity to create a Palestinian state.
MATTHEWS: So you would transport--you would transport the Palestinians from Palestine to somewhere else and call it their state?
Rep. ARMEY: I would be perfectly content to have a homeland, just as--most of...
MATTHEWS: But not in Palestine?
Rep. ARMEY: Most of the people who now populate Israel were transported from all over the world to that land and they made it their home. The Palestinians can do the same, and we're per--perfectly content to work with the Palestinians in doing that. We are not willing to sacrifice Israel for the notion of a Palestinian homeland.
MATTHEWS: Right, no. No, that's not the question and that's not your
answer. The question here is: What is the future of the Palestinians who
are fighting Israel right now? You say there future is somewhere besides
Palestine. That runs in the way of US policy going back to 1948. It
runs--it runs completely against the president's policy and every policy
I've heard a president take, which is that Israel has to give up its
settlements on the West Bank and give it back to the Arabs in exchange for peace. You say the deal should be the Palestinians leave?
Rep. ARMEY: That's right. Palestinians say the deal should be the
Israel--that--that the Israelis leave.
MATTHEWS: Have you talked about this with the president?
Rep. ARMEY: I happened to believe that the Palestinians should leave.
MATTHEWS: Have you ever told George Bush, the president from your home state of Texas, that you think the Palestinians should get up and go and leave Palestine and that's the solution?
Rep. ARMEY: I'm probably telling him that right now. This is...
MATTHEWS: Have you thought this through?
Rep. ARMEY: I have thought this through. I've thought it through for a lot
of years. I believe that Israel is the state for the Jewish people. It
needs to be honored. It needs to be protected.
MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's not what you're saying. You're saying Israel should expand its borders to the Jordan River...
Rep. ARMEY: No.
MATTHEWS: ...and kick out all the Palestinians? That's what you just said.
Rep. ARMEY: I am--I am content to have Israel occupy that land that it now occupies and to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other arena, and I would be happy to have them make a home. I would be happy to have all of these Arab nations that have been so hell bent to drive Israel out of the Middle East to get together, find some land and make a home for the Palestinians. I think it can be done.
MATTHEWS: So the president, who has been dutifully, for the last couple of weeks, trying to get the Israeli army to withdraw from the West Bank,
should stop that, let the Israeli defense force take over the West Bank and hold it and make it part of Israel? You completely disagree with the
president's policy then?
Rep. ARMEY: I am--I am perfectly content to have Israel hold and occupy the land that it has at this moment.
MATTHEWS: Well, how about though-how about the Jenin in Samaria? Tom Delay, whose measure you're putting on the floor tomorrow, says that all the West Bank, Jenin, Judea, Masada, everything belongs to Israel. It's not occupied territory. It's Israeli. Is that your position?
Rep. ARMEY: Well, first of all, Chris, I think we have to be real careful
on how you are interpreting jo--Tom's provision. I think Tom's provision is
principally and primarily that the Jewish people have a right to defend
themselves.
MATTHEWS: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are
now living on the West Bank should get out of there?
Rep. ARMEY: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much. More with Congressman Dick Armey coming back. You're watching HARDBALL.
(Announcements)
Last night on MSNBC's popular program Hardball, House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) recommended the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land and endorsed Israel's illegal conquests of the occupied territories.
Armey stated that he was "content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank" and was "not content to give up any part of Israel for the purpose of a Palestinian state."
"We are not willing to sacrifice Israel for the notion of a Palestinian
homeland," Armey continued, asserting that "the Palestinians should leave."Hardball host Chris Matthews repeatedly gave Armey the opportunity to clarify that he was not calling for the ethnic cleansing of all
Palestinians from Palestine, but Armey was unrepentant:
MATTHEWS: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are
now living on the West Bank should get out of there?
Rep. ARMEY: Yes.
Armey's remarks are only the latest of a number of calls in the mainstream media for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip and the targeting of the Palestinian civil infrastructure.
Last year, on 15 August 2001, in an article titled "Mideast Violence: The
Only Way Out", Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called for a 'Berlin Wall' type solution to separate Palestinians from Israel and:
A lightning and massive Israeli attack on every element of Arafat's police
state infrastructure -- the headquarters and commanders of his eight(!)
security services, his police stations, weapons depots, training camps,
communications and propaganda facilities (radio, TV, government-controlled newspapers) -- with a simultaneous attack on the headquarters and leadership of Arafat's Hamas and Islamic Jihad allies.
Krauthammer further counselled Israel to:
Strike and expel. This year, in February 2002, USA TODAY columnist Emmanuel A. Winston penned a call for "resettling the Palestinians in Jordan" (See USA Today publishes call for ethnic cleansing, The Electronic Intifada, 22 February 2002).
1. ETHNIC CLEANSING IS MORALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE - Calling for the removal of Palestinians from their own land, occupied for the last 35 years by Israel is akin to calling for the removal of Jews or African Americans from New York or Alabama. In response to similar calls voiced by Slobodan Milosevic in 1998-99, the US and NATO launched a war on Serbia for trying to ethnically cleanse Albanians from Kosovo. Following the ethnic cleansing horrors of the previous century, there must be zero tolerance of politicians, media commentators and publications that express or give space to extreme racist views. An entire new regime of international law has been refined and codified over the last half century to prevent ethnic cleansing and other similar atrocities.
2. INTERNATIONAL LAW PROHIBITS THESE MEASURES - International Law clearly forbids the acquisition of territory by force and the expulsion of civilians by an occupying army.
United Nations' General Assembly and Security Council resolutions 242
(1967), 252 (1968) and 338 (1973), among others, clearly state that the
acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War unambiguously states:
Article 49: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations
of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive.
1. Contact Mr. Armey by phone or e-mail, reminding him that the U.S.
Government is a signatory to the Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, citing Article 49, which
unequivocally forbids the illegal and immoral ethnic cleansing he
recommended on Hardball, while stressing the necessity of the US setting
the pace, as a world leader, by respecting and upholding international law.
2. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper deploring Armey's
statement and asserting that no U.S. politician should ever advocate such
deplorable actions [useful tool: EI's media activism guide].
3. Monitor the media you read and watch for future U.S. support for ethnic
cleansing and bring them to our attention.
4. Please write original letters and do not simply copy & paste the
information above. As always, be brief, polite, quote accurately, and
include your name, address, and telephone number (which most publications require to ensure publication). Send copies of any responses or printing of your letter (including the original, if it was edited) to
info@electronicIntifada.net. Please forward a copy of any letter you send
to info@electronicIntifada.net.
This action item (#28, 2 May 2002) was
prepared by Ali Abunimah, Nigel Parry
and Laurie King-Irani. | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:55 pm Post subject: |
| please feel free to email us congressman dick armey to express what you think about his endorsement of palestinian ethnic cleansing by the israelis as you can email him directly at the following address:
dick.armey@mail.house.gov
you can contact any us congressmen/congresswomen via the following web sites:
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov
From: ISRAEL AND THE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST
by Cheryl Rubenberg:
"To claim that the Egyption forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this kind of situation but is an insult to
Zahal."[the Israeli Army] (p.104) [Ma'ariv, March 24, 1972, cited in Hirst,
GUN AND THE OLIVE BRANCH pp. 210-11]
General Mattiyahu Yeled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into
the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive
againt Israel. He new it and we e knew it." (p.104) [Le Monde, February
29, 1968, cited in Hirst, GUN AND THE OLIVE BRANCH pp. 210-11]
Yitzhak Rabin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (p. 107) [THE NEW YORK TIMES August 21, 1982]
Menachem Begin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------`
"The discussion in this chapter ["The Israeli Lobby"] leads to the
conclusion that the power of the Israeli lobby over the formation
and execution of U.S. Middle East policy has become a virtual
stranglehold."
Cheryl Rubenberg
(Cheryl Rubenberg, ISRAEL AND THE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST p. 374, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.). | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 11:43 pm Post subject: bush adminstration wary of declaration of support for israel |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50644-2002Apr25.html
White House and DeLay at Odds
Administration Wary of Declaration of Support for Israel
By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 26, 2002; Page A20 House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is promoting a strongly worded declaration of congressional support for Israel over the objection of Bush administration officials, who contend it would further alienate Arab states crucial to the war on terrorism and the Middle East peace process.
A White House official said the administration has warned DeLay that he could hamper the U.S. effort to persuade Israel's Arab neighbors -- including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- to help curb Palestinian violence.
"Nobody doubts our support for Israel, but putting it in neon lights and throwing it in the face of moderate Arab states is not helpful," the official said.
On Capitol Hill, both Democrats and Republicans said the resolution would pass overwhelmingly if it were brought to a vote, barring a public statement by Bush that it would hurt the nation's foreign policy interests. Officials from both parties said they saw the issue as a test of the clout wielded by DeLay, who promised to push for the resolution in a speech this week to the convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
During a private meeting with congressional leaders on Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urged DeLay to withdraw the resolution, an attendee said. "He said it would be very unhelpful to have any sort of resolution because this is a very difficult situation on all sides and we don't need to weigh in in the middle of it," the official said.
The dispute over the resolution has exposed an election-year divergence in the interests of Bush, who wants to build Arab alliances, and House Republicans, who are eager to mollify conservatives who feel the White House has been too tough on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Bush called on Sharon three weeks ago to withdraw his troops from Palestinian territory "without delay." But the resolution says Israel's military operations in the West Bank, which include the standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, represent "an effort to defend itself against the unspeakable horrors of ongoing terrorism."
The five-page "resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism" says the House "is gravely concerned that Arafat's actions are not those of a viable partner for peace." It "commends the president for his leadership in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
DeLay said in an interview that he intended to pursue his resolution despite concern by some "individuals in the administration" that the vote could jeopardize diplomatic efforts.
"What's most important is to send a message to the world, to Europe and Arab countries, that this Congress, this House, stands squarely in support of Israel and its war on terrorism," DeLay said. "There should never, ever be negotiations with terrorists."
The measure is scheduled for a vote Tuesday, although DeLay's office said he likely will postpone it at the request of the White House.
The issue may surface next week during the House Appropriations Committee's consideration of a supplemental defense spending bill. A few lawmakers privately have indicated they might offer an amendment that would provide an additional $200 million in aid to Israel, a move aides from both parties said would likely succeed. White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said the administration would oppose the addition, although further aid to Israel would be considered later. "Not now, and not in this bill," he said yesterday.
Several congressional Republicans, including House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (Ill.), said DeLay's measure could undermine the administration's attempts to bring peace to the region. Hyde has refused to bring up several bills on the Middle East in his committee, and the GOP leadership would have to bypass him to bring DeLay's resolution to the floor.
"Anything that interferes with the negotiations is not useful," Hyde said, adding that he held out hope the resolution could be modified before it reached the House floor. He said it "seems to lack the appropriate balance" the administration is seeking.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), another member of the International Relations Committee, noted that both Bush and prominent members of Congress have repeatedly expressed their support for Israel in public. "There doesn't seem to be a need to pile on," Issa said.
House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) refrained from criticizing DeLay's resolution directly during a briefing with reporters yesterday, but he suggested Congress should defer to the White House.
"If the administration feels we need legislative action on any of this, all they need to do is say it, and we will try to be cooperative," he said. "If they don't . . . then we will try to cooperate with that."
AMERICA AS DR. FRANKENSTEIN
The monster that Dr. Frankenstein created can't hold a horrific
candle to the monster that the United States was instrumental in
creating that is the present Zionist state of Israel, an Israel born
out of the oppression by the Nazi regime, and whose tactics are
directly derived from that same gaggle of goose-stepping goons.
Ever since the artificial state of Israel was thrust on the
Palestinian people and the land that they owned, had deeds to,
the career butcher Ariel Sharon and his SS wannabes have
utilized the precepts of Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering, Martin
Bormann, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and of their
other counterparts and ideologues.
The Israeli blitzkrieg on Palestine, the scorched earth policy in
Jenin, the reign of terror against civilians, the outright murders of
teenage Arab kids and their parents, the unspeakable horrors of
the incursions against Palestinian towns simply for the exercise
of the United States supplied military power, all of these are
reminiscent of the manner in which Nazi tanks, planes, and
troops invaded Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and
Luxembourg, and that had a good try at an invasion of Britain..
Perhaps there are some blitzkrieg differences, the main ones
dealing with the scale of the operations, and the fact that this
was an Israel wermacht that was supplied by the United States
in the form of tanks, attack fighters and helicopters, APC's,
heavy artillery weapons, rockets, grenades, small arms and
ammunition, a destroyer, and three submarines. Three
submarines? Just what is needed for desert travel.
But how did this all come about? And what is driving it this day?
But before we go on, let us identify the actors in this black
theater drama.
1. First we have the loyal American citizens who put their nation
above all others, who are fine, hardworking people who happen
to be of the Jewish religion. And in other nations of the world we
also have citizens of those nations who are loyal to their country
and who also are of the Jewish religion. Bless them!
2. Then we have the pro-Israelis, the perpetual zionists, who,
no matter in which country they live, or are citizens of, are only
loyal to the state of Israel and no other, who work for the
advancement of Israel's benefit at the expense of whatever
nation in which they live. They will act as espionage agents,
attempting to learn and divulge sensitive and critical secrets
from the military and industrial sectors of governments in the
nations in which they live, and pass them on to Israel for use or
for sale to others. Their infamous work in America is a good
example of this.
Then there are the pro-Israelis in the media, American or
otherwise. They will propagandize in favor of Israel at every
opportunity, be it the print press, television, magazines, or any
other conduit through which they spew their pro-Israel party line.
They also claim to be of the Jewish religion, and throw up the
smoke screen of "Anti-Semitism" at any criticism. And, they are
generally anti-Arab and particularly anti-Palestinian. Remember,
Begin called them monkeys, and other lower forms of life.
2. Then we have the Zionists who rule Israel. Their arrogance
knows no bounds, especially towards the United States, who
rebuff any US attempts at peace in the region, who humiliate an
American President and his words - and why not? They already
have all the American arms and money they need to wage a war
on helpless Palestinians. It is like slingshots against tanks,
planes, and helicopters. These Zionists have their own version of
the Torah and its interpretation, and any criticism brings the
typical whine of "Anti-Semitism" from Tel Aviv and Washington.
But let us return to the question: How did this situation come
about? It began at the turn of the century, with the thousands of Jews all
over the world, that were trying to escape oppression,
subsequently arriving at these shores, the land of opportunity,
just as Emma Lazerus had eloquently rhymed. Most of those
émigrés fit well into American society, became loyal
Americans, worked hard, served honorably in America's armed
forces, and blended into American society, contributing greatly
to the economy and the welfare of the nation.
However, in that massive group was a core of hardened
Zionists, always instigating for a Zionist state that would be
known as Israel. Their cohorts in the land of Palestine, an area
under British protection, were the terrorist groups known as the
Irgun, the Stern Gang, and other clandestine mobs, who
murdered British soldiers in the attempt to have Britain wash
their hands of the protectorate and allow the artificial
development of a new Israel. Note that the picture of the British
soldier, hanging upside down from a tree, murdered by a Zionist
gang, has mysteriously disappeared from encyclopedias and
books all over the world, surreptitiously removed by Zionist
activists.
It is similar to the disappearance of James Ennes's book,
Assault on the Liberty, from libraries and bookstores in America.
It told the true story of the vicious sneak attack on a US naval
vessel by the armed forces of Israel, the murders of 34 sailors,
and the wounding of 171, by our so-called Israeli "friends."
Many of the Zionists in America became very rich, to the point
where they were able to exert their will on the American Senate
and House, simply by the vast wealth that they controlled. These
Zionists were instrumental in bringing about the formation of the
new Israel in 1948, with the connivance of the United States, the
United Nations, and other governments in which the Zionists had
an element of financial control.
In the years since 1948, pro-Israelis in the American congress
passed laws that allowed Israel to receive billions of US tax-payer
dollars and armaments, far beyond that awarded to any other
government in the entire world, sans the necessity of having to
repay. As mentioned elsewhere, references to Israeli appear 73
times in the laws of the United States, usually attached to
provisions that give largesse to Israel. And this has nothing to
do with any prejudices against those of Jewish faith, or the time-
honored religion of true Judaism..
So, what does this all mean? Here are some answers:
1. The wealth of pro-Israelis in American society, and the influence
that comes with wealth, has allowed them to exert control over
most elective office events; in fact, there are, and have been,
non-pro-Israeli presidents and congressmen who have toed the
Israeli party line because, if they did not, they knew that floods of
election year money would go to their opponents who favored
transferring American goods and services to Israel without charge.
These floods of money have elected pro-Israel Jews to our House
and Senate, and in other elective offices. This year will be no
different, but does anyone care if Jewish or Muslim candidates
are elected fairly to our institutions, on their own merit?
Of course not! If these candidates have their own positive agendas
and their own positive principles, then more power to them.
2. The immense wealth of pro-Israelis in American society, and
the influence that comes with wealth, has allowed them to buy out
and take over major news outlets in the United States, in
movies, television, the print press, magazines, and others. The
people that work for these organizations, on every level, realize
that if they were to be in any way critical of Israel their jobs could
vanish in an instant. And this is not merely in American society.
There are other nations in world that are controlled by pro-Isreali
wealth in similar manner.
3. This great wealth of pro-Israelis in American society, and the
influence that comes with wealth, has allowed them to effectively
control great industries, and great centers of financial power. By
effective use of their money they can make markets rise and fall,
have an effect on GNP and unemployment, ploys which they
use to advantage to make or break a president, a senator, a
representative, a governor, a mayor, or any elected official who
falls into their disfavor.
Thus is the wealth and power of the pro-Israelis, in our society
and in our government. They must be stopped from awarding
by congressional fiat our American taxpayers goods, services,
and treasure.
Yet, we can make no criticism of the loyal Americans in this
country who happen to be of Jewish faith, but who identify with
America and its values. They do not control vast wealth, nor do
they work against their American homeland. They are simply
loyal citizens who deserve no more or no less than any other
citizen, with all their benefits based on how hard their efforts to
achieve.
That being said, how do we unmake the monster that is Sharon
and secular Israel?
A good place to start is if George Bush pressures congress to
immediately discontinue shipping arms and money to Israel
and/or any nation in the middle east, other than those the US is
helping to rebuild as a part of the war against terrorism.
Next, Bush informs der Fuehrer Sharon and his lackeys in no
uncertain terms that if he does not halt the blitzkrieg and fully
withdraw from Palestine immediately, American military might will
help him do so. To reinforce his words, President Bush should
put a carrier group or two in the area.
Next Bush tells the pro-Israel forces in the US congress that
they should repeal those US laws that favor Israel uber alles,
and if they send up any more legislation that sends American
treasure to Israel, in any form, he will veto it.
Next, put on notice the pro-Israeli forces in the US, the
congressmen, the industrialists, the media, the Israeli PAC's,
etc., that he is the President, that he is running the country, and
that he will fight tooth and nail against any attempts by them to
denigrate or control him, his policies, and his office.
The phrase, "So help me God" fits well in there somewhere.
Only President George W. Bush has the intellect, the intestinal
fortitude, the will, and the conscience to complete a tough, but
noble, action such as this. The ordinary people of the middle
east, Arab, Israeli, and Palestinian, Muslim Christian, and Jew, will
respond with their heartfelt thanks.
Let us hope President Bush does it soon!
Dr. E.A. Richards
For more on the intentional and savage Israeli attack on the USS Liberty,
please access the following web link which is managed by jim ennes who was mentioned above
http//www.ussliberty.org
http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/ | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 4:38 am Post subject: aipac |
| the following is forwarded from searching the archive for "aipac" at www.washingtonpost.com?:
You can search The Washington Post archives for free, but a fee will be charged to see the full text of any article published more than two weeks ago. Stories published in the past 14 days are available at no cost on our main search page.
DeLay Diplomacy
Article 1 of 4 found
Mary McGrory
May 5, 2002; Page B7
Section: B
Word Count: 830
For House Democrats, a vote for solidarity with Israel meant solidarity with Republican Whip Tom DeLay, who reminds them of Newt Gingrich. Such liberal luminaries as Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi, the House's leading advocate for human rights, Barney Frank, the usually remorseless critic of House follies, and John Lewis, who spent much of his youth in jail for civil rights, were among the 352 who voted aye for DeLay's flier in diplomacy. The resolution was nonbinding, which was
Click for complete article
White House and Hill State Support for Israel
Lobby's Meeting Draws Strong Backing
Article 2 of 4 found
Mike AllenWashington Post Staff Writer
April 23, 2002; Page A11
Section: A
Word Count: 748
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. went before one of the nation's most powerful Jewish groups last night to promise President Bush's unshakable support for the state of Israel. Card, speaking to 3,500 delegates at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, received a standing ovation after declaring in Hebrew, "The people of Israel live." His comments came 16 days after Bush called on Israel to withdraw
Click for complete article
Demonstrators Plan to Unite Varied Causes In D.C. Protest
Article 3 of 4 found
Manny Fernandez and Petula DvorakWashington Post Staff Writers
April 9, 2002; Page B1
Section: Metro
Word Count: 1009
Demonstrators from several points on the activist compass hope to turn the streets of Washington later this month into a massive, multipurpose protest. At least four demonstrations are planned for April 20 in the heart of downtown, and organizers say they expect crowds numbering from several thousand to tens of thousands. Protests, concerts and teach-ins are planned throughout the weekend. The four-day campaign will feature a diversity of dissent, including
Click for complete article
Bush Stance Pleases U.S. Jewish Groups
Initially Skeptical, Pro-Israel Lobbyists Say They Are 'Pleasantly Surprised'
Article 4 of 4 found
Alan CoopermanWashington Post Staff Writer
April 4, 2002; Page A14
Section: A Section
Word Count: 1084
President Bush's stalwart support of Israel is winning effusive praise from major organizations representing American Jews, who voted against Bush in overwhelming numbers 17 months ago. Several leading pro-Israel lobbyists said they have concluded that Bush is profoundly, personally sympathetic to Israel. They attributed that sympathy to the president's religious outlook, his inclination to think in terms of good and evil, and a trip he took to Israel in late 1998.
Click for complete article | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:19 am Post subject: |
| forwarded:
This is a nuanced article as to why the US supports Israel.
There are two views. One view cites the power and influence of
the Israeli lobby. The other view favored by Noam Chomsky argues
that Israel is America's policeman in the Middle East which is bad for
both countries.
RN
At 06:35 AM 5/30/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Why the U.S. Supports Israel - Foreign Policy In Focus
>By Stephen Zunes
>
>
>In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why,
>despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale
>military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation
>in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human
>rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong
>bipartisan support for Israel's right-wing prime minister Ariel
>Sharon's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories?
>The close relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been one of the
>most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a
>half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid
>sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress,
>even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that
>engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives
>who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western
>countries share the United States' strong support for Israel's
>legitimate right to exist in peace and security, yet these same nations
>have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands
>seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level
>of diplomatic support provided by Washington--with the United States
>often standing alone with Israel at the United Nations and other
>international forums when objections are raised over ongoing Israeli
>violations of international law and related concerns.
>Although U.S. backing of successive Israeli governments, like most
>foreign policy decisions, is often rationalized on moral grounds, there
>is little evidence that moral imperatives play more of a determining
>role in guiding U.S. policy in the Middle East than in any other part
>of the world. Most Americans do share a moral commitment to Israel's
>survival as a Jewish state, but this would not account for the level of
>financial, military, and diplomatic support provided. American aid to
>Israel goes well beyond protecting Israel's security needs within its
>internationally recognized borders. U.S. assistance includes support
>for policies in militarily occupied territories that often violate well
>established legal and ethical standards of international behavior.
>Were Israel's security interests paramount in the eyes of American
>policymakers, U.S. aid to Israel would have been highest in the early
>years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic
>institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most
>vulnerable, and would have declined as its military power grew
>dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied
>territories increased. Instead, the trend has been in just the opposite
>direction: major U.S. military and economic aid did not begin until
>after the 1967 war. Indeed, 99% of U.S. military assistance to Israel
>since its establishment came only after Israel proved itself to be far
>stronger than any combination of Arab armies and after Israeli
>occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population.
>Similarly, U.S. aid to Israel is higher now than twenty-five years ago.
>This was at a time when Egypt's massive and well-equipped armed forces
>threatened war; today, Israel has a longstanding peace treaty with
>Egypt and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer
>zone keeping its army at a distance. At that time, Syria's military was
>expanding rapidly with advanced Soviet weaponry; today, Syria has made
>clear its willingness to live in peace with Israel in return for the
>occupied Golan Heights--and Syria's military capabilities have been
>declining, weakened by the collapse of its Soviet patron.
>Also in the mid-1970s, Jordan still claimed the West Bank and stationed
>large numbers of troops along its lengthy border and the demarcation
>line with Israel; today, Jordan has signed a peace treaty and has
>established fully normalized relations. At that time, Iraq was
>embarking upon its vast program of militarization. Iraq's armed forces
>have since been devastated as a result of the Gulf War and subsequent
>international sanctions and monitoring. This raises serious questions
>as to why U.S. aid has either remained steady or actually increased
>each year since.
>In the hypothetical event that all U.S. aid to Israel were immediately
>cut off, it would be many years before Israel would be under
>significantly greater military threat than it is today. Israel has both
>a major domestic arms industry and an existing military force far more
>capable and powerful than any conceivable combination of opposing
>forces. There would be no question of Israel's survival being at risk
>militarily in the foreseeable future. When Israel was less dominant
>militarily, there was no such consensus for U.S. backing of Israel.
>Though the recent escalation of terrorist attacks inside Israel has
>raised widespread concerns about the safety of the Israeli public, the
>vast majority of U.S. military aid has no correlation to
>counterterrorism efforts.
>In short, the growing U.S. support for the Israeli government, like
>U.S. support for allies elsewhere in the world, is not motivated
>primarily by objective security needs or a strong moral commitment to
>the country. Rather, as elsewhere, U.S. foreign policy is motivated
>primarily to advance its own perceived strategic interests.
>
>Strategic Reasons for Continuing U.S. Support
>
>There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel
>has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond.
>
>Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist
>movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine.
>
>Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in
>check.
>
>Israel's air force is predominant throughout the region.
>Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American
>arms, often against Soviet weapons.
>
>It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too
>unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military
>assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in
>Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras.
>
>Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran
>junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara.
>Israel's intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence
>gathering and covert operations.
>
>Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet
>Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it
>has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research
>and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.
>
>U.S. Aid Increases as Israel Grows Stronger
>
>The pattern of U.S. aid to Israel is revealing. Immediately following
>Israel's spectacular victory in the 1967 war, when it demonstrated its
>military superiority in the region, U.S. aid shot up by 450%. Part of
>this increase, according to the New York Times, was apparently related
>to Israel's willingness to provide the U.S. with examples of new Soviet
>weapons captured during the war. Following the 1970-71 civil war in
>Jordan, when Israel's potential to curb revolutionary movements outside
>its borders became apparent, U.S. aid increased another sevenfold.
>
>After attacking Arab armies in the 1973 war were successfully countered
>by the largest U.S. airlift in history, with Israel demonstrating its
>power to defeat surprisingly strong Soviet-supplied forces, military
>aid increased by another 800%. These increases paralleled the British
>decision to withdraw its forces from "east of the Suez," which also led
>to the massive arms sales and logistical cooperation with the Shah's
>Iran, a key component of the Nixon Doctrine.
>
>Aid quadrupled again in 1979 soon after the fall of the Shah, the
>election of the right-wing Likud government, and the ratification of
>the Camp David Treaty, which included provisions for increased military
>assistance that made it more of a tripartite military pact than a
>traditional peace agreement. (It is noteworthy that the additional aid
>provided to Israel in the treaty continued despite the Begin
>government's refusal to abide by provisions relating to Palestinian
>autonomy.) Aid increased yet again soon after the 1982 Israeli invasion
>of Lebanon. In 1983 and 1984, when the United States and Israel signed
>memoranda of understanding on strategic cooperation and military
>planning and conducted their first joint naval and air military
>exercises, Israel was rewarded by an additional $1.5 billion in
>economic aid. It also received another half million dollars for the
>development of a new jet fighter.
>
>During and immediately after the Gulf War, U.S. aid increased an
>additional $650 million. When Israel dramatically increased its
>repression in the occupied territories--including incursions into
>autonomous Palestinian territories provided in treaties guaranteed by
>the U.S. government--U.S. aid increased still further and shot up again
>following the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
>
>The correlation is clear: the stronger and more willing to cooperate
>with U.S. interests that Israel becomes, the stronger the support.
>
>Ensuring Israel's Military Superiority
>
>Therefore, the continued high levels of U.S. aid to Israel comes not
>out of concern for Israel's survival, but as a result of the U.S.
>desire for Israel to continue its political dominance of the
>Palestinians and its military dominance of the region. Indeed, leaders
>of both American political parties have called not for the U.S. to help
>maintain a military balance between Israel and its neighbors, but for
>insuring Israeli military superiority.
>
>Since the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,
>there has again been some internal debate regarding how far the United
>States should back Israeli policies, now under the control of right
>wing political leader Ariel Sharon. Some of the more pragmatic
>conservatives from the senior Bush administration, such as Secretary of
>State Colin Powell, have cautioned that unconditional backing of
>Sharon's government during a period of unprecedented repression in the
>occupied territories would make it more difficult to get the full
>cooperation of Arab governments in prosecuting the campaign against
>terrorist cells affiliated with the al Qaeda network. Some of the more
>right-wing elements, such as Paul Wolfowitz of the Defense Department,
>have been arguing that Sharon was an indispensable ally in the war
>against terrorism and that the Palestinian resistance was essentially
>part of an international terrorist conspiracy against democratic
>societies.
>
>Other Contributing Factors
>
>Support for Israel's ongoing occupation and repression is not unlike
>U.S. support for Indonesia's 24-year occupation of and repression in
>East Timor or Morocco's ongoing occupation of and repression in Western
>Sahara. If seen to be in the strategic interests of the United States,
>Washington is quite willing to support the most flagrant violation of
>international law and human rights by its allies and block the United
>Nations or any other party from challenging it. No ethnic lobby or
>ideological affinity is necessary to motivate policymakers to do
>otherwise. As long as the amoral imperatives of realpolitik remain
>unchallenged, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere will
>not reflect the American public's longstanding belief that U.S.
>international relations should be guided by humanitarian principles and
>ethics.
>
>Some of the worst cases of U.S. support for repression have not
>remained unchallenged, leading to reversals in U.S. policy on Vietnam,
>Central America, South Africa, and East Timor. In these cases, grass
>roots movements supportive of peace and justice grew to a point where
>liberal members of Congress, in the media and elsewhere, joined in the
>call to stop U.S. complicity in the repression. In other cases, such as
>U.S. support for Morocco's invasion and occupation of Western Sahara,
>too few Americans are even aware of the situation to mount a serious
>challenge, so it remains off the radar screen of lawmakers and pundits.
>
>The case of Israel and Palestine is different, however. There are
>significant sectors of the population that question U.S. policy, yet
>there is a widespread consensus among elite sectors of government and
>the media in support of U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation. Indeed,
>many of the same liberal Democrats in Congress who supported
>progressive movements on other foreign policy issues agree with
>President George W. Bush--or, in some cases, are even further to the
>right--on the issue of Israel and Palestine. Therefore, while the
>perceived strategic imperative is at the root of U.S. support for
>Israel, there are additional factors that have made this issue more
>difficult for peace and human rights activists than most others. These
>include the following:
>
>The sentimental attachment many liberals--particularly among the post
>war generation in leadership positions in government and the media-
>have for Israel. Many Americans identify with Israel's internal
>democracy, progressive social institutions (such as the kibbutzim),
>relatively high level of social equality, and its important role as a
>sanctuary for an oppressed minority group that spent centuries in
>diaspora. Through a mixture of guilt regarding Western anti-Semitism,
>personal friendships with Jewish Americans who identify strongly with
>Israel, and fear of inadvertently encouraging anti-Semitism by
>criticizing Israel, there is enormous reluctance to acknowledge the
>seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international
>law.
>
>The Christian Right, with tens of millions of followers and a major
>base of support for the Republican Party, has thrown its immense media
>and political clout in support for Ariel Sharon and other right-wing
>Israeli leaders. Based in part on a messianic theology that sees the
>ingathering of Jews to the Holy Land as a precursor for the second
>coming of Christ, the battle between Israelis and Palestinians is, in
>their eyes, simply a continuation of the battle between the Israelites
>and the Philistines, with God in the role of a cosmic real estate agent
>who has deemed that the land belongs to Israel alone--secular notions
>regarding international law and the right of self-determination
>notwithstanding.
>
>Mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized
>considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the
>Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other
>forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government.
>
>Although the role of the pro-Israel lobby is often greatly exaggerated-
>with some even claiming it is the primary factor influencing U.S.
>policy--its role has been important in certain tight congressional
>races and in helping to create a climate of intimidation among those
>who seek to moderate U.S. policy, including growing numbers of
>progressive Jews.
>
>The arms industry, which contributes five times more money to
>congressional campaigns and lobbying efforts than AIPAC and other pro
>Israel groups, has considerable stake in supporting massive arms
>shipments to Israel and other Middle Eastern allies of the United
>States. It is far easier, for example, for a member of Congress to
>challenge a $60 million arms deal to Indonesia, for example, than the
>more than $2 billion of arms to Israel, particularly when so many
>congressional districts include factories that produce such military
>hardware.
>
>The widespread racism toward Arabs and Muslims so prevalent in American
>society, often perpetuated in the media. This is compounded by the
>identification many Americans have with Zionism in the Middle East as a
>reflection of our own historic experience as pioneers in North America,
>building a nation based upon noble, idealistic values while
>simultaneously suppressing and expelling the indigenous population.
>
>The failure of progressive movements in the United States to challenge
>U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine in an effective manner. For
>many years, most mainstream peace and human rights groups avoided the
>issue, not wanting to alienate many of their Jewish and other liberal
>constituents supportive of the Israeli government and fearing criticism
>of Israeli policies might inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism. As a
>result, without any countervailing pressure, liberal members of
>Congress had little incentive not to cave in to pressure from
>supporters of the Israeli government. Meanwhile, many groups on the far
>left and others took a stridently anti-Israel position that did not
>just challenge Israeli policies but also questioned Israel's very right
>to exist, severely damaging their credibility. In some cases,
>particularly among the more conservative individuals and groups
>critical of Israel, a latent anti-Semitism would come to the fore in
>wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish economic and political power and
>other statements, further alienating potential critics of U.S. policy.
>
>Conclusion
>
>While U.S. support for Israeli occupation policies, like U.S. support
>for its allies elsewhere, is primarily based upon the country's support
>for perceived U.S. security interests, there are other factors
>complicating efforts by peace and human rights groups to change U.S.
>policy. Despite these obstacles, the need to challenge U.S. support of
>the Israeli occupation is more important than ever. Not only has it led
>to enormous suffering among the Palestinians and other Arabs,
>ultimately it hurts the long-term interests of both Israel and the
>United States, as increasingly militant and extremist elements arise
>out of the Arab and Islamic world in reaction.
>
>Ultimately, there is no contradiction between support for Israel and
>support for Palestine, for Israeli security and Palestinian rights are
>not mutually exclusive but mutually dependent on each other. U.S.
>support of the Israeli government has repeatedly sabotaged the efforts
>of peace activists in Israel to change Israeli policy, which the late
>Israeli General and Knesset member Matti Peled referred to as pushing
>Israel "toward a posture of calloused intransigence." Perhaps the best
>kind of support the United States can give Israel is that of "tough
>love"--unconditional support for Israel's right to live in peace and
>security within its internationally recognized border, but an equally
>clear determination to end the occupation. This is the challenge for
>those who take seriously such basic values as freedom, democracy, and
>the rule of law.
>
>--
>--------------------------------------
>The ACJ is a coalition of major Arab-American organizations dedicated
>to promoting a solution to Jerusalem which accommodates the deep
>attachments of people of the three monotheistic religions to the city,
>and the political aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis.
>
>American Committee on Jerusalem
>4201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 302
>Washington, DC 20008
>Phone (202)237-0215 Fax (202)244-3196
>
>To unsubscribe, follow this link:
><http://www.acj.org/postlister/confirm.php?liste=List&abonner=0&epostadresse=PalestineDiary%40yahoogroups.com&id=pl3ab62b4280a3f>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>PalestineDiary-unsubscribe@egroups.com | | | | FoxtrotAlpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2002 3:43 pm Post subject: |
| | Is your old mate Arafat paying you in shekels or dollars sharkman? You getting overtime I bet. | | | | Saint | | Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 7:35 pm Post subject: |
| Has anyone else noticed the extraordinary "views" tally for this post? 720 so far, it's interesting, but does anyone else think that They might have arrived on the scene?  | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2002 4:32 pm Post subject: |
| | Saint wrote: | | Has anyone else noticed the extraordinary "views" tally for this post? 720 so far, it's interesting, but does anyone else think that They might have arrived on the scene? |
Hi Saint,
I think the reason is less sinister. The original author placed a link to this article on www.whatreallyhappened.com which gets a shed load of traffic. | | | | abdul haqq | | Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 10:11 am Post subject: israel |
| as an american, i know first hand how the jews in america control the political system. also, the jews will arrogantly attempt to censore anyone who is against their point of view.
the jews always hide behind the "anti-semetic" & holocaust ploy, while along they are in fact the anti-semetics, and racist. i pray i will live long enough to experience the pay-back to the racist jews what they really deserve :) | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
