The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
|Author ||Message |
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:40 am Post subject: The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel |
|We were tragically attacked at the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 because of US support of Israel which resulted in the 'War on Terror' that has eroded our Constitutional civil liberties: |
So we are having the Bill of Rights shredded because of support for Israel in the BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars while US states go broke (see how much Israel receives via the links at http://www.wrmea.com ). Founding Father George Washington warned US (in his Farewell Address - see the bottom of www.astandforjustice.org ) to avoid the passionate attachment for any foreign country and artificially making that foreign country's interests our own (like we have done with Israel which is taking US down).
Posted on Fri, Jul. 23, 2004
U.S. policy on Israel key motive for effort
PLOTTER INVOLVED BIN LADEN TO GAIN MORE RESOURCES
By Terry McDermott
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.
Mohammed conceived the initial outline of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden because he thought he did not have the resources to carry it out on his own.
The Sept. 11 report contains the fullest accounting of Mohammed's overarching role from original conception to supervision of details. Bin Laden, too, was fully involved, selecting all or most of the participants, ordering the substance and the location of their training, and contributing to the timing of the attacks and the selection of targets, the report says.
The report makes a strong case that al-Qaida accomplished the attacks without any hint of state sponsorship. The report also appears to lay to rest the notion, long alluded to by administration officials including Vice President Dick Cheney, that hijacker Mohamed Atta traveled to the Czech Republic to meet an Iraqi intelligence operative in the spring of 2001.
In addition to repeating evidence that Atta was in the United States at the time, the report revealed that the Iraqi agent was not in Prague either when the meeting was alleged to have occurred.
Much of the report's detail comes from interrogations of al-Qaida operatives in U.S. custody, including Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. Some of that information is contradictory; much of it is difficult to corroborate. One CIA analysis cited in the report, for example, is titled "Khalid Shaykh Muhammed's Threat Reporting -- Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies."
October 29, 2004, 5:10pm EDT
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS
A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.
It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an extremely tight president race.
In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."
Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.
"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."
Although there was no way to authenticate the tape or say when it was made, it referenced the upcoming presidential election.
"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, according to the Associated Press.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security.
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.
"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security, we undermine yours."
An editor at Al-Jazeera said the network received the tape Friday but did not say how, Reuters reported.
In September 2003, Al-Jazeera aired a tape of bin Laden with his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he mentions five Sept. 11 hijackers by name.
An audiotape, which CIA analysts said was likely bin Laden, surfaced in April and called for a truce with European nations if they pulled troops out of Muslim countries.
The Public Campaign to Stop
the Lies and the Denial of
the Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:
U.S. Support for Israel
Video that gets to the Israel question:
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
"Sit Down!" The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11" Part 2
Leo Braudy says there's only a few minutes left YET he finds time for himself to ask two more questions! When does a panel discussion ever end, go to the Q and A and THEN go back to the moderator asking even more questions of the panel? (when you want to serve Israel's agenda)
It is depraved to deny the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.
9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us:
Additional at the following URL:
James Bamford included 9/11 motivation question at the bottom of the following URL (USS Liberty survivors Phil Tourney and Ron Kukal had their questions posted and answered there by Bamford too):
Al Qaeda urges attacks in US, Britain to avenge Gaza war:
Even Michael Scheuer (who used to head up the Bin Laden unit for the CIA) basically endorsed Ron Paul in the following youtube video (of course the fifth columnist Israel first crowd doesn't like Ron Paul!):
Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA Bin Laden unit) was on Bill Maher. He said:
" Israel is not worth an American life or an American dollar." and
"Our unqualified support of Israel has brought the US a great deal of pain and increasingly dead Americans, fighting wars that are not ours to fight." and
" America is fighting a war that does not exist -- our politicians have lied to us-it is not about hating freedom, womens' rights etc.---it is about our policies in the Middle East ."
Bill Maher who is Jewish was clearly shaken.
Bin Laden: Palestinian Cause Primary Motivation for 9/11:
Israel again at center of Al-Qaeda's grievance against US
Hypocrisy never makes for good foreign policy (Michael Scheuer mentioned as well):
Straight from Bin Laden's mouth on how US support of what Israel does to Palestine was the primary motivation for 9/11 (our terror problem has been compounded by the war for Israel in Iraq as he mentions Iraq as well):
Bin Laden Urges Holy War Over Palestine
Al Qaeda Leader Slams Negotiations With Israel In Purported New Audio Tape
U.S. shipped 989 munitions containers to Israel week before Gaza invasion:
'US support for Israel spurred 9/11' (as mentioned by Mearsheimer and Walt)
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:
Facts "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see: REAL 911 Truth
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?:
Representative Press's Mission as YouTube Reporter + Debunking Bhutto - Osama bin Laden & WTC7
Tom Murphy of http://representativepress.blogspot.com wrote the following:
the MAIN reason for the 9/11 attacks (and the 93 attack) was US support for Israel. And we know that 9/11 commissioners purposefully downplayed the role US support for Israel had because they didn't want the public to reassess the policy. This has been admitted to!
Bruce Feiler quotes from the 9/11 Commission report where it references (see the footnote to that section of the 9/11 Report) the "letter to the American people." In fact, I believe the 9/11 Commission were so willing to downplay foreign policy that the simply accepted an Internet letter as if it was real and I don't think any intelligence agency has authenticated it (and it is just text, not audio or video so authenticating it would be difficult to say the least). Remember we have years of audio and video from bin Laden BEFORE AND AFTER THIS LETTER which are consistent and then this "letter to the American people" stands out as being different and it is this letter which the 9/11 Commission was happy to point to make their claim that "Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper."
First of all, the letter popped up on the Internet a year after 9/11 and years after bin Laden has made consistent statements, so how "quickly" did bin Laden's grievances supposedly change? But like I said, it probably that letter even real. Jason Burke, in his book al Qaeda (described as "the most reliable and perceptive guide to the rise of militant Islam yet published") says this about the purported "letter from bin Laden": "There is some doubt over whether the letter is actually the work of bin Laden himself. There are several Qur'anic references in it that are erroneous, mistakes bin Laden would be unlikely to make." p295
There are other odd things with the letter, a strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before. And the thing about Clinton is really odd.
I go into detail at this link": http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004/09/911-motives-and-911-commission-report.html
Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
In 1984, Jamal Ismail met Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was 27 at the time and he made it clear even then that he didn't like U.S. support of Israel. Ismail said that bin Laden did not talk much but he did know how bin Laden felt about U.S. support of Israel: "I knew from the beginning that [bin Laden] was not willing to drink any soft drinks from American companies, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Sprite, 7-Up. He was trying to boycott all American products because he believed that without Americans, Israel cannot exist." p39 The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader Peter Bergen http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/08/osama-bin-laden-has-been-angry-about.html
And as you know, bin Laden is just one man and could not do it all by himself. If we look at the motivation of all those involved, including the top people, we see that the MAIN motive was US support of Israel. And that motive is the overarching motive beyond even guys who are so called "fundamentalists" . We know that Yousef's letter wasn't even religious in the content.
Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine." Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed.
In March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
A former member of an extremist Islamic organization which is part of al-Qaeda explained how the organization's recruiters operate on susceptible young men. "Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached. "Al-Qaeda" by Jane Corbin p125
In spite of the impression one may get from US mainstream media, for decades Israel has been brutalizing people because of their religion and the US backs these crimes. It isn't odd at all to see that this would motivate people to lash out at the backer of hideous crimes.
Also, money backing Egypt is really another expense serving Israel's agenda. Feilers is being disengenous about the money given to Egypt. He doesn't know the background on why that money is given to Egypt in the first place?!? "There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year." - http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Bruce Feiler (a reform Jew who is mentioned by Tom Murphy above) interviewed John Mearsheimer who co-wrote 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' (see www.israellobbybook.com):
Additional on Mearsheimer and Walt:
Joel Kovel looks at the 'Israel Lobby':
James Fallows on AIPAC:
Olmert tells AIPAC: Early Iraq exit would destabilize entire Mideast
Subject: Some URLs that provide a reality check for the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists here:
WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1. WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
False theories like "9/11 was a controlled demolition" undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel:
Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
pre-collapse bowing was seen by others:
Seymour Hersh: Jewish financiers backing Hilary Clinton to get US to attack Iran:
The Israel Lobby and the Psychology of Influence:
White Man's Burden:
'US support for Israel spurred 9/11'
October 16, 2007
Follow the Leader
The Open Secret About the Israel Lobby
By PAUL FINDLEY
There is an open secret in Washington. I learned it well during my 22-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. All members swear to serve the interests of the United States, but there is an unwritten and overwhelming exception: The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation of course is Israel.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue give priority to Israel over America. Those on Capitol Hill are pre-primed to roar approval for Israeli actions whether right or wrong, instead of at least fussing first and then caving. The White House sometimes puts up a modest and ineffective show of resistance before it follows Israel's lead.
In 2002, President Bush publicly ordered Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to end a bloody, destructive rampage through the Palestinian West Bank. He wilted just as publicly when he received curt word from Sharon that Israeli troops would not withdraw and would continue their military operations. A few days later President Bush invited Sharon to the White House where he saluted him as a "man of peace."
I had similar experiences in the House of Representatives. On several occasions, colleagues told me privately that they admired what I was trying to do in Middle East policy reform but could not risk pro-Israel protest back home by supporting my positions.
The pro-Israel lobby is not one organization orchestrating U.S. Middle East policy from a backroom in Washington. Nor is it entirely Jewish. It consists of scores of groups -- large and small -- that work at various levels. The largest, most professional, and most effective is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many pro-Israel lobby groups belong to the Christian Right.
The recently released book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," co-authored by distinguished professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, offers hope for constructive change. It details the damage to U.S. national interests caused by the lobby for Israel. These brave professors render a great service to America, but their theme, expressed in a published study paper a year ago, is already under heavy, vitriolic attack.
They are unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, the ultimate instrument of intimidation employed by the lobby. A common problem: Under pressure, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs withdrew an invitation for the authors to speak about their book. Council president Marshall Bouton explained ruefully that the invitation posed "a political problem" and a need "to protect the institution" from those who would be angry if the authors appeared.
I know what it is like to be targeted in this way. In the last years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out, making many of the points now presented in the Mearsheimer- Walt book. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.
The result is that Members of Congress today loudly reward Israel as it violates international law and peace agreements, lures America into costly wars, and subjects millions of Palestinians under its rule to apartheid-like conditions because they are not Jewish.
It is time to call politicians to account for their undying allegiance to a foreign state. Let the Mearsheimer- Walt book be a clarion that bestirs the American people to political action and finally brings fundamental change to both Capitol Hill and the White House.
Citizen participation in public policy development is a hallmark of our proud democracy. But the pro-Israel groups subvert democracy when they engage in smear campaigns that intimidate and silence critics. America badly needs a civilized discussion of the damaging role of Israel in U.S. policy formulation.
Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years. He is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby.
Please check out this website.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is #6 on the LA Times Bestsellers List of Books. It helps to explain how the US has incurred the wrath of 1.3 billion Muslims, and how we got into the war in Iraq.
Although it has been "Politically Incorrect" to discuss the Israeli Lobby and Israel, this book (as well as the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" by Jimmy Carter) have broken through this taboo. By breaking the silence, the discussion, hopefully, will begin. The discussion needs to begin immediately as Israel and The Lobby are now urging a US attack on Iran.
Several days ago, retired General Abizaid (Commander of US Forces in the Middle East) stated that Iran was not a "suicide nation" -- and that we could live with a nuclear Iran. He said that it wouldn't be desirable, but that we could "live with it".
Serious war gaming by the Rand Institute and retired Generals have predicted some very serious consequences if we attack Iran:
1. Increased deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. Shiites in Iraq, in sympathy with Shiites in Iran, would rise up against our soldiers in Iraq. Rumsfeld was against an attack on Iran because of the increased death toll to "his boys" in Iraq.
2. closure of the narrow (22miles wide) Straits of Hormuz, the shipping lane where the majority of the world's oil flows -- resulting in huge increases in the price of oil which would result in a worldwide depression.
3. Iran, who helped us against the Taliban in Afghanistan, could cause big trouble for our troops in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. One "war gamer" predicted that Iran could create a "bloody hell and defeat for US forces" in both countries with their million-man army.
Yet President Bush has stated (in the Chapter Iran in the Crosshairs), "I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel." I wonder if he will be sending his daughters to fight this million man Iranian army.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" will be a great help in understanding how BOTH political parties got us into this confrontation with the Muslim world which comprises 1.3 billlion people in 57 countries. And it is not because they hate freedom.
Breaking the Taboo: Why We Took On the Israel Lobby
October 31, 2007
The Lobby, Unmasked
The Israel lobby: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media" :
by Justin Raimondo
This One is So Hot: The Censorship of Mearsheimer and Walt:
U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:
AIPAC and the Neocon (War for Israel) agenda:
Israel's influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby:
Dutch documentary about AIPAC:
"AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran. AIPAC is the reason that no Democrats are coming out strongly against war with Iran. AIPAC's funding is extremely wealthy American Jews and AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran. So, when people go to Democratic politicians and they say "listen, I don't want you gettin' out in front and opposing war with Iran, particularly since you have national aspirations," they don't say it in the New York Times." - Eric Alterman
High Cost of Subservience to Israel:
Obama to Convince AIPAC that he is a true friend of Israel:
Mainstream Media, the 9/11 Commission Report, politicians and pundits have all downplayed and/or omitted the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was outrage over U.S. support of Israel. Here is a rare exception to the suppression, it comes from The Forward (which is the respected Jewish publication out of New York): "The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security."
A Disturbing Review of the 911 Linked Israeli Art Student Spy Ring
Hey all -- for those who didn't bother with the subscriber-only version at CounterPunch, my article ( http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html ) on allegations of 9/11-related Israeli espionage, which I'm expanding into a book, has now been posted at the website. Check it out at www.counterpunch.org
Also, I just did a radio interview with the great Meria Heller on this same topic. See http://www.meria.net/2007/one-world-order-global-control/september-11-2001/meria-with-christopher-ketcham-israeli-connection-to-91101/
Former Mossad operative (Ostrovsky) who wrote the 'By Way of Deception' book about the Mossad nails the dual loyality issue and use of the 'anti-Semite' smear via the you tube video short URLs below:
Anti-Semite label confines open debate:
Carter and Israeli crimes
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
Carter and the truth about Israel
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
Video Runtime 4 Minutes
President Carter, Mearsheimer and WaIt and The Israel Lobby
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Carter says Mearsheimer and Walt were right:
From: "Jeffrey Blankfort"
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:44:28 -0800
Subject: LA Times: Carter: AIPAC's "extraordinary lobbying efforts"
"For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices."
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.
By Jimmy Carter
the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman's in Pasadena.
December 8, 2006
I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark that I should be tried for treason and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
He's got guts
December 9, 2006
JIMMY CARTER may be the most courageous public figure in America ["Carter's Frontal Attack," by Josh Getlin, Dec. 4]. He has accurately described media coverage of the "Israel-Palestine" conflict as "abominable" and the U.S. government's pro-Israel bias as unequivocal. It is the ultimate irony that in a country that prizes its open democracy, no politician of any party is willing to risk his future by addressing this elephant in the room.
Caller asks President Carter about AIPAC and other pressure groups within the US.
President Carter reveals the intense pressures used to prevent public discussion of the facts concerning Israel. He admits that some Universities have actually turned him away, telling him that discussing Israel was "too controversial!":
Carter answers a question about the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper discusses groups like AIPAC and the influence on the US political system and the support of Israel:
Carter Says Mearsheimer and Walt were right:
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:55:33 EST
Subject: Carter stands by provocative book
A number of Jewish groups in the Atlanta area wrote a letter critical to Jimmy Carter that appeared in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution'Peace not Apartheid' stands as unfounded | ajc.com. It seems that Jimmy Carter will not give in, thank God, and the following appeared in today's edition of the AJC.
Carter stands by provocative book
Despite criticism, the former president defends his description of Israeli-Palestinian relations as apartheid.
By Ernie Suggs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/09/06
From the comfort of the Carter Center, former President Jimmy Carter blasted his critics Friday and defended his latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
"I feel completely at ease," said Carter, about his commitment to the book, which accuses Israel of oppressing Palestinians. "I am not running for office. And I have Secret Service protection."
Carter, who negotiated the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords, which led to Nobel Peace Prizes for Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin, was only half-joking.
"The greatest commitment in my life has been trying to bring peace to Israel," Carter told the Atlanta Press Club. "Israel will never have peace until they agree to withdraw" from the occupied territories.
What was supposed to be a whirlwind book tour to promote his 21st book and spark "discussion and debate about what is going on in the Holy Land" has instead left Carter spending the bulk of his time defending the book, especially his choice of the provocative word "apartheid" in the title.
Published by Simon & Schuster, the book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process from Carter's days in the White House to the present.
Blame placed on Israel
Carter, 82, places most of the blame for the conflict on Israel for fostering a type of apartheid that he said is worse in some cases than what blacks saw in South Africa. He criticizes the Bush administration for failing to intervene and other American elected officials for not addressing Middle East issues for fear of being run out of office.
"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine - to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians," Carter said.
He also criticized the American media for ignoring Israel's role in the stalemate.
"I would just like the news media and the op-ed pages to publicize it," said Carter. He said several major newspapers refused to write about his book, until it became controversial.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of "Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism," is demanding an apology from Carter. He said comments from the former president - particularly implications of his comments about the media - border on anti-Semitism.
"When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman said. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
Carter defends the use of the word apartheid, which is closely associated with racial brutality in South Africa. He said his use of the term refers to Israeli policies on the acquisition of Palestinian land and the erection of a separating wall that has divided Palestinian areas and destroyed homes and ancient olive trees.
"Anybody that goes there can't deny that a system of apartheid is going on," Carter said. "It is not racism-based. It is a small number of Israelis who believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. And to dominate, isolate and persecute any Palestinian who objects."
Joseph Parko, a volunteer with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker relief organization, said he recently spent more than two weeks in the region.
"The conditions I saw there were exactly what the president wrote about," Parko said. "Apartheid is an accurate term to describe the situation."
Jewish leaders upset
But Jewish groups - including the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta - have ripped the book and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party.
Foxman, who said he once bumped into Carter in Jerusalem, said Jewish reaction has gone from disappointment to anger.
"We are disappointed in a sense that one expects more fairness from a former president. One expects a lot more sophistication," Foxman said. "We are angry because there is a bias. Not only an ignorance of the issues, but a bias."
But Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, said at least eight Jewish groups - devoted to promoting peace in the Middle East - have called him to praise the book.
The staunchest critic has been Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center's first executive director and a professor at Emory University. Although not officially involved with the Carter Center for more than a decade, Stein was still listed as a Middle Eastern Fellow at the center before the book was published. He made a public break from Carter earlier this week, claiming the book was full of errors.
Carter told the Press Club that since 1996 he has monitored three elections in the region and has visited both Israel and the Palestinian territories many times.
"We know what is going on," Carter said. "That is my credentials for writing this book. It was not just superficial observance from a distance."
Find this article at:
Chris Hedges: Bring Down that Wall:
U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution condemning Israel on Gaza:
AIPAC and the Neocon (War for Israel) agenda:
The Power of Israel in the United States:
Nancy Pelosi and Israel
The Video Pelosi and AIPAC Don't Want You to See
U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution condemning Israel on Gaza (such unconditional support of Israel generated the intense hatred against America in the Arab/Muslim world which resulted in the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 - read pages 97-101 and pages 137-144 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book for more about such):
Pro-Israeli Manipulation of the U.S. Media
Israeli war criminal use of US cluster bombs
Israeli war criminal use of US made cluster bombs - no surprise why the US has a terror problem because of its relentless support for the rogue state of Israel:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer versus David Duke - video on YouTube.Com:
From a year ago...
CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two
Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for
vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further
by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a
and vice-president heavily invested in oil."
>> The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism
>> by John Pilger
>> The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have
>> alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle
>> empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The
>> of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from
>> truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to
>> strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism
(as many as
>> 55,000 Iraqis killed) exposes "us" to retaliation.
>> The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then
guardian of the
>> west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the
cause of more
>> regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states
>> the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles
>> equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in
>> Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring
>> alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist
>> by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.
>> In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises
>> its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the
>> Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had
>> lives of ordinary Palestinians."
>> Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast
>> of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons,
>> shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that
>> defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since
>> of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by
144 to four
>> to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the
>> annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system
>> provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored
>> Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The
>> analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two
>> Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda
for a vast
>> imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further
>> happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a
>> vice-president heavily invested in oil."
>> The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties
>> Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in
>> 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa)
>> "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader
>> Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office..." Chalabi
>> CIA-backed stooge and convicted embezzler at present organising the
>> "democratic" government in Baghdad.
>> Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence
>> the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was
>> by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and
>> of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of
>> Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt
>> weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original
>> Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress
>> imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same
>> Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel is the
>> behind Bush's bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed
>> Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli special forces are teaching the
>> to "wall in" a hostile population, in the same way that Israel has
>> the Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid
>> author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign
>> "now operational as well as ideological."
>> In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East,
>> simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant version of
>> democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in middle-class
>> homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble birth have long been
>> by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism as virulent and essentially
>> as the Likud strain.
>> In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new
>> have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention
>> treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were
>> systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The
>> courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born
>> Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his
>> books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History
>> Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an
>> orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and
>> coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he
>> Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli
>> to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they
>> by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its
>> (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years
>> negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly
>> number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land,
>> military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per
>> historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had
>> accept in return for recognising the state of Israel.
>> Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent
>> Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly. This
>> has brought him many admirers, but also enemies among Israel's
>> liberal mythologists in Britain, one of whom, Stephen Howe, was
>> Pappe book to review in the New Statesman of 8 March. Howe often
>> these pages; his style is to damn with faint praise and to set
>> limits of debate about empire, be it Irish history, the Middle East
>> "war on terror." In Pappe's case, what the reader doesn't know is
>> personal link to the Israeli establishment; and what Howe does not
say in his
>> review is that here for the first time is a textbook on Palestine
>> narrates the real story as it happened: a non-Zionist version of
>> He accuses Pappe of "factual mistakes," but gives no evidence, then
>> the book by dismissing it as a footnote to another book by the
>> historian Benny Morris, who has long atoned for his own revisionist
>> its credit, Cambridge University Press has published Pappe's
>> highly accessible work as an authoritative history. This means that
>> "debate" over Israel's origins is ending, regardless of what the
>> apologists say.
>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
9 / 1 1 L i n k s:
Why Do They Hate Us?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 9, 2006
Ex-Iranian leader blames Bush policies for terrorism
"What is the core problem which motivated the 9/11 attacks? What is fueling this terrorism?" with answer "U.S. foreign policies of supporting Israel, supporting other repressive regimes and now the war in Iraq, fuel terrorism.":
bin Laden :
Brit Respect MP George Galloway describes Hezbollah resistance on Sky TV:
ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL
Here's George Galloway, an Irishman living in England who speaks very intensely about the pro-Israeli bias in the media.
Too bad our American-Zionist media won't allow an anti-Israel speaker such as Galloway on their precious pro-Israeli programs.
Every American should see this:
This Windows Media Player video is about 20 megs.....
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:
Scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at the following message thread URL:
U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:
'Why Do They Hate US?':
Why Do They Want to Kill US?
Death on the beach: seven Palestinians killed as Israeli shells hit family picnic
The Gaza Beach Party Massacre
Israel bombs beach-goers and re-invades Gaza - because they can
by Justin Raimondo
Even Chalmers Johnson (author of 'Blowback' and 'The Sorrows of Empire') mentioned during the 'Q & A' program on C-SPAN that we were attacked on 9/11 because of support for what Israel does to the Palestinians:
Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see:
and here is it's tiny url:
A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the U.S.
Here is the tiny URL:
The day after the next 9/11 our freedoms are gone :
How to prevent another 9/11:
Jimmy Carter: Punishing the innocent is a crime :
Israel's new plan: A land grab:
http://www.9-11pdp.org/ua/2005-08-02.htm (click on the transcript PDF link and scroll down to the 'Q & A' session)
9/11 because of US support for Israel:
Just saw the following at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com as well:
Who said it wasn't Israel?? :
Motive for Iraq invasion:
Former editor of Los Angeles wrote that Iraq war was/is for Israel:
NEXT STOP: SYRIA AND IRAN (which will be for Israel as well):
Last edited by Alpha on Sat May 23, 2009 3:09 pm; edited 140 times in total
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:10 am Post subject: 9-11 Public Discourse Project |
|9-11 Public Discourse Project |
War (for Israel) price on U.S. lives equal to 9/11
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next.
The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
An Associated Press count of the U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 2,696. Combined with 278 U.S. deaths in and around Afghanistan, the 9/11 toll was reached, then topped, the same day. The Pentagon reported Friday the latest death from Iraq, an as-yet unidentified soldier killed a day earlier after his vehicle was hit by a roadside bombing in eastern Baghdad.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.
Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.
There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.
"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."
Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.
"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."
Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.
The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq.
Altogether, 3,031 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The toll among Iraqi civilians hit a record high in the summer, with 6,599 violent deaths reported in July and August alone, the United Nations said this week.
Among the latest U.S. deaths identified by the armed forces:
_Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
_Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.
Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.
That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.
Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.
In contrast, the United States had no imminent war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total
|Alpha || |
|Alpha || |
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|Tom Murphy ( www.representativepress.org ) wrote: |
I posted this ( I also but it at my blog:
You are in a position to call for taking away the terrorists' motives
for attacking the US, why are you not doing so? Bush Lied to the
American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives, are you OK with that?
You seem to be OK with Bush and others lying to us about why we were
attacked since you never point it out and you never call for ending the
specific foreign polices that make us targets. Why are you willing to
have us spend billions and curtail our freedoms yet ending these
policies is off limits with you?
The 9/11 Commission is avoiding the MAIN MOTIVE for why we were
attacked, why are you doing that as well? Did you not see this man
trying to get the Commission to deal with the main motive?:
You should know that the man who conceived and
directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was motivated by his strong
disagreement with American support for Israel.
Mohamed Atta, the ring leader of the September 11th suicide hijackers
also held the same grievance.
Why are you OK with Lee Hamilton and others suppressing the main motive for the attack?
Philip Zelikow admits "we don't really discuss American polices toward
Israel in the report." Why in God's name are you not demanding that
the 9/11 Commission deal with Israel? Why are you willing to have
politicians put our lives at risk for Israel? Why are you willing to
suffer the consequences of supporting Israel and allowing people to
deceive the public about why people are motivated to attack us? Zelikow
admits, "it's a fact that American policies in the Middle East have
consequences and that you have to weigh those consequences. And that
American support for the state of Israel has consequences in the Muslim
world and fuels a lot of Arab and Muslim grievances toward the United
We don't deserve to be lied to, why are you playing along with the lie
and helping these liars?
|Alpha || |
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject: |
All these BILLIONS spent on 'Homeland Security' in order to continue support of the rogue state of Israel as such support (in the BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars flowed to Israel by a US ZOG - Zionist Occupied Government - while US states go broke as there wasn't even enough funding to repair the levees in New Orleans while the Israelis build the US taxpayer funded Apartheid wall in the Palestinian West Bank) is the root cause of the US terror problem (to include the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 - see page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report and pages 96-101 and pages 138-144 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
US Support for Israel is the Gorilla in the Room:
So now Los Angeles is under threat as well (Melbourne is too because of Australia's poodling with the US invasion of Iraq which was for Israel as well in accordance with the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda that esteemed US intelligence author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War' book (the paperback version has an additional chapter -page 403- about the AIPAC/Israel espionage at the Pentagon which the pro-Israel biased US press/media is hardly covering either):
New tape threatens attacks on Los Angeles 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
A videotape televised on Sunday purportedly from a U.S.-member of al Qaeda threatened Los Angeles and Melbourne, Australia, on the fourth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
ABC News said it had received the video in Pakistan. It reported the masked speaker appears to be Adam Gadahn, from southern California, who threatens attacks on the two cities, "Allah willing," and warns that the attackers will show no compassion.
"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne," he said.
"We love peace, but peace on our terms," the speaker said.
Gadahn was believed to have been the young American who appeared in another threatening tape about year ago.
ABC said the young man apparently converted to Islam at an Orange County, California, mosque as a teen-ager.
Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton told ABC News his city has "very robust counter terrorism" steps in place and was already on a heightened state of alert because of next month's Jewish holidays.
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: $2.5b aid for Israel in Bush 2007 budget |
|Just saw the following at www.whatreallyhappened.com (US seniors get their Medicare benefits cut in order for additional US taxpayer BILLIONS to flow to the rogue state of Israel as such funding - see the links at www.wrmea.com and at www.nowarforisrael.com as well - is the PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the US terror problem): |
$2.5b aid for Israel in Bush 2007 budget
$150 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority will be subject to review, and the US will continue funding ongoing projects.
Ran Dagoni, Washington 8 Feb 06 13:22
In its 2007 budget proposal submitted to Congress, the Bush administration is asking for $2.46 billion in aid for Israel: $2.34 billion in military aid, and $120 million in civilian aid.
The amount of aid is calculated under a formula devised by former Minister of Finance Yaakov Neeman and then-Israel’s Economic Minister to Washington Ohad Marani. The Clinton administration and Congress approved the formula. Under the formula, US military aid is increased by $60 million a year, up to a ceiling of $2.4 billion, and civilian aid is cut by $120 million a year, until it is finally eliminated. 2007 will be the last year in which Israel will receive US civilian aid.
The US fiscal year begins on October 1, and Israel receives the full amount of annual aid a few weeks later, assuming there are no legislative delays, which occur almost every year. Israel is the only recipient of US aid that receives it in a single tranche.
The 2007 US budget request includes $150 million in aid for the Palestinians, the same amount as in the 2006 budget. US spokespersons quickly emphasized that aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be subject to review, depending on developments in the PA.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said US financing of ongoing PA projects would continue, but each project would be examined on its own merits. The budget proposal states that aid for the Palestinians is intended to promote democracy, the rule of law, and economic recovery.
The 2007 US budget proposal also includes $1.3 billion in military aid and $455 million in civilian aid for Egypt. US civilian aid to Egypt is cut by $40 million a year. Jordan will receive $245 million in civilian aid and $206 million in military aid, the same as in previous years.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on February 8, 2006
Next article: Netanyahu: I’ll eliminate poverty in three years
US Support of Israel (like the above) PRIMARY MOTIVATION for US terror problem:
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: How To Prevent Another 9/11 |
|How To Prevent Another 9/11 |
by Paul Findley
On a recent Sunday morning, NBC’s Meet-the-Press host Tim Russert, CBS veteran newsman Dan Rather and retired ABC Nightline host Ted Koppel mused about the stormy debate over President Bush’s spy policies.
Koppel declared that the debate will end the instant America suffers another 9/11, and he added, ominously “as we certainly will.” He implied, of course, that Congress would then swiftly give the president all the latitude in spying that he wants. Neither Russert nor Rather dissented.
Our present policies make another 9/11 inevitable. Our acts of war strengthen the insurgency in Iraq and elsewhere. U.S. forces, using white phosphorus gas, destroyed most of Fallujah, an ancient Iraqi city of 300,000. A bombing by the CIA—not widely known for war making—caused bitter protest in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda operatives now enjoy rising public approval in both Iraq and Pakistan, but still no change in U.S. policies.
Our government should explore every avenue of diplomatic settlement, but when Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden proposed a truce, the White House contemptuously said no. Bush calls bin Laden’s insurgents terrorists. They call themselves fighters for justice. At the least, our officials should ask privately for truce details but, more importantly, for details about Arab grievances against America.
These grievances are soaring, but the U.S. administration has done nothing to try to identify them, much less redress them. In Iraq, our forces try to kill insurgents who mainly want our forces to leave. In Israel and Palestine, we, in effect, help Israel destroy the lives and livelihood of Arabs who resist occupation, as well as those who don’t. There, the main Arab grievance is U.S. unconditional support despite Israel’s take-over of Arab land and its daily violation of Arab human rights.
Arab fury led to 9/11. Months ago, bin Laden stated publicly that the deadly assault was payback for America’s involvement in Israel’s lawlessness, principally in 1982 when our government donated the guns, planes and bombs with which Israel slaughtered more than 18,000 Arabs in Beirut. Our long, major in the denial of Arab rights doomed the U.S. invasion of Iraq before it started.
Still, a just peace beckons. Our government can prevent another 9/11 without firing a shot or spending more billions in a futile attempt to encase America in a protective cocoon. All we need to do is stand resolutely for justice. This requires a halt to U.S. acts of war in Iraq and the suspension of all aid until Israel treats Palestinians justly, either by ending its occupation of their land seized in 1967 or by according them full citizenship in Israel. The U.S. government cannot force Israel to do its bidding, but it can and should put firm conditions on further aid.
No matter how Israel responds, these U.S. decisions would elicit pro-American rejoicing worldwide and reduce, perhaps stop the insurgency in Iraq. They would restore luster to the name America, a country now reviled for starting wars, incarcerating insurgents without due process and routinely sending detainees to secret prisons for torture.
Why doesn’t Washington act? From long personal experience, I provide the answer: almost all U.S. politicians fear that any criticism of Israel will cause them big trouble the next time they seek reelection.
Fear reaches far beyond Washington. Citizens capable of expressing moral outrage in newspapers, on television, from pulpits, and in the halls of academia are as silent as the politicians. Is everyone afraid that calling Israel to account will lead to false but painful charges of anti-Semitism? Is that why no one—not Russert, Koppel or Rather, not a single journalist of prominence in the nation-- is willing to speak or write about the folly of our lop-sided, lethal pro-Israel policies?
Are we fated to suffer more wars, more dead soldiers and marines, more blighted families here and abroad, more billions in public debt, and searing hostility worldwide, simply because America’s national leadership, almost to the last person, quakes before Israel’s political power in this land?
President Bush could swiftly transform the grim clouds of war into the bright promise of peace. All he needs to do is sheath his sword and take a firm stand for justice. But will he? -0-
Paul Findley, a Republican, served in Congress 1961-83, 12 of those years on the House Middle East subcommittee. He is the author of five books, one a 7-week Washington Post bestseller. He resides in Jacksonville, Illinois.
|Alpha || |
|Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: Charlie Reese: Check Your Beliefs |
|Check Your Beliefs |
Let's play a fantasy game to check on our belief in human rights. Let's suppose that in a mythical state, a governor announced a campaign to punish African-Americans for alleged violence.
Step one is to confiscate the land owned by African-Americans, evict them from it and use the land to build massive new subdivisions. Only white Protestant Christians may live in these subdivisions.
Step two is to connect these all-white Protestant Christian settlements to each other by a highway on which African-Americans are forbidden to drive. To facilitate control, the automobile tags for African-Americans will be a different color from the tags issued to white motorists. Checkpoints would be set up all around the state capitol to search and harass African-Americans trying to enter.
Would you support such a plan? Would you hail that mythical governor as a man of peace? Would you go to your church congregation and ask the members to send money to the occupants of these white settlements? Would you lobby the federal government to subsidize this new apartheid state in our midst?
I don't think so. I think most Americans would consider such acts an abomination, un-American and a mockery of everything both Christianity and the United States stand for.
Well, if you would condemn such acts here directed against African-Americans, why won't you condemn identical acts committed against the Palestinians by the state of Israel?
Those settlements you hear about are built on Palestinian land, and they are for Jews only. New roads that Palestinians are forbidden to use connect them. The entire West Bank is riddled with Israeli checkpoints, where innocent Palestinians are daily humiliated and harassed. A trip to a nearby village can mean waiting in line at checkpoints for hours. Palestinians have died in these lines.
After all of these humiliations, abuses, the houses destroyed, the children killed, the olive trees uprooted, how do you think Palestinians feel about Americans who support the Israelis no matter what they do to the Palestinians? Don't take my word about these abuses. Check out the Israeli human-rights organization at www.btselem.org/English.
If you cannot condemn the flagrant abuses of Palestinians by the Israeli government, then you are undoubtedly a bigot, the worst kind of racist pig who believes that Palestinians are some kind of subspecies of the human race. If you do condemn in your heart these terrible abuses, but are afraid to speak out about them, then you are a damned coward.
I listened in disgust to a congressional committee hearing on the Palestinian elections. It was all about what the Palestinians have to do. It was as if the cops, interviewing a child who had been raped by an adult, lectured the child on dressing provocatively and of being in places she should not have been in.
The Palestinians are the victims here. It is their land that is occupied. They have no army. They are at the mercy of the Israeli government. They don't have a superpower protecting them from international sanctions and supplying them with billions of dollars. The United States should be telling Israel to get out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to dismantle its settlements and checkpoints, and to allow Palestinian refugees to return to or be compensated for the land the Israelis stole.
You want to know why we have a problem with terrorism? It's not Islamic fundamentalists or hatred of freedom. It's our support of Israel's unspeakable abuse of Palestinians. Don't blame Osama bin Laden. Blame the president, Congress, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and all the cowardly Americans who practice hypocrisy by claiming to be moral while supporting gross immorality committed against their fellow human beings in Palestine.
By Charley Reese, 03/17/06
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next All times are GMT