| Author | Message | | *MA | | Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:47 pm Post subject: |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | *Mutt American wrote: | | Quote: | | traitors, moral cretins, funny-looking anti-American scrofula |
So you mean Democrats |
Vietnam was such a disappointment to you, wasn't it Mutt. |
In several ways. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:02 am Post subject: Why Gore Didn't Run again for President.. |
| http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=aco
All newspaper editors want to know what their readers like. If you would like to read this feature in your local newspaper, please do not hesitate to share your enthusiasm with your local newspaper editor.
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2002
AFTER GORE
What an irony! In the opinion of many, it was a Third Party candidate, Ralph Nader of the Greens, who doomed the Democratic candidate in 2000 and ensured victory for George Bush. Just over two years later, that same candidate, Al Gore, all but guaranteed there will be a third party challenger in 2004, maybe even Ralph Nader.
On Sunday, Dec. 15 of this waning year, Al Gore announced that he was no longer a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2004. He'd come to that conclusion, he said, in the green room at NBC's studios in New York, waiting to go on "Saturday Night Live." Liberated from the burden of candidacy, Gore duly put on one of the better performances of his career in public life.
So why did he stand down, and what does his exit portend in the political battles ahead?
When Gore took his stance against the attack on Iraq he was parting ways with a group that has underwritten his political career these past 30 years, a group among whose prime features has been unswerving advocacy of the most hawkish Israeli positions, as expressed by Gore's tutor, Martin Peretz, Harvard fixture and sometime editor-in-chief of the New Republic.
It was Peretz who stood at Gore's elbow when the latter successfully established himself as one of the most delirious pro-Israel apologists in the U.S. Congress. It was Peretz who helped script Gore's prime-time Senate speech in 1991 announcing his defection from the Congressional Democrats in favor of Bush Sr.'s war.
Gore had to have known, when he started voicing opposition to Bush Jr.'s war plans, that his most enduring money source would dry up, that he was cutting off his own money supply.
Is the moral that no Democratic candidate can afford to take any position athwart that of Israel's hawks and their promoters here? It certainly looks like it.
Most prominent in the field as possible Democratic challengers to George Bush we now have Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Back in 1991, Kerry, a Vietnam vet, spoke strongly against war on Iraq, and in 2000, Gore discounted Kerry as a possible running mate because of that opposition. Now, Kerry favors war. Lieberman takes his cue from Ariel Sharon. Kerry has the financial advantage of being married to Teresa, formerly the wife of Senator John Heinz, who was killed in an air crash. Teresa inherited around $700 million. For his part, Lieberman rakes in cash from the corporations in whose cause he led the push to relax the accounting rules, thus prompting the corporate scandals that made 2002 such an enjoyable year.
To winch his nomination prospects out of the mud, Edwards began to pound the war drum last fall. The prospect of dropping bombs on Iraqi people enthralls the senator. On Sept. 19, Edwards rushed to be first in line among Senate Democrats to show his unflinching support for unlimited war, publishing an editorial in the Washington Post so in tune with Bush doctrine that the U.S. State Department featured it on its Web site.
Moral: As with Kerry, no Democratic candidate feels able to oppose a war on Iraq.
The same time that Gore was staking his antiwar ground, the Texan populist Ronnie Dugger wrote an impassioned article in The Nation magazine, entitled "Ralph, Don't Run," calling for unified opposition to Bush in 2004. Bush, Dugger wrote, is far worse than anyone could have imagined. There is no longer room, he concluded, for any Third Party candidate liable to take votes from the Democratic nominee.
Dugger recounted how he had vainly tried to get Ralph Nader to agree that all progressives, populists, Leftists, Greens, etc., should fall in behind the Democratic nominee. "Ralph persists in the view," Dugger wrote sadly, "that it does not matter whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the White House."
Gore's departure hasn't made life any easier for those who would agree with Dugger. After all, here's was a Democratic politician building a campaign platform exactly along the sort of left-liberal lines Dugger has long campaigned for. Gore had come out in favor of single-payer health insurance. He'd been taking a populist line on the economy. He'd attacked the looming war. At which point he discovered that he had no future in the party as a presidential candidate and no prospect of raising any money.
There were three major issues in 2002: war with Iraq; national security and the bill of rights; and the tanking economy. The Democrats have failed on all three fronts, nowhere more dismally than on the economy, where opportunity has been ripest.
The Democrats have no plan, and much of the time manage to stand to the right of the Republicans on matters such as balancing the budget. Amid almost weekly examples of corporate looting and executive criminality unrivaled in the fragrant history of American capitalism, the Democrats have been unable to seize the initiative, which is scarcely surprising since the party has been soundly bribed into complaisance by these same corporate criminals.
When Gore took himself out of the race on Dec. 15, he proved once again Ralph Nader's point: the seamless realities of mainstream politics; the enduring need for alternative candidacies. It may not be Nader himself, but in all likelihood, there will be another Green candidate, and for those furious Democrats who think it was Nader who gave Bush the crucial edge in his dubious capture of the White House, that's grim news.
Alexander Cockburn is coeditor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:18 am Post subject: Re: Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby |
| | Anonymous wrote: | Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby
by Jeffrey Blankfort
On a Saturday in mid-February a little less than a year ago, I had two
experiences, one very positive and encouraging --the other negative and
disturbing. The first was at the Marin Community Center in Mill Valley,
across the Bay from San Francisco, where more than 200 ( 210 signed in)
people, and not what we refer to as "the choir" or "the usual suspects,"
turned up to hear Palestinian legal scholar Raja Shehadeh, Palestinian
professor Jess Ghannam, Stanford-based Israeli scholar Yael Ben-Zvi and
myself speak on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The event was sponsored by a relatively new organization, "If Americans Only
Knew." initiated by Alison Weir, a Marin county resident who had been
stimulated into action in behalf of the Palestinians after a visit to
Israeli-occupied Gaza the year before.
All of the presentations were well received but the enthusiastic reception
for mine, in particular, was significant because my subject was the pro-
Israel lobby and its negative influence on the American body politic.
I placed much of the blame for the escalation of violence in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict on the actions of the organized American Jewish
community and by individual Jews working independently who over the years
have successfully stifled, intimidated, and marginalized critics of Israeli
policies.
I expected an uproar from the audience because, from my experience, Marin had
always been another "occupied territory," but even among the many Jews
there, none challenged by premise or my evidence.
What they heard and saw was factual and visual evidence of the power of
Israel's supporters over Congress and politicians at every political level
and. equally damning, their effectiveness in preventing the various anti-war
and anti-intervention coalitions over the years from taking any position that
might touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even one as mild as, "US Out
of the Middle East."
After I spoke and after the applause, a number of people, Jews and non-Jews,
and several students came up to me wanting more information .
Then I went over to Berkeley to the second day of a three-day conference
organized by Students for Justice in Palestine where the issue of the Israel
Lobby was nowhere on the agenda.
I arrived during Phyllis Bennis's presentation. Bennis, a fellow of the
Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington-based liberal think tank, is one
of the left's more well known talking heads on the Israel-Palestine conflict
and can frequently be heard on KPFA and other Pacifica stations.
Over the years, like most of the other "experts, from the "left," with the
notable exceptions of Columnist Alexander Cockburn and Prof. Ed Herman, she
has never recognized, let alone been willing to discuss, the power of the
Israel Lobby over US policy in the Middle East, despite overwhelming and
indisputable evidence of its existence and of its influence.
What happened when I arrived in the auditorium was astonishing. Seeing me in
the back of the auditorium where I was sitting with a friend, totally out of
the blue and raising her voice, she interrupted her talk to blurt out,
"Congress is not Israeli Occupied Territory!"
I assumed she was referring to an article that I had written 10 years earlier
that was published in the 1992 edition of the City Lights Review, entitled,
"Occupied Territory: Congress, the Israel Lobby and Jewish Responsibility."
In the article I had criticized the left supporters of the Palestinian
movement for their failure to deal with the issue of the Israel lobby.
My response to Bennis was immediate "Yes, it is!, " I said aloud. "No it
isn't!" she shot back, sharply, rather displeased, and went on to describe
an effort that some members of the Congressional Black Caucus were making
regarding the illegal use of US arms by the Israelis. against Palestinian
civilians..
In the question period, it became obvious that she didn't want me to get
the floor. While answering a question as to what actions people should take
to help the Palestinian cause, she seemed to be filibustering as if she was
hoping the question period would draw to a close.
What would she have activists do? Believe it or not: write letters to the
editor once a week. The system's safety valve. As far as contacting members
of Congress or protesting their support for Israel, the Washington-based
Bennis said nary a word.
Finally, despite what was an obvious effort on her part to get the moderator-
-who had promised me the next question, to give it to someone else--I
finally got the floor. I proceeded to describe four situations in which the
Israel lobby clearly demonstrated its power over Congress and explained how
"the lobby" had run those black congressmembers who criticized Israel out of
office and were trying to do the same with the main critic at that time,
Atlanta's Cynthia McKinney.
This was, of course, several months before she and Albama's Ear; Hilliard
went down to defeat thanks largely to funds sent by Jews from outside of
Georgia and a smear campaign within her district engineered by the Israel
lobby.
Then I took the anti-war movement to task. Like every other political sector
of US society, I said that pro-Israel Jews within its ranks and others who
are fearful that raising the issue of the pro-Israel lobby would provoke
"anti-Semitism, have not only kept the lid on that issue, but have kepy the
Palestinian cause isolated from the movement's overall agenda..
Whatever the reason, I emphasized, there are no excuses for the silence of
the movement on the issue of the lobby nor for it's genuflecting to "Jewish
sensibilities" regarding the overall struggle.
Neither Bennis nor her co-panelist, a Jewish professor, said a word when I
finished. After the program, I went down to say hello to her, and jokingly
mentioned that she still had not yet understood the role of the Israel
Lobby.
She was neither friendly or amused. "The issue is dead and has been dead.."
End of conversation.
What is disturbing is that her position regarding the Israel lobby is that
long held by Noam Chomsky, as well, as by professors Joel Beinin of Stanford
and Stephen Zunes of USF. Bennis's position is puzzling since she is based
in Washington, where, for the politically aware, "the lobby's" power is a
given..
To their credit, all of them, and Chomsky in particular, have, through their
writing and speaking, have exposed American audiences to the history of the
Israeli-Palestinian struggle, but their refusal to acknowledge the critical
domestic aspects of the struggle are indefensible and can no longer be left
unchallenged..
(In 1989, Zunes wrote an excellent piece on the power of the pro-Israel
lobby for The Progressive, but he soon changed his position, perhaps when he
realized that "blaming the Jews" is the fastest way to get marginalized in
US academia. The facts and the quotes in his article, however, did not
change.
In his recent book, Tinderbox, he writes that Arabs have mistakenly blamed
Israel for its problems and that Israel is actually a victim of US policies.
He would have us believe that Israel is forced to play the same role for the
United States that Jews played under feudalism when they were the
middlepersons between the lords and the serfs.
This analysis would have us believe that Israel and its Jewish supporters
today are somehow in the precarious position that European Jews found
themselves in several hundred years ago This is absurd. The first situation
represented Jewish weakness. Today, Jews have more than at any time in their
history.
Zunes ignores the fact that Jewish supporters of Israel are far and away the
leading contributors to the Democratic Party and dominate every sector of the
media: movies, TV., radio, and the press.
Since 1978, the amount of money contributed by pro-Israel PACs alone is over
$34 million, as compared to Enron whose $6 million over 10 years given to
many of the same politicians is held up as an example of an abuse of the
system.
That $34 million does not account for soft money and contributions from
wealthy Jews such as the $1.1 million given by real estate mogul Nat Landow
to Al Gore nor the $1.5 given to Joe Biden some years back by Walter
Shorenstein, the biggest commercial property owner in San Francisco, the
sometime head of the state Democratic Party Central Committee and a member
of the AIPAC Board of Directors.
On the Mother Jones magazine website <www.motherjones.com> one finds the
leading individual contributors to both political parties in the 1999-2000
cycle. Eight of the top ten are Jews who contributed, with one exception,
exclusively to the Democratic Party. That one exception was Chiquita
Banana's Carl Lindner who contributed to the Republicans as well.
One of those top ten was Haim Saban, currently a regent of the University of
California, appointed to that post by Gov. Gray Davis, in February, 2001.
Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli Jew, contributed $1,250,500 in that cycle to
the Democrats which put him in fifth place. This year, his contribution to
the Democrats of $7 million established a party record.
Saban, who made his fortune by creating Fox TV's Mighty Morphin Power
Rangers, has also built the Haim Saban Center in Washington which this summer
hosted a meeting of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee),
Israel's officially registered lobby with Jewish college students from around
the country. Their focus: How to counteract pro-Palestinian activity on
college campuses and combat the divestment campaigns that target Israel such
as that initiated by the Students for Justice in Palestine.
In every other political and social struggle in this country we learn who is
funding the other side and the identity of their lobbies in Washington,
e.g., the oil lobby, armaments lobby, the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, the
insurance and banking lobbies, the hospital and mecical lobbies, the airline
and transportation, etc.
Why is the Israel Lobby a taboo subject among the left and the anti-war
movements?
Why was it not on the agenda of the conference in Berkeley that weekend?
There were three days of meetings so its organizers had plenty of time.
Why was there no discussion on the failure of the peace and anti-war
movements to integrate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the over-all
anti-war movement?
These questions need to be asked and we need to get answers. Those who shine
us off with the same kind of comment that Phyllis Bennis gave to me that day
have to be challenged to explain themselves and be willing to debate the
question of the lobby's role in determining not only policy in Washington
but the agenda of the peace movement.
As for Bennis, I was later told by an activist against sanctions in Iraq,
that earlier in the day she had spoken in support of military sanctions
against Iraq to prevent it from building "weapons of mass destruction."
(This is an updated version of an article that originially appeared in the
Anderson Valley Advertiser in February, 2002.) |
As this article gets around, it's gotten to Phyllis and here is how she
is responding. I have two witnesses to everything I described including
the friend who asked me to put the article online. Through the person
who forwarded this to me, I have asked him to ask her if she is willing
to debate me. As far as the article, she refers to on the MERIP website,
I was unable to find it. Maybe you will have more luck.
Best wishes for the new year.
Jeff
>Dear
>happy new year to you too.
>I send you below the note I'm sending around to others -- I wish people
>were working against U.S. support for Israeli occupation instead of wasting
>time on such polemics, but such is life.
>Of COURSE there's a pro-Israeli lobby (not just Jews these days, the
>christian right is as influential within it) that is influential. I've
>written about it, I've been attacked by it, etc.
>all the best
>phyllis
>
>Dear __
>I wish no one was wasting time on this, when there's so much urgent
work to
>be done opposing U.S. support for Israel's occupation, but thanks for
>asking. Jeffrey Blankfort sent this same letter out right after the
>Berkeley conference a year ago, not sure why he's bothering again, or why
>Ron Bleir is either.
>Of course his description of what happened is not accurate, but I have no
>intention of getting into a he said/she said debate about it.
>Anyone who wants to know my views on Palestine, the lobby, US foreign
>policy, etc. can easily find my writings on the web or in any of my books.
>The last article I wrote that was specifically focused on the lobby was in
>MERIP a couple of years ago, jointly with Khaled Mansour, and focusing on
>the changing nature of the lobby as it expanded among right-wing
>Christians. It's on the MERIP website. Jeff & I have disagreed for years,
>as have many of us in this movement, on who's the dog & who's the tail. My
>view is that Washington is the dog, making the policy, & the lobby is a
>powerful tail. That's hardly the same as "silence" on the lobby.
>My work these days includes a major effort in the U.S. Campaign to End
>Israeli Occupation, which you can find at www.endtheoccupation.org.
>Thanks for your inquiry.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Davidsson - - Iceland | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:56 pm Post subject: The Return Of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams |
| The Return Of Elliott Abrams
Israel's Likud Scores Big With White House Appointment
Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service, an international newswire, and for Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric Resource Center.
Neo-conservative hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush have won a major battle against the State Department in the fight for control of United States Mideast policy with the surprise appointment of Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams to the region's top policy spot in the National Security Council (NSC).
The appointment, leaked to reporters by the White House, would for the first time place someone in a top Mideast policy spot who has publicly assailed the "land-for-peace" formula that has guided U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1967 war.
Abrams, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Reagan administration who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, has also opposed the Oslo peace process and called for Washington to "stand by Israel," rather than act as a neutral mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Yet another American Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda in the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people." Likud is the rightwing Israeli party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Currently the NSC staff chief for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, Abrams will become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the NSC for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs.
As such, he will be in charge of presenting policy papers and options for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose own opinions have proven decisive in cases where the president receives conflicting views from hawks, represented by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, and the more-dovish Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is often backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the uniformed military. Rice, a Russia specialist, had no experience with Mideast issues until her current job. Abrams will replace Zalmay Khalilzad, a prominent foreign-policy strategist whose views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are considered much more neutral than Abrams'. Khalilzad succeeded Clinton holdover Bruce Reidel early last year but was quickly consumed with his native-borne Afghanistan after being named special envoy to the interim president, Hamid Karzai. Khalilzad will now become "ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis" and is expected to play a key role in sorting out internal conflicts among the Iraqi opposition.
Beloved by right-wingers who hail him as both a hero for his championship of the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s, Abrams first gained prominence as a leading neo-conservative when he served as Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights in the early 1980s and then as Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.
In both positions, he clashed frequently and angrily with mainstream church groups and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who often accused him of covering up horrendous abuses committed by U.S.-backed governments, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebel forces, such as the Contras and Angola's Unita, while, at the same time, exaggerating abuses by U.S. foes.
He was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the Contras but pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants in 1992.
His credibility for truth-telling was so low that at one point he was required to take an oath before testifying before Congressional committees. Most analysts here believe that he was given an NSC post by the new Bush administration because any other position would have required Senate confirmation.
After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the Bush Sr. administration. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) where he wrote widely on foreign-policy issues, including the Middle East, and the threats posed by U.S. secular society to Jewish identity. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit neo-conservative foreign-policy community in Washington that revolved around one of his early mentors, Richard Perle and former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Then-House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich furthered his public rehabilitation by appointing him to the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1999 for which he also served as chairman in 2000-01. Muslim groups here have complained about his refusal to criticise Israeli practices in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as sealing off Muslim holy sites, as violations of religious freedom.
He is not known as an Arab-Israeli specialist but has long favoured Likud positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even assailed former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for caving into U.S. pressure to respect the Oslo peace process. Shortly after the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifida at the end of September 2000, he criticised mainstream Jewish groups for calling for a resumption of peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, as well as a halt to the violence.
Like Perle, as well as Rumsfeld's civilian advisers like Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Cheney's top deputy, I. Lewis Libby, he has favoured a Mideast strategy based on the overwhelming military power of both the United States and Israel and on a military alliance between Israel and Turkey against hostile Arab states, particularly Syria and Iraq, in order to create a "broader strategic context" that would ensure whatever state might emerge on Palestinian territory would be friendly to United States and Israeli interests and that could force Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. He has long favoured forceful action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He has accused Palestinian Authority leader Yassir Arafat of being an untrustworthy partner under the Oslo process and is believed to have used his previous NSC Democracy position to push for his ouster from power as part of a thorough reform process. That view, which was strongly backed by Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices, was eventually accepted by Bush last June, over strenuous objections by the State Department and senior aides for Bush's father, notably his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.
In his new position, according to John Prados, a historian who has written about the National Security Council, Abrams should be in an excellent position to influence U.S. policy on the Mideast, particularly in "delaying and/or halting policy on the 'roadmap'" that is being developed by the "Quartet" -- the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations -- on resuming political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Indeed, it already appears that British hopes for a major meeting of the Quartet on the roadmap before the end of the year are fading quickly.
Abrams is expected to support Israel's recent requests both to put off discussion of the 'roadmap' until after Israel's elections at the end of next month and for some 14 billion dollars in military aid and loan guarantees to help the country cope with economic hard times.
Abrams' influence on policy is already clear. For the first time ever the Bush administration voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last week that called on Israel to repeal the Jerusalem law that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."
In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, insisting that the the status of Jerusalem must be determined by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Abrams has in the past assailed that vote, as well as Washington's refusal to recogize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, on the grounds that that such a position "tantalizes the Palestinians with the prospect of forcing the Jews to abandon Jerusalem."
As you might expect, Arab-Americans responded to the appointment with a mix of resignation and foreboding.
James Zogby, the director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) here said Abrams' appointment sends "a very dangerous message to the Arab world" and adds to the "lock that the neo-con set now has on all the major instruments of decision-making except for the State Department."
Khalidi also pointed to Abrams' history as being less than forthcoming with information that may contradict his own views. "He will be yet another filter blocking reality from reaching the president," he said. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 9:45 am Post subject: 'DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL' |
| > A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of "ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL," by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> Editor comments: Thank you Dr. Susan Huck.
>
> The following powerful one-page review of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL by
> career journalist and book author Dr. Susan Huck is the most incisive
> review yet. It again reminds your Editor that this book was Andrew
> Hurley's life literary work, resulting from 20 years of careful data
> collection and writing.
>
> Hurley chose, because of the nature of his business relationships, to
> wait until his retirement to publish ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. Each
> paragraph and every word was mulled over time and time again before
> it was finally printed. Only the clearest facts and conclusions
> survived. The result was this impeccable book.
>
> It was my honor to know Jim Hurley before his death last year, and to
> hear of the many antidotes he did not include, and some he could not
> include. Andrew J. Hurley (Jim) lived an abundant and adventurous
> life that would seem enviable to most of us. However It is my belief
> that he will someday be remembered, not for his business successes,
> but for this, his one and only book.
>
> ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL is the one book we know of that has yet to be
> seriously challenged on any material fact, and nary a detail has been
> upended since WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS published it as our first book.
> Hurley wrote ONUI believing that millions of live were at risk, and
> that he could make a difference.
>
> Thanks to Jim Hurley; we will do our best to help the world remember
> and honor him - Editor.
>
> DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL
>
> A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> The original title of this 1990 book, "Holocaust II? Saving
> Israel from Suicide", perhaps more accurately reflected the author's
> concern that aggressive Israeli policies might ultimately lead to
> disaster for Israel. However, the current title very accurately
> reflects the current American, as distinct from the Israeli problem.
> It details, as truthfully as any source I have seen, the manner in
> which Uncle Sam is converted into Uncle Schlemiel, Israel's 900-pound
> gorilla.
>
> The theme of suicidal Jewish zealotry is outlined in Hurley's
> first chapter, which draws upon A History of the Jews, by Dr. Abram
> Sachar, once president of Brandeis University. Far from the tale of
> continual undeserved victimhood constantly served to the public,
> Sachar demonstrates how, from a thousand years before the birth of
> Christ, Jewish tribes and states kept getting into needless
> difficulties with both friend and foe.
>
> Ah, but such a perspective does not serve current
> purposes. "We" non-Jews must be kept guilt-ridden and "obliged" to
> grovel, pay, and otherwise sacrifice ourselves for Jews. An Anti-
> Defamation League catalogue of "educational" material emphasizes the
> theme of victimhood and martyrdom at the hands of Christians, as in
> The Longest Hatred -- "from the Cross to the Swastika." The ADL's
> concept of a "good Christian" is one who sacrifices himself for the
> Jews. It is sad to see the American armed forces being set up to
> serve as "good Christians" for Israel.
>
> Hurley's book was originally published in 1990, before "Gulf
> War I," the Bush 41 war. The re-titled but not revised edition was
> published in 1999, apparently missing by just a few years "Gulf War
> II," or the Bush 43 war scheduled for 2003. Nothing, it seems, will
> deter President George Bush from initiating the all-out war on Iraq
> being pressed by a Jewish cabal within his administration. Jewish
> enthusiasts look forward to it as the beginning of "World War IV" to
> forcibly "re-educate" all Moslems everywhere, beginning with Israel's
> closest foes.
>
> As the preface to ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL explains, lawyer
> and historian Andrew Hurley does much more than examine Jewish
> history. He explains -- at length and with "documentation," the
> methods by which the Jewish lobby in the United States controls "our"
> federal government. The carrot is money, the stick is public
> smearing, followed if necessary by deprivation of livelihood.
>
> American and Israeli Jews collaborate seamlessly to bulldoze
> Congress and the entire executive branch into sending an
> uninterrupted stream of money, military hardware, and whatever else
> is wanted to Israel. Congressman Larry McDonald, who was on the
> research and development subcommittee of the House Armed Services
> Committee, once told me that "we wouldn't even have an R & D program
> if Israel didn't want us to," because the fruits of taxpayer-funded R
> & D, he knew, were funneled straight to Israel.
>
> The Israelis then feel free to market it, by the way. Hurley
> explains this in great detail. No cabinet member, not to mention mere
> bureaucrat, can stand in the way of this continual transfer of
> wealth, because the Jews can "go over the head" of anyone of any
> rank.
>
> Hurley, writing in 1990, could not have known that George
> Bush's father, Bush 41, would "learn" that he lost his 1992 re-
> election campaign because he merely delayed a "loan guarantee" to
> Israel. (That is, he delayed guaranteeing that if Israel
> defaulted, "our" government would pay. In any event, our annual multi-
> billion dollar gifts to Israel easily cover Israel's debts.) Young
> Bush 43 has been keenly monitored ever since he loomed on the horizon
> as a candidate. The ADL boasts of this.
>
> In short, Hurley's book is a manual of "how they do it,"
> filled with examples as of 1990. In 2003, "how they do it" has simply
> become more blatant, as Jewish "neocons" -- so-called neo-
> conservatives -- pack the administration with armchair warhawks and
> are apparently capable of employing the American armed forces as
> their own.
>
> By employing mere name-calling as a first-line weapon, the
> goyim are reduced to jellyfish. Why does anyone respond to
> accusations of "anti-Semitism" with other than a patient smile and
> the comment, "That won't work, either"?
>
> If the silly goyim ever wake up and do that, the United
> States might cease to be ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. -end
>
> (Reviewer, Dr. Susan Huck's latest book "WHY DO WE AMERICAN SUBMIT TO
> THIS" By Newcomb Publisher's Inc., is now available from We Hold
> These Truths, $20.00)
>
> To Buy ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, 345 page soft cover, $17.50; 2 for
> $35.00; 10 for $128.00. (http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm)
>
> We Hold These Truths
> P.O. Box 14491
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254
> 480-947-3329
>
> To subscribe, type "Subscribe" in the SUBJECT LINE.
> To unsubscribe, type "Remove" in the SUBJECT LINE.
>
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WORDS are Stronger than SWORDS! ~ Spread the words to the Wilderness!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine is America's Secular WILDERNESS VOICE for PALESTINE!*
www.FreePalestine.com No Peace Without Occupation Free PALESTINE!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessed are the Peacemakers NOT the Warmongers!
Chronic INJUSTICE is the ROOT of TERRORISM!
Fighting TERRORISM while AIDING OCCUPATION is Moronic!
END TERRORISM by ENDING Israeli OCCUPATION Stupid!
SHARON NOW = MILOSEVIC Then = HITLER IN 1942!
Peace Only in a Legislatively DEzIONIZED Secular State!
Aiding Israeli OCCUPATION = Aiding TERRORISM!
Where Does Our Simplistic Absolutist President Stand?!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
www.Badil.org The RIGHT of RETURN!
www.IndictSharon.net Indict the BUTCHER!
www.PMWatch.org PALESTINE MEDIA WATCH!
www.PalestineRemembered.com PALESTINE for DUMMIES!
www.FreePalestineCampaign.org Be a Peacemaker in PALESTINE!
www.InternationalAnswer.org Act Now to STOP WAR and End RACISM
www.capwiz.com/ADC/home/ Tell Congress to Stop Aid to Israel!
www.Al-Awda.org/petition.htm END zIONIST Profit from OCCUPATION!
www.RamallahOnline.com Our Occupied Home in Ramallah PALESTINE!
www.groups.Yahoo.com/group/eFreePalestine/messages ARCHIVES!
www.PalestineChronicle.com News and Views from PALESTINE!
www.DocumentaryPhotographs.com Pictures from PALESTINE!
www.PalestineMonitor.org Monitor PALESTINE!
www.WRMEA.com zIONIST-Free MEDIA!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine-subscribe@YahooGroups.com SUBSCRIBE NOW
eFreePalestine-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com Unsubscribe
eFreePalestine@YahooGroups.com Speak up on eFreePalestine!
eFreePalestine-owner@YahooGroups.com Questions/Comments!
Views expressed are the author's only*
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 10:57 am Post subject: Ever Notice....? |
| Ever notice how a lot of Jewish guys (Frum, Horowitz, Kristol, Perle, ad nauseum) closely resemble weasels, rats, and moles?
What say the odds are that Mutt looks like Alain Delon? 10 trillion to 1.
That he looks like a wet-mouthed goofball with a big nose? 2-1 | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 1:49 am Post subject: Israeli Forces Kill 10 in Gaza Incursion |
| Israeli Forces Kill 10 in Gaza Incursion
Date: 1/25/03 5:40:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BGJDAVID
I'll bet you won't hear any condemnation from the White House on this. As a matter of fact the only words you may get from the White House is how soon can they approve the $12 billion in aid package to Israel. I guess the Bush Administration simply ignores the conditions for receiving U.S. military aid that Israel has violated repeatedly. Under the Arms Export Control Act, military hardware provided by FNS funds can be used only for defensive purposes or to maintain internal security. Israel violates both conditions and therefore should be withdrawn from receiving further aid. No spin of the tongue can describe this crime as a defensive measure or to maintain internal security.
Israeli Forces Kill 10 in Gaza Incursion
By IBRAHIM BARZAK
.c The Associated Press
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Israeli forces with tanks and helicopters moved deep into Gaza City early Sunday, killing 10 Palestinians in exchanges of fire, a large-scale assault just three days before Israel's election.
It was the highest toll in Gaza in five months, and the incursion was the deepest into Gaza City in more than two years of fighting. Tanks were seen a half a mile from Palestine Square, which marks the center of the city of about 300,000.
Late Saturday, Israeli tanks entered the city from three directions, as helicopter gunships fired machine guns at targets and at crowds of people in the streets, including gunmen, witnesses and security officials said.
Ten Palestinians were killed and 42 wounded, eight critically, hospital officials said. It was the bloodiest day in the Gaza Strip since August, when 13 people were killed in an Israeli attack on the southern city of Khan Younis. Casualties were being brought to Gaza's Shifa Hospital in cars and ambulances.
The Israeli military said its forces in Gaza came under heavy rifle and anti-tank fire, and soldiers returned the fire.
A missile fired by an Israeli helicopter started a huge fire in the Shajaiyeh neighborhood in eastern Gaza City, witnesses said. Firefighters were battling the blaze in the industrial area.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, said its fighters blew up three Israeli tanks with explosives. The Israeli military denied the claim.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, running for re-election, stood to benefit from an upsurge of violence as Tuesday's elections approached. His hard-line Likud party and its allies are ahead in the polls, and Sharon is expected to form a new government after the voting, but Likud leaders say they're concerned that they might still not have enough electoral strength to form a stable ruling coalition.
Israeli forces blew up the two-story house of a Hamas militant and were approaching the houses of two others involved in an attack on a Jewish settlement in Gaza, Palestinians said.
Also, several metal workshop in the same area were blown up. Israelis charge that Palestinians use the workshops to produce weapons, including mortars and rockets.
Early Sunday, witnesses said nine Israeli tanks took up positions in the center of Beit Hanoun, a town at the northern edge of the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces blew up four bridges a day earlier. Palestinians have been firing rockets and mortars from Beit Hanoun at Jewish settlements and nearby Israeli towns in recent days.
As the Israeli incursion in Gaza City was in progress, Maj. Gen. Abdel Razek Majaidie, head of Palestinian security in Gaza, accused Sharon of ``adding a new page to his dark record. This crime against innocent civilians is another part of his continuous war against the Palestinian people and Palestinian homeland.''
The incursion began around 10 p.m. Saturday, with about 35 tanks moving toward the center of Gaza City from three directions, witnesses and security officials said.
Palestinian legislator Ziad Abu Amr said he saw 10 tanks drive through his street. Another resident, Mohammed Tafesh, 29, said electricity was cut to the neighborhood. From mosque loudspeakers across the city, gunmen were called into the streets to wage ``holy war'' against the Israelis.
Two helicopter gunships fired machine guns toward armed men. In one exchange, gunmen fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli armored vehicle, drawing Israeli tank fire. Tafesh said the gunmen got away. | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | dajson | | Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: I was rooting for Hezbolah |
| | I rooted for Hezbolah in last Summer's war between Israel and Lebanon, because frankly, Nazi is as Nazi does to include even akazanazis. How dare a country of alleged holocaust survivors treat any other group of human beings as less then human. The world is catching a whiff of your smell Israel, and you don't smell so holy or chosen after all. You stink! | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
