War Without End

Guest

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 9:42 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

Notice how Elliott Abrams is mentioned in the following article which is a MUST READ as well:

Zionism Unbound

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Pettifer_Zionism.htm

Dissident Voice | December 11, 2002

Zionism Unbound By Ann Pettifer

In the spring of 1986, Gore Vidal, novelist and chronicler of US history, published an essay in The Nation which became instantly notorious. Called "The Empire Lovers Strike Back," its subject was the relationship of American Jewish neo-conservatives to the state of Israel. He chose as exemplars of the phenomenon, Commentary magazine editor, Norman Podhoretz, and spouse, Midge Decter (mother-in-law of Elliot Abrams of Iran Contra infamy; Abrams, a racial purist who disdains intermarriage, now serves as White House Director of Middle Eastern Affairs). Podhoretz and Decter had once been liberals, but an aggressive Zionism led them to pitch their tent in the Republican Party. Their aim was to use US economic and political heft to advance Israel's interests in the Middle East. The essay was vintage Vidal and it greatly provoked his critics. To ensure that no one took seriously what he had to say - to silence the debate before it started - he was rubbished as the worst kind of anti-Semite.

So, exactly what had Vidal said to earn this most feared of labels? In recent weeks we have heard a good deal about the cynical alliance between fundamentalist Christian Zionists in the US and Jewish settlers (supported by the right-wing Likud party) in the Occupied Territories. Sixteen years ago in a display of considerable prescience, Vidal wrote: "since spades may not be called spades in freedom's land, let me spell it out.

In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus Christers all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis whom they disdain."

Central to Vidal's case was the indifference to US history which he discerned among these Jewish neo-conservatives. When he was writing a play set during the American Civil War, he recalls Norman Podhoretz asking him, "Why are you writing a play about, of all things, the Civil War?"

When Vidal explained that this was/is "the great, single tragic event that gives resonance to our Republic" Podhoretz replied, "To me, the Civil War is as remote and irrelevant as the War of the Roses." Vidal calls Podhoretz and his ilk Fifth Columnists (Israeli division) to indicate their extra-territorial priorities. They pursue political power not in order to make the US a better place, to right wrongs or to fight inequality here, but to promote Israel's pre-eminence in the Middle East, to confine Palestinians to a couple of Bantustans or, better still, engineer their expulsion to Jordan. Judith Shulavitz, writing last month in The New York Times about Podhoretz's new book, The Prophets: Who They Were And What They Are, observes that for Podhoretz the biblical prophet's message is: "the Jews are the people chosen to redeem the world's They will perform their divinely appointed duty only if they cling to the Covenant between God and themselves and support Zionism." Any appropriation of the prophets in support of social justice he dismisses as false - a Christian overlay or redaction.

The influence of old-guard Jewish neo-cons, such as Podhoretz and Decter, was exercised mainly through journals of opinion they edited or owned (in addition to Commentary, Martin Peretz's New Republic comes to mind). Now, however, a new generation has its hand on the tiller of power. In September, Bill Keller profiled Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, for The New York Times' Sunday Magazine. Wolfowitz and fellow Jewish neo-cons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have emerged as the Pentagon's Paladins, their aim being to subdue the Islamic world through decisive, pre-emptive use of American military superiority. While Wolfowitz is pressing for war against Saddam Hussein, Keller notes his "scholarly detachment" from the disastrous Vietnam War (as remote as the War of the Roses?), in which, while eligible, he had chosen not to serve.

Wolfowitz first formed ties to Israel when he accompanied his father there for a sabbatical year. He is known to have close links to Israeli generals and Likud politicians. Keller, somewhat hesitatingly, discloses that there are people in Washington who hint at Wolfowitz's "dual loyalties." The (London) Guardian columnist, Hugo Young, is less reticent: "Only in Washington does one get a true sense of the obsession of these Pentagon civilians. Conversationally, it is common talk that some of them, not including Rumsfeld, are as much Israeli as American nationalists. Behind nervous, confiding hands come sardonic whispers of an American outpost of Likud. Most striking of all, however, is how unmentionable this is in the liberal press."

If dragons' teeth are being sown by American foreign policy in the Middle East, the urgent question is why a craven liberal press is not addressing the Israeli nationalism of the policy's architects. Thinking I might find clues, I trawled through a piece by Cliff Rothman in The Nation, entitled "Jewish Media Stranglehold?" At the outset, Rothman de-legitimizes the question by reminding us that it was Richard Nixon who first posed it; he then proceeds to associate it with White Power rhetoric, trailer parks and compounds in Montana. Nothing of substance emerges. There was, however, an interesting exchange with Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harpers, whose essays are surely some of the best political writing in the US. When the question was put to him, Rothman writes that Lapham "ventured onto the treacherous terrain of hypothosizing a unique Jewish sensibility impacting the media because of the sheer number of Jewish editors and writers. But, Lapham then recoiled: 'If I am going to take shit, I may as well write my own column.'"

About three years ago, Nightline's Ted Koppel came to the University of Notre Dame to give the Red Smith journalism lecture. I remember summoning every ounce of courage during question time in order to express my concern about the importance of even-handedness in the US media when reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Then I asked Koppel how he felt, as a Jewish-American, about a foreign policy team which at that time was overwhelmingly Jewish. Madelaine Albright and her spokesman, James Rubin, were at the State Department, Sandy Berger was Security Advisor and William Cohen Secretary of Defense; Richard Holbrooke was Ambassador to the UN. I was sure that had the shoe been on the other foot - had the team's composition been almost entirely Arab-American - the issue of fairness would most certainly have been raised. Koppel was nonplussed by the question and responded that in the US gifted individuals, regardless of background, could rise to the top - an answer that did not address my concern.

Each week, I have a marathon phone conversation with a Jewish friend, an octogenarian whose mental vigor remains undiminished. A retired college teacher, her take on virtually every political issue of importance is exemplary. Our friendship is very close and has easily survived occasional squalls over the one topic on which we have some disagreement, namely Israel and the Occupation. After reading something I had written on the neocon Zionists at the Pentagon, she gave me a no-holds-barred dressing down. In identifying Paul Wolfovitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, the Pentagon troika planning the war against Saddam Hussein, as Jewish-Americans, I had crossed the line into anti-Semitism. Go after them as bad guys, not as Jews, she said. After all, there were lots of Jews, herself included, who find the troika a frightening bunch. For days I brooded about her comments, but in the end I demurred. Sure these are bad guys, but it is as Zionists that they are pursuing their war aims. The connections Gore Vidal was making in 1986 still need to be made in 2002.

Robert Dreyfus, a senior correspondent at The American Prospect, came close in a first class expose on how the Pentagon's "well-placed hawks" are muzzling the CIA so that intelligence data that contradicts the case for war is not presented to the White House. Dreyfus is blunt: "For Perle, Wolfovitz and FeithSan attack on Iraq is a strategic necessity, not because Saddam Hussein is a threat, but because America needs to display an overwhelming show of force to keep unruly Arabs and Muslims all over the world in line."

However, Dreyfus still cannot mention the elephant in the room, namely that these well-placed hawks are Jewish-Americans and it is their hard-core Zionism that is shaping American foreign policy. Zionism is fast becoming a poisoned chalice, yet the US is poised for a war largely propelled by its agenda. Most of the country is ignorant or in denial, and the mainstream media either too conflicted or in cahoots to sound the alarm. In the meantime, Richard Perle, addressing British members of parliament even as UN arms inspectors were returning to Iraq, asserted that the US will go to war no matter what. And on the BBC World Service, The Washington Times' Barry Fein proclaimed war as absolutely necessary, saying that from now on the US would decide what constituted international law. There is real madness here, but who will stop it?

Do I think the case against Zionism could be made more effectively by Jews themselves? Certainly, but the evidence suggests it is not any easier. In the early 1960s, there was a bitter correspondence between two German Jews, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem, the great scholar of Kabbalah. Much of the disagreement turned on Arendt's rejection of Zionism which led the Zionist Scholem to accuse her of having no love for the Jewish people. Arendt acknowledged that she had no love for any nation or collective - believing, as she did, that love of humankind trumped tribal or parochial affections. Insofar as Zionism had led Jews from belief in God to belief in themselves, she continued, "in this sense I do not love the Jews."

Ann Pettifer is a freelance writer and the publisher of Common Sense, the alternative newspaper at the University of Notre Dame. She can be reached at awalshe@nd.edu

+++++++++++++++++ The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians by Michael Hoffman and Prof.Moshe Lieberman 6 x 9 paperback. 110 pages. A MUST READ!!

For book send $20.00 donation to: RePortersNoteBook.com 253 west 72nd st #1711 New York, NY 10023 212-787-7891 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace is patriotic! Michael Santomauro Editorial Director 253 West 72nd street #1711 New York, NY 10023 http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891 http://reportersnotebook.com/newforum/indexforum.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The QUESTION: To subscribe and grow with knowledge or to unsubscribe and Die Stupid? Send an E-mail to: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com

Guest

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html
Counterpunch
December 13, 2002

A Rose By Another Other Name

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts

Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department's Middle East
policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and
the Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known
for tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who
had a personal history and an educational background in the Arab world and
were accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward Arab
interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having limited
power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped maintain
some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping over totally
toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by their exact
opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and policymaking
circles throughout government now no longer even make a pretense of
exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly Palestinian,
interests.

In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department
officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all
partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for
brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office,
occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a
pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in
Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from
which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has
headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.

The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking
circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush
administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of
activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in
Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing
U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are
now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense
Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well
as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president's office.

We still tiptoe around putting a name to this phenomenon. We write articles
about the neo-conservatives' agenda on U.S.-Israeli relations and imply
that in the neo-con universe there is little light between the two
countries. We talk openly about the Israeli bias in the U.S. media. We make
wry jokes about Congress being "Israeli-occupied territory." Jason Vest in
The Nation magazine reported forthrightly that some of the think tanks that
hold sway over Bush administration thinking see no difference between U.S.
and Israeli national security interests. But we never pronounce the
particular words that best describe the real meaning of those observations
and wry remarks. It's time, however, that we say the words out loud and
deal with what they really signify.

Dual loyalties. The issue we are dealing with in the Bush administration is
dual loyalties-the double allegiance of those myriad officials at high and
middle levels who cannot distinguish U.S. interests from Israeli interests,
who baldly promote the supposed identity of interests between the United
States and Israel, who spent their early careers giving policy advice to
right-wing Israeli governments and now give the identical advice to a
right-wing U.S. government, and who, one suspects, are so wrapped up in
their concern for the fate of Israel that they honestly do not know whether
their own passion about advancing the U.S. imperium is motivated primarily
by America-first patriotism or is governed first and foremost by a desire
to secure Israel's safety and predominance in the Middle East through the
advancement of the U.S. imperium.

"Dual loyalties" has always been one of those red flags posted around the
subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces
horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish
disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who
would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish
friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S.
and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural
for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the
United States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject
of dual loyalties arises.)

Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush
administration, the treatment of the their ties to Israel has generally
been very gingerly. Although much has come to light recently about the fact
that ridding Iraq both of its leader and of its weapons inventory has been
on the neo-con agenda since long before there was a Bush administration,
little has been said about the link between this goal and the neo-cons'
overriding desire to provide greater security for Israel. But an
examination of the cast of characters in Bush administration policymaking
circles reveals a startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists,
and an examination of the neo-cons' voluminous written record shows that
Israel comes up constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned
with the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always
linked with the United States when national interests are at issue.

The Begats

First to the cast of characters. Beneath cabinet level, the list of
pro-Israel neo-cons who are either policy functionaries themselves or
advise policymakers from perches just on the edges of government reads like
the old biblical "begats." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads
the pack. He was a protégé of Richard Perle, who heads the prominent
Pentagon advisory body, the Defense Policy Board. Many of today's neo-cons,
including Perle, are the intellectual progeny of the late Senator Henry
"Scoop" Jackson, a strong defense hawk and one of Israel's most strident
congressional supporters in the 1970s.

Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now Vice
President Cheney's chief of staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and
later a subordinate during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense
Departments. Another Perle protégé is Douglas Feith, who is currently
undersecretary of defense for policy, the department's number-three man,
and has worked closely with Perle both as a lobbyist for Turkey and in
co-authoring strategy papers for right-wing Israeli governments. Assistant
Secretaries Peter Rodman and Dov Zachkeim, old hands from the Reagan
administration when the neo-cons first flourished, fill out the subcabinet
ranks at Defense. At lower levels, the Israel and the Syria/Lebanon desk
officers at Defense are imports from the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, a think tank spun off from the pro-Israel lobby organization, AIPAC.

Neo-cons have not made many inroads at the State Department, except for
John Bolton, an American Enterprise Institute hawk and Israeli proponent
who is said to have been forced on a reluctant Colin Powell as
undersecretary for arms control. Bolton's special assistant is David
Wurmser, who wrote and/or co-authored with Perle and Feith at least two
strategy papers for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser's
wife, Meyrav Wurmser, is a co-founder of the media-watch website MEMRI
(Middle East Media Research Institute), which is run by retired Israeli
military and intelligence officers and specializes in translating and
widely circulating Arab media and statements by Arab leaders. A recent
investigation by the Guardian of London found that MEMRI's translations are
skewed by being highly selective. Although it inevitably translates and
circulates the most extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab
commentary and extremist Hebrew statements.

In the vice president's office, Cheney has established his own personal
national security staff, run by aides known to be very pro-Israel. The
deputy director of the staff, John Hannah, is a former fellow of the
Israeli-oriented Washington Institute. On the National Security Council
staff, the newly appointed director of Middle East affairs is Elliott
Abrams, who came to prominence after pleading guilty to withholding
information from Congress during the Iran-contra scandal (and was pardoned
by President Bush the elder) and who has long been a vocal proponent of
right-wing Israeli positions. Putting him in a key policymaking position on
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is like entrusting the henhouse to a fox.

Pro-Israel activists with close links to the administration are also busy
in the information arena inside and outside government. The head of Radio
Liberty, a Cold War propaganda holdover now converted to service in the
"war on terror," is Thomas Dine, who was the very active head of AIPAC
throughout most of the Reagan and the Bush-41 administrations. Elsewhere on
the periphery, William Kristol, son of neo-con originals Irving Kristol and
Gertrude Himmelfarb, is closely linked to the administration's pro-Israel
coterie and serves as its cheerleader through the Rupert Murdoch-owned
magazine that he edits, The Weekly Standard. Some of Bush's speechwriters
including David Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" for Bush's
state-of-the-union address but was forced to resign when his wife publicly
bragged about his linguistic prowess have come from The Weekly Standard.
Frank Gaffney, another Jackson and Perle protégé and Reagan administration
defense official, puts his pro-Israel oar in from his think tank, the
Center for Security Policy, and through frequent media appearances and
regular columns in the Washington Times.

The incestuous nature of the proliferating boards and think tanks, whose
membership lists are more or less identical and totally interchangeable, is
frighteningly insidious. Several scholars at the American Enterprise
Institute, including former Reagan UN ambassador and long-time supporter of
the Israeli right wing Jeane Kirkpatrick, make their pro-Israel views known
vocally from the sidelines and occupy positions on other boards. Probably
the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush
administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA). Formed after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war
specifically to bring Israel's security concerns to the attention of U.S.
policymakers and concentrating also on broad defense issues, the extremely
hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place
its members inside conservative U.S. administrations. Cheney, Bolton, and
Feith were members until they entered the Bush administration. Several
lower level JINSA functionaries are now working in the Defense Department.
Perle is still a member, as are Kirkpatrick, former CIA director and
leading Iraq-war hawk James Woolsey, and old-time rabid pro-Israel types
like Eugene Rostow and Michael Ledeen. Both JINSA and Gaffney's Center for
Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing
American Zionist, California business magnate (his money comes from bingo
parlors), and JINSA board member who has lavishly financed the
establishment of several religious settlements in Arab East Jerusalem.

By Their Own Testimony

Most of the neo-cons now in government have left a long paper trail giving
clear evidence of their fervently right-wing pro-Israel, and fervently
anti-Palestinian, sentiments. Whether being pro-Israel, even pro right-wing
Israel, constitutes having dual loyalties, that is a desire to further
Israel's interests that equals or exceeds the desire to further U.S.
interests, is obviously not easy to determine, but the record gives some
clues.

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about
broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the
Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and
may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort, of
which he is the primary spearhead, to dump Saddam Hussein, remake the Iraqi
government in an American image, and then further redraw the Middle East
map by accomplishing the same goals in Syria, Iran, and perhaps other
countries. Profiles of Wolfowitz paint him as having two distinct aspects:
one obessively bent on advancing U.S. dominance throughout the world,
ruthless and uncompromising, seriously prepared to "end states," as he once
put it, that support terrorism in any way, a velociraptor in the words of
one former colleague cited in the Economist; the other a softer aspect,
which shows him to be a soft-spoken political moralist, an ardent democrat,
even a bleeding heart on social issues, and desirous for purely moral and
humanitarian reasons of modernizing and democratizing the Islamic world.

But his interest in Israel always crops up. Even profiles that downplay his
attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the
Holocaust, in which several of his family perished, has had on his
thinking. One source inside the administration has described him frankly as
"over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel." Although this probably
accurately describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz
is guilty at least by association, he is actually more complex and nuanced
than this. A recent New York Times Magazine profile by the Times' Bill
Keller cites critics who say that "Israel exercises a powerful
gravitational pull on the man" and notes that as a teenager Wolfowitz lived
in Israel during his mathematician father's sabbatical semester there. His
sister is married to an Israeli. Keller even somewhat reluctantly
acknowledges the accuracy of one characterization of Wolfowitz as
"Israel-centric." But Keller goes through considerable contortions to shun
what he calls "the offensive suggestion of dual loyalty" and in the process
makes one wonder if he is protesting too much. Keller concludes that
Wolfowitz is less animated by the security of Israel than by the promise of
a more moderate Islam. He cites as evidence Wolfowitz's admiration for
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel and also draws
on a former Wolfowitz subordinate who says that "as a moral man, he might
have found Israel the heart of the Middle East story. But as a policy
maker, Turkey and the gulf and Egypt didn't loom any less large for him."

These remarks are revealing. Anyone not so fearful of broaching the issue
of dual loyalties might at least have raised the suggestion that
Wolfowitz's real concern may indeed be to ensure Israel's security.
Otherwise, why do his overriding interests seem to be reinventing Anwar
Sadats throughout the Middle East by transforming the Arab and Muslim
worlds and thereby making life safer for Israel, and a passion for fighting
a pre-emptive war against Iraq when there are critical areas totally
apart from the Middle East and myriad other broad strategic issues that any
deputy secretary of defense should be thinking about just as much? His
current interest in Turkey, which is shared by the other neo-cons, some of
whom have served as lobbyists for Turkey, seems also to be directed at
securing Israel's place in the region; there seems little reason for
particular interest in this moderate Islamic, non-Arab country, other than
that it is a moderate Islamic but non-Arab neighbor of Israel.

Furthermore, the notion suggested by the Wolfowitz subordinate that any
moral man would obviously look to Israel as the "heart of the Middle East
story" is itself an Israel-centered idea: the assumption that Israel is a
moral state, always pursuing moral policies, and that any moral person
would naturally attach himself to Israel automatically presumes that there
is an identity of interests between the United States and Israel; only
those who assume such a complete coincidence of interests accept the notion
that Israel is, across the board, a moral state.

Others among the neo-con policymakers have been more direct and open in
expressing their pro-Israel views. Douglas Feith has been the most prolific
of the group, with a two-decade-long record of policy papers, many
co-authored with Perle, propounding a strongly anti-Palestinian, pro-Likud
view. He views the Palestinians as not constituting a legitimate national
group, believes that the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel by right, and
has long advocated that the U.S. abandon any mediating effort altogether
and particularly foreswear the land-for-peace formula.

In 1996, Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser were among the
authors of a policy paper issued by an Israeli think tank and written for
newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that urged Israel to make a
"clean break" from pursuit of the peace process, particularly its
land-for-peace aspects, which the authors regarded as a prescription for
Israel's annihilation. Arabs must rather accept a "peace-for-peace" formula
through unconditional acceptance of Israel's rights, including its
territorial rights in the occupied territories. The paper advocated that
Israel "engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism" by disengaging
from economic and political dependence on the U.S. while maintaining a more
"mature," self-reliant partnership with the U.S. not focused "narrowly on
territorial disputes." Greater self-reliance would, these freelance
policymakers told Netanyahu, give Israel "greater freedom of action and
remove a significant lever of pressure [i.e., U.S. pressure] used against
it in the past."

The paper advocated, even as far back as 1996, containment of the threat
against Israel by working closely with - guess who? Turkey, as well as
with Jordan, apparently regarded as the only reliably moderate Arab regime.
Jordan had become attractive for these strategists because it was at the
time working with opposition elements in Iraq to reestablish a Hashemite
monarchy there that would have been allied by blood lines and political
leanings to the Hashemite throne in Jordan. The paper's authors saw the
principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover
now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam
Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria's
regional ambitions. In what amounts to a prelude to the neo-cons' principal
policy thrust in the Bush administration, the paper spoke frankly of
Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it with
a malleable monarchy. Referring to Saddam Hussein's ouster as "an important
Israeli strategic objective," the paper observed that "Iraq's future could
affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly" meaning give
Israel unquestioned predominance in the region. The authors urged therefore
that Israel support the Hashemites in their "efforts to redefine Iraq."

In a much longer policy document written at about the same time for the
same Israeli think tank, David Wurmser repeatedly linked the U.S. and
Israel when talking about national interests in the Middle East. The
"battle to dominate and define Iraq," he wrote "is, by extension, the
battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run,"
and "the United States and Israel" can fight this battle together. Repeated
references to U.S. and Israeli strategic policy, pitted against a
"Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis," and to strategic moves that
establish a balance of power in which the United States and Israel are
ascendant, in alliance with Turkey and Jordan, betray a thought process
that cannot separate U.S. from Israeli interests.

Perle gave further impetus to this thrust when six years later, in
September 2002, he gave a briefing for Pentagon officials that included a
slide depicting a recommended strategic goal for the U.S. in the Middle
East: all of Palestine as Israel, Jordan as Palestine, and Iraq as the
Hashemite kingdom. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld seems to have taken this
aboard, since he spoke at about the same time of the West Bank and Gaza as
the "so-called occupied territories" effectively turning all of Palestine
into Israel.

Elliott Abrams is another unabashed supporter of the Israeli right, now
bringing his links with Israel into the service of U.S. policymaking on
Palestinian-Israeli issues. The neo-con community is crowing about Abrams'
appointment as Middle East director on the NSC staff (where this
Iran-contra criminal has already been working since mid-2001, badly miscast
as the director for, of all things, democracy and human rights). The Weekly
Standard's Fred Barnes has hailed his appointment as a decisive move that
neatly cocks a snook at the pro-Palestinian wimps at the State Department.
Accurately characterizing Abrams as "more pro-Israel, less solicitous of
Palestinians" than the State Department and strongly opposed to the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Barnes gloats that the Abrams triumph
signals that the White House will not cede control of Middle East policy to
Colin Powell and the "foreign service bureaucrats." Abrams comes to the
post after a year in which it had effectively been left vacant. His
predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been serving concurrently as Bush's
personal representative to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban and
has devoted little time to the NSC job, but several attempts to appoint a
successor early this year were vetoed by neo-con hawks who felt the
appointees were not devoted enough to Israel.

Although Abrams has no particular Middle East expertise, he has managed to
insert himself in the Middle East debate repeatedly over the years. He has
a family interest in propounding a pro-Israel view; he is the son-in-law of
Norman Podhoretz, one of the original neo-cons and a long-time strident
supporter of right-wing Israeli causes as editor of Commentary magazine,
and Midge Decter, a frequent right-wing commentator. Abrams has written a
good deal on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, opposing U.S. mediation and
any effort to press for Israeli concessions. In an article published in
advance of the 2000 elections, he propounded a rationale for a U.S. missile
defense system, and a foreign policy agenda in general, geared almost
entirely toward ensuring Israel's security. "It is a simple fact," he
wrote, that the possession of missiles and weapons of mass destruction by
Iraq and Iran vastly increases Israel's vulnerability, and this threat
would be greatly diminished if the U.S. provided a missile shield and
brought about the demise of Saddam Hussein. He concluded with a
wholehearted assertion of the identity of U.S. and Israeli interests: "The
next decade will present enormous opportunities to advance American
interests in the Middle East [by] boldly asserting our support of our
friends" that is, of course, Israel. Many of the fundamental negotiating
issues critical to Israel, he said, are also critical to U.S. policy in the
region and "require the United States to defend its interests and allies"
rather than giving in to Palestinian demands.

Neo-cons in the Henhouse

The neo-con strategy papers half a dozen years ago were dotted with
concepts like "redefining Iraq," "redrawing the map of the Middle East,"
"nurturing alternatives to Arafat," all of which have in recent months
become familiar parts of the Bush administration's diplomatic lingo.
Objectives laid out in these papers as important strategic goals for Israel
- including the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the strategic transformation of
the entire Middle East, the death of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process,
regime change wherever the U.S. and Israel don't happen to like the
existing government, the abandonment of any effort to forge a comprehensive
Arab-Israeli peace or even a narrower Palestinian-Israeli peace - have now
become, under the guidance of this group of pro-Israel neo-cons, important
strategic goals for the United States. The enthusiasm with which senior
administration officials like Bush himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have
adopted strategic themes - originally defined for Israel's guidance and
did so in many cases well before September 11 and the so-called war on
terror - testifies to the persuasiveness of a neo-con philosophy focused
narrowly on Israel and the pervasiveness of the network throughout
policymaking councils.

Does all this add up to dual loyalties to Israel and the United States?
Many would still contend indignantly that it does not, and that it is
anti-Semitic to suggest such a thing. In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel's
causes may be just that - zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that
still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States - and affection
for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and
emotion - and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate
attachment to any country - have no place in foreign policy formulation,
and it is mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to
another country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment,
and emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

Zealotry can lead to extreme actions to sustain policies, as is apparently
occurring in the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department. People
knowledgeable of the intelligence community have said, according to a
recent article in The American Prospect, that the CIA is under tremendous
pressure to produce intelligence more supportive of war with Iraq - as one
former CIA official put it, "to support policies that have already been
adopted." Key Defense Department officials, including Feith, are said to be
attempting to make the case for pre-emptive war by producing their own
unverified intelligence. Wolfowitz betrayed his lack of concern for real
evidence when, in answer to a recent question about where the evidence is
for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, he replied, "It's
like the judge said about pornography. I can't define it, but I will know
it when I see it."

Zealotry can also lead to a myopic focus on the wrong issues in a conflict
or crisis, as is occurring among all Bush policymakers with regard to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The administration's obsessive focus on
deposing Yasir Arafat, a policy suggested by the neo-cons years before Bush
came to office, is a dodge and a diversion that merely perpetuates the
conflict by failing to address its real roots. Advocates of this policy
fail or refuse to see that, however unappealing the Palestinian leadership,
it is not the cause of the conflict, and "regime change" among the
Palestinians will do nothing to end the violence. The administration's
utter refusal to engage in any mediation process that might produce a
stable, equitable peace, also a neo-con strategy based on the paranoid
belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the
annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry
produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel's right-wing agenda
has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true face of
Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any
consideration that interests other than Israel's are involved, and indeed
to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning accommodation
of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will actually lead to its
tragic escalation and to increased terrorism against both the United States
and Israel.

What does it matter, in the end, if these men split their loyalties between
the United States and Israel? Apart from the evidence of the policy
distortions that arise from zealotry, one need only ask whether it can be
mere coincidence that those in the Bush administration who most strongly
promote "regime change" in Iraq are also those who most strongly support
the policies of the Israeli right wing. And would it bother most Americans
to know that the United States is planning a war against Iraq for the
benefit of Israel? Can it be mere coincidence, for example, that Vice
President Cheney, now the leading senior-level proponent of war with Iraq,
repudiated just this option for all the right reasons in the immediate
aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991? He was defense secretary at the time,
and in an interview with the New York Times on April 13, 1991, he said:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go
to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with
it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the
one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni
regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one
that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists. How much credibility is that
government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when
it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to
protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it
once we leave?"

Since Cheney clearly changed his mind between 1991 and today, is it not
legitimate to ask why, and whether Israel might have a greater influence
over U.S. foreign policy now than it had in 1991? After all,
notwithstanding his wisdom in rejecting an expansion of the war on Iraq a
decade ago, Cheney was just as interested in promoting U.S. imperialism and
was at that same moment in the early 1990s outlining a plan for world
domination by the United States, one that did not include conquering Iraq
at any point along the way. The only new ingredient in the mix today that
is inducing Cheney to begin the march to U.S. world domination by
conquering Iraq is the presence in the Bush-Cheney administration of a bevy
of aggressive right-wing neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish
fundamentalists of Israel's own right wing and who have been advocating
some move on Iraq for at least the last half dozen years?

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest,
or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to
create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts
believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly
in a Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists "are
walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and
Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten
subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist
Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that
Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East
and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have
absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the
style is the same."

The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to
the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has
allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days.
These crazed fundamentalists see Israel's domination over all of Palestine
as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider
any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and
view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to
Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence
on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish
fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel's domination in
Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium
strengthen and reinforce each other's policies in administration councils.
The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to be actively promoting and
that Israeli loyalists inside the administration have tactically allied
themselves with raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an
apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war. The neo-cons seem unconcerned, and
Bush's occasional pro forma remonstrations against blaming all Islam for
the sins of Islamic extremists do nothing to make this prospect less likely.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed
into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East,
all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up
for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All
of these factors - the dual loyalties of an extensive network of
policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of
Christian fundamentalists, and oil - probably factor in more or less
equally to the administration's calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli
situation and on war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S.
policymaking is the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian
fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calculations would carry the
weight in administration councils that they do without the pivotal input of
those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian fanatics and
undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel's bread is buttered by the
oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. This is where loyalty to
Israel by government officials colors and influences U.S. policymaking in
ways that are extremely dangerous.

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

Kathleen Christison worked for 16 years as a political analyst with the
CIA, dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle East for her last
seven years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the
CIA, she has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her book, "Perceptions of Palestine: Their
Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy," was published by the University of
California Press and reissued in paperback with an update in October 2001.
A second book, "The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story,"
was published in March 2002.

Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of
the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National
Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central
Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South
Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's
Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. They can be
reached at: christison@counterpunch.org

Guest

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL19Ak01.html

Middle East

Bush's trusty new Mideast point man
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - This month's surprise - some in the State Department might say shocking - appointment of Iran-contra veteran Elliott Abrams as the top White House Mideast adviser has bolstered the notion that President George W Bush sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict very differently from his father.

The appointment, announced by Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, two weeks ago, places a dyed-in-the-wool neo-conservative, whose views on the region have long been close to those of the Israel's Likud Party, in one of the most sensitive and powerful posts in the foreign policy apparatus. Although he has never been known as an Arab-Israeli specialist, what he has written on the subject is consistent with the positions of a number of prominent neo-cons such as Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.

Abrams, 54, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Ronald Reagan administration and who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, has been a staunch critic of the Oslo peace process, and he has even opposed the "Land for Peace" formula that has guided US policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1967 war.

"Yet another Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda on the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people."

Supporters of Likud were naturally more enthusiastic. "I believe Abrams understands that this is a not a war over borders, but over Israel's existence, something that almost no one in the State Department acknowledges," Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told the Jewish weekly Forward last week.
Abrams has also been hawkish on Iraq, for which he will also have responsibility as senior director for Near East and North African affairs on the National Security Council (NSC) staff. Not only has he consistently backed Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (who helped him get his first Bush job as senior staff director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations), but he also led an NSC task force on Iraq that calls for Washington to take direct control of Iraq's oil fields after an invasion.

"This is a very major move, both for Iraq and the Mideast peace process," according to Joseph Wilson, a retired US diplomat who served as charge d'affaires in Baghdad during the Gulf War. "Abrams serves his constituency's interest," he added, referring to the pro-Likud neo-conservatives such as Perle, Wolfowitz and the Pentagon's Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith.

Abrams replaces Zalmay Khalilzad who has been consumed since shortly after his appointment in early 2002 with sorting out his native Afghanistan, to which he serves as Bush's special envoy. Khalilzad, a prominent national security strategist with greater experience in South Asia and the Gulf than in the Mideast, has now added the new post of "ambassador-at-large for Free Iraqis" to his portfolio. He spent the last few days in London herding the fractious Iraqi opposition toward some semblance of unity. Khalilzad's predecessor in the Mideast post, Bruce Reidel, was a Clinton holdover. As a result, Abram's appointment marks the first time that a person with a keen interest - albeit little expertise - in the Arab-Israeli conflict has been assigned the White House post, and the neo-cons are jubilant.

Abrams' influence on policy is already clear, particularly vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ten days ago, Washington voted for the first time ever against a UN General Assembly resolution 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, consistent with its long-held stand that Jerusalem's status must be determined by negotiations between the parties. Abrams has in the past publicly assailed that position, arguing that Washington's refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital "tantalizes the Palestinians with the prospect of forcing the Jews to abandon Jerusalem".

More important, efforts by "the Quartet" - the European Union, the UN, Russia and the United States - to produce a "road map" leading to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state in 2005 have come to a screeching halt since Abrams' appointment. Over the strenuous objections of the State Department, as well as other Quartet members, the White House has decreed that work on the roadmap will remain frozen until at least after the elections in Israel January 28. The decision represents a total caving in to demands by Sharon, who stands to profit tremendously by the fact that international pressure on him to move toward renewed peace talks or accept a peace plan will now be nil, at least until the elections are finished.

"This represents a signal victory for those who have argued that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad, rather than Jerusalem," said one State Department official who warned that the absence of pressure on Israel at a time when Washington is preparing for war with Iraq will exacerbate resentment against the US in Arab public opinion.

Along with William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and son of Irving Kristol, godfather of the neo-conservatives, Abrams has been a leading light of the fifty-something crowd in the neo-conservative movement, although the Iran-contra affair forced him into a less public role in the 1990s.

Abrams has been close to virtually all of the key neo-conservative officials inside the administration, as well as those on the outside in PNAC, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the American Enterprise Institute, the long-time roost of Perle and other neo-con hawks, most notably former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former CIA officer Marc Reuel Gerecht, and terrorism expert Michael Ledeen.

A Harvard student in the 1960s when he, like many other neo-conservatives, were associated with the Socialist Party USA, Abrams got his first job out of law school in the offices of the staunchly pro-Israel Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington state. It was there that he met Perle, Feith and Frank Gaffney. Gaffney, who himself worked for Perle in the Reagan administration, went on to found and direct CSP, on whose advisory board Perle, Abrams and Feith have all served.

Abrams first gained national prominence, however, when he was appointed in 1991 by Reagan to serve as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, a spot requested on his behalf by Jean Kirkpatrick, Reagan's first UN ambassador. After Reagan failed to get Ernest Lefever confirmed as assistant secretary for human rights and humanitarian affairs, however, Abrams was put in that considerably more prominent and politically sensitive post. His tenure there was marked by frequent and angry clashes with mainstream church groups, particularly those with a large missionary presence in Central America, and prominent human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which accused him of covering up horrendous abuses committed by US-backed governments, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebel forces, such as the Nicaraguan Contras and Angola's Unita movement, while, at the same time, exaggerating abuses by US foes.

Such conflicts only became more intense after he was appointed as assistant secretary for inter-American affairs in 1985, the year in which Congress fatefully cut off aid to the Contras, thus setting the stage for what would become the Iran-Contra Affair, which, at its core, was an effort to raise money and arms for the Contras by whatever means necessary. In his new job, Abrams not only became acquainted with the machinations of Oliver North and his fellow conspirators in the White House, he was also tasked to raise money himself, leading to his secret trip disguised as "Mr Kenilworth" to the palaces of the Sultan of Brunei. In one of the more comic episodes of the whole affair, the two men reached agreement on a $10 million contribution to the Contras, but Abrams gave the Sultan the wrong number of the Swiss bank account into which the funds were to have been deposited, and the money was never used.

Abrams was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his trip, but he 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. Nonetheless, his reputation for truth-telling was severely damaged - so much so that, for some time after the Iran-Contra affair broke, he was required to take an oath before testifying on any matter in Congress. Most analysts believe that he was given an NSC post by the Bush administration because it is one of the few high-level foreign policy posts which do not require Senate confirmation.

After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the far more centrist-minded administration of Bush Senior. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank founded by Lafever, where he wrote and lectured on foreign policy issues, including the Middle East and China. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit, neo-con foreign policy community in Washington that revolved around Perle, Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick, Podhoretz, Kristol and other luminaries.

Then-House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich furthered Abrams' public rehabilitation in 1999 by appointing him to the new US Commission on International Religious Freedom, for which he then served as chairman in 2000. Muslim groups that came before the commission during his tenure complained on a number of occasions that Abrams refused to criticize as violations of religious freedom various controversial Israeli practices in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as sealing off Muslim holy sites.

At the same time, Abrams' service on the commission endeared him even more to the Christian Right, which had sought strong condemnations of religious persecution of Christians in China, Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan and Sudan, among other countries.

Abrams is not known as a Mideast specialist, but has long favored Likud positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even assailed former Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu for caving into US pressure to respect the Oslo peace process. Within just a few weeks of the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada at the end of September 2000, he sharply criticized mainstream Jewish groups for calling for a resumption of peace talks between Arafat's Palestine Authority and Israel, as well as a halt to the violence.

"After a decade of self-delusion, American Jews must face up to reality," he wrote at the time. "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace ... Let's stop this flight from reality before it does even more harm to Israel. Let's stop pushing for more talks and offer instead something simpler and more valuable: solidarity and support."

In an article published just before his first appointment to the NSC, Abrams cited Sharon's hawkish stance as the best policy, calling it "firmness and resistance to violence or the threat of violence". The same article compared Sharon to French president Charles de Gaulle. In his position as NSC Democracy chief, Abrams reportedly played an important role in moving Rice into the Cheney-Rumsfeld camp in the June decision to demand Arafat's ouster and an overhaul of the Palestinian Authority as a condition for the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The decision, which echoed Sharon's demands, infuriated Secretary of State Colin Powell and caused widespread dismay among Bush Sr's advisers, notably his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.

Over the years, Abrams has largely opposed any US pressure on Israel. As a member, along with Feith, Perle and Gaffney, of the Committee on US Interests in the Middle East, a short-lived group of former Reagan administration officials formed in late 1991, Abrams opposes Bush Sr's Mideast policies, and particularly his pressure on then-Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to take part in the Madrid peace conference that followed the Gulf War against Iraq and to make territorial concessions once a peace process got underway.

"We advocate support for a US policy toward Israel that would - in contrast to current American policy - reflect the traditional, strong American support for the legitimacy, security and general well-being of the Jewish state: a proven, valuable democratic friend and ally of the United States," declared an ad placed by the group in the New York Times in early 1992. The group was particularly outraged by secretary of state James Baker's threat to withhold US$10 billion in housing guarantees unless Shamir stopped the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories.

With Abrams overseeing the flow of paper onto to the president's desk, other foreign policy players - especially the State Department, Washington's European allies and even the old guard around Bush Sr - will find it much more difficult to get a hearing at the White House. Abrams is not only zealous in pursuit of his views; by all accounts, he is also a very canny political operator with his own network of support both inside and outside the administration. He also enjoys the strong support not only from the neo-con network in which he was nurtured, but also among more mainstream figures, notably his former boss at the State Department, George Shultz. "He is a formidable player," said one retired diplomat.

Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies, or to submit a letter to the editor.)

Guest · Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:46 am Post subject: The Israelization of America

The Israelization of America:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/07/the-israelization-of-america.php

SUPPORT AMERICA - HANG THE (Zionist extremist) TRAITORS:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/01/support-america-hang-the-traitors.php

Guest-400c

JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israel Spy Scandal:

JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) is the same cabal of Israel Firsters (of whom chicken hawks Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are associated) which has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving us to the coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for Israel and oil (as the JINSA Israel First agenda is going to increase the risk of US experiencing further terror attacks in the UK and USA as well as in Europe):

JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal

http://www.rense.com/general18/JINSA.htm

JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
Executive Intelligence Review News Service
1-6-2

(EIRNS) - One of the "Mega" agencies that mobilized to quash the Fox TV pick-up of our Israeli spy scandal was JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. JINSA President and CEO David Steinmann is also a director of CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America), the group that actually staged the e-mail, fax, letter, and phone call mobilization that squeezed Fox TV, to the point that they removed the transcripts of the four Carl Cameron segments from their own web site. While CAMERA lists Tom Lantos among its advisors, along with Sharon cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, it is JINSA that is the real hotbed of "Mega" and "X Committee" clout, particular inside the Pentagon. On its own website, JINSA boasts that "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship {first} -- JINSA!" JINSA lists among its directors: Richard Perle, Steven Bryen (whose wife, Shoshana Bryen is still one of the few full-time JINSA employees), Max Kampelman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Kenneth Timmermann, and James Woolsey. Beyond these hardcore "X Committee" operatives, JINSA's board also includes a dozen or more retired flag grade U.S. military officers, including Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick (USAF), Gen. Crosbie Saint (USA), Maj. Gen. Lee Downer (USAF), Adm. Leon Edney (USN), Gen. John Foss (USA), Adm. David Jeremiah (USN), Adm. Jerome Johnson (USN), Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch (USMC), Rear Adm. Sumner Shapiro (USN). JINSA makes no bones about the fact that it is recruiting an Israeli fifth column inside the U.S. military command. They sponsor frequent all-expense-paid junkets to Israel for retired officers, which are co-sponsored by the Israeli Defense Force; they run an exchange program for military academy cadets at West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy with military institutes in Israel; and they host lecture programs at all the military institutions in the U.S. where they bring in top IDF and Israeli intelligence officials. One of the top figures on the JINSA lecture circuit is Dore Gold, who is a top aide to Sharon and is about to come to Washington as the Israeli ambassador. JINSA's output of policy papers and press releases also makes clear that they are leading proponents of the "Clash of Civilizations," and the drive to lure the U.S. into a suicidal military alliance with an Israeli marcher lord state. Typical of JINSA's operations of late are their sponsorship of a series of lectures by Iraqi National Congress honcho Chulabi, and their Sept. 13 press statement, calling for the U.S. to "go beyond bin Laden" to launch military attacks against Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, "and even our presumed friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt." The release demanded that the U.S. bomb Beirut and Damascus, cut military aid to Egypt, and revoke the Presidential ban on assassinations.

Guest-400c · Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:32 am Post subject: America: Wake Up!

America: Wake Up!

by William Hughes

John Podhoretz is at it again! The Tel Aviv-friendly pundit, crowed in
his column, (NY Post, 01/29/03), about the landslide victory of Ariel
Sharons Likud gang in the recent Israeli election. This was bad enough,
but, there was more torture to come.

Podhoretz roared on, Israel has been forced by historical circumstances
to lead the way for America, especially when it comes to militant
Islamic terror and the kinds of hard choices a democracy has to make in
combatting it. This is where I wanted to throw up.

What a sad state we are in, when an Israeli shill, like Podhoretz, can
prophesy that America will follow the lead of Zionist Israel. For a
translation to the politically challenged, this will mean that America
will be deferring to the oppressive policies of Sharon, whose name will
forever be linked to the deaths of the innocent at Deir Yassin; in
Lebanon, as a result of Israel's 1982 invasion; at Sabra and Shatila;
and, finally, at Jenin.

The notion that America will be minicking Sharon, a man who exists just
one step ahead of the War Crimes prosecutors in Belgium's Justice
Ministry, fills me with outrage. Now, I wonder: Was our Revolutionary
War and other battles, too, fought and won to bring us to this point of
national humiliation? Where are our true patriots? God knows, there are
only a handful in the complicit Congress or the Establishment-controlled
media.

As for Israel being a democracy, don't believe it! It stands in
violation of over 66 Resolutions of the United Nations, including
Resolution 242, unanimously adopted on Nov. 22, 1967, which mandated it
to vacate the Occupied Territories that belong to the Palestinians.

But, Podhoretz, wasn't finished yet. Without showing any mercy, he
forecasted that, Israel may be leading the way politically as well. He
added, Yesterday, the Israeli electorate delivered its verdict on its
leaders in the first parliamentary election since the beginning of the
suicide-bomb war launched by the Palestinians. He further insisted,
The tough tactics (read gross human rights violations) adopted by
right-wing Premier Ariel Sharon to fight the terror war, were almost
universally accepted.What universe does this guy live in? In Star Trek's?

Podhoretz, ranting on under a Jerusalem dateline, bragged how the
Israeli electorate had decimated the Left. Looking into his crystal
ball, he predicted the loser fate of the Labor Party in Israel, will be
the destiny, too, of the Democrats, unless they glue themselves to
George W. Bushs side on matters of war and terror. What a frightening
thought! The only thing that could have been worse is if Podhoretz had
also announced that his beloved Sharon had been cloned!

Sometimes, you can see yourself better through the eyes of others.
Podhoretz may have, unintentionally, done us a huge favor by holding up
a mirror that reads: America will follow Israel! This could be a wake
up call for those that love our country more than any dubious
relationship with a so-called ally, that viciously attacked the USS
Liberty, on June 8, 1967, murdering 34 of our finest sons (Ken Ringle,
Attack on the Liberty, Washington Post, 02/01/03). If U.S. foreign
policy patterns itself after Sharons, it will be a sure prescription
for national suicide.

Thankfully, we can learn important lessons from our history, especially
during the founding of this nation. By December, 1776, General George
Washington's demoralized Continental Army had been pushed off Long
Island and Manhattan, too, out of the state of New Jersey, across the
Delaware River, and into Pennsylvania, by the seasoned military British
forces under Lord William Howe. In a moment of deep despair, Washington,
writing to his brother, had said: The game is pretty near up.

On the brink of defeat, the immortal Washington could have called it
quits. Instead, putting his duty to his countrymen first, he
courageously led his army to stunning victories over the British, at
Trenton, (12/25/1776), and Princeton, (01/03/1777), that were hailed as
a turning point in that eight and one half year conflict (see, Richard
M. Ketchum's compelling The Winter Soldiers).

Americans, today, need to remember who they are, where they have come
from, and that they live in a Republic that depends on their fully
participating in it, in order to reach the common good.An attachment
to Israel's ideals is asking for endless, costly wars, including the
phony one looming ahead with Iraq, and also for more terrorist attacks
on this country. The people must demand that our national interest come
first, instead of following Sharon's lead into Armageddon. If they don't
do so, the game may, indeed, be pretty near up.

America: Wake Up!

© William Hughes 2003

William Hughes is the author of Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order
(Authors Choice Press) and Baltimore Iconoclast(Writer's Showcase),
which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.

Published, The Palestine Chronicle, Feb. 4, 2003, at:
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030204100555699

Guest-cdbc

The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php

Alpha

Racist Zionist (Jew) to Head Bush Mideast (Israel) Policy

Just heard Phyllis Bennis (who is also Jewish but is a liberal Zionist) mention in the 'Democracy Now' segment (via the following URL) that Zionist extremist racist (Jew) neocon Elliott Abrams has been appointed to head Bush's policy on Israel (and the Middle East), so no wonder the USA didn't not send a higher level (than the US State Department's William Burns who is also a Jew who won't address the USS Liberty cover-up/http://www.ussliberty.com ) to Cairo for Arafat's memorial yesterday:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/12/1518235

You can see a photo of Elliott Abrams at the top of www.nowarforisrael.com as there is also a message thread about him (which I had initiated) on www.warwithoutend.co.uk (www.itszone.co.uk) which is linked in the left margin of the following URL (as you can see his photo there as well):

http://www.nowarforisrael.com/Rachel%20Corrie.htm

Elliott Abrams is married to the sister of this racist Jewish Neocon (Israel firster) John Podhoretz:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/10/31/jewish-zionist-extremist-neocon-pushes-world-war-iv.php

Look what Admiral Moorer has said about Zionist Jew control of the USA:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/10/22/admiral-moorer-on-power-of-the-jews-in-usa-jews-and-911.php

It is time to purge these traitorous Zionist (Jew) neocon traitors to America before they take America down for their Israel firster agenda:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/10/06/how-zionist-neoconservative-perle-hijacked-foreign-policy.php

Neoconservatism is a Zionist Jew movement (but not all Jews support it):

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/11/08/neo-con-agenda-iran-china-russia-latin-america.php

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams