| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: Judge hints that he could dismiss AIPAC case |
| Judge hints he could dismiss AIPAC case
Another item of proof of AIPAC power n control of our gov't
http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com...=5044&TM=539.37
Thursday, March 30, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/29/2006 8:59:00 PM
Judge hints he could dismiss AIPAC case
by Ron Kampeas
JTA News and Features
A federal judge has hinted that he might dismiss the classified information case against two former officials of the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Hearing a defense motion for dismissal last Friday in an Alexandria court, District Judge T.S. Ellis III expressed reservations about the breadth of a never-used 1917 statute at the core of the case.
"What I'm really expressing discomfort about is that it's always nice to have a clear precedent to follow," he said. "I think we are in new, uncharted territory, so I'm going to consider this matter very carefully."
Ellis gave the sides until tomorrow to submit additional arguments, but the smiles around the defense table suggested they had fared better than expected at the hearing.
Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, were indicted last August on charges that they relayed classified information to fellow AIPAC staffers, journalists and diplomats at the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman last March, saying that information arising out of the investigation suggested they did not comport with AIPAC's standards. Federal prosecutors have made clear that AIPAC is not suspected of wrongdoing.
Free-speech advocates have raised alarms about the World War I-era statute that bans the retention and dissemination of "information relating to the national defense," saying its broadness collides with First Amendment protections because it could criminalize even casual conversations about the armed forces.
Now it is up to Ellis to decide if the statute passes First Amendment muster and should go to trial as planned on April 25.
Last week's vigorous hearing anticipated one of the core arguments to be tested if the case does go to trial: whether the statute, which criminalizes not just the relaying of classified information but its retention, includes oral communications.
The indictment focuses primarily on conversations about U.S. policy on Iran, al-Qaeda and other areas that Rosen and Weissman allegedly conducted with a number of government officials, especially Larry Franklin, a former mid-level Iran analyst at the Pentagon.
Franklin pleaded guilty Jan. 20 to leaking classified information. He was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.
"How do you give back what you heard?" asked Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, who led defense arguments in last week's hearing, referring to oral exchanges of information.
Ellis picked up the point, asking Kevin DiGregory, who is leading a large prosecution team, "What are they supposed to do, have a lobotomy?"
DiGregory countered that he would prove at trial that Rosen and Weissman conspired to solicit and disseminate the classified information, and that the nature of the information transfer was not at issue. In other words, he argued, the issue was conduct, not speech.
"All speech is conduct," Ellis replied.
DiGregory said that excluding oral exchanges from the statute would tie prosecutors' hands. Dismissing the case would set a precedent that could allow, say, a spy to have a contact read aloud a classified document, as long as he did not physically hand it over, he argued.
Ellis seemed most concerned by the First Amendment implications of the statute, asking Lowell and DiGregory to consider hypothetical cases.
Lowell, who served as chief counsel to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee during President Clinton's impeachment hearings, parried the hypothetical case put to him by Ellis, in which a disgruntled government official calls a lobbyist and suggests to him that the United States might take military action against another nation.
To know that he is committing a crime by just listening, Lowell said, the lobbyist would have to know that the government official is reading from a classified document and is not authorized to leak it.
DiGregory would not count out using the statute against journalists, but said prosecutors would probably be more hesitant in going after the press.
"Because of the function the media serves in this country, we would have to carefully scrutinize whether to take action," he said. But he added, "If you look at the statute, it plainly applies to journalists, anyone, whoever."
Ellis said he would rule later on the defense's slate of subpoenas of top Bush administration officials, including Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser; and David Satterfield, the deputy ambassador in Baghdad. He suggested that he was likely to approve the subpoena of Satterfield, one of the government officials identified in the indictment as leaking information to Rosen.
The defense plans to press the government on why it is charging Rosen with accepting the leak while not prosecuting Satterfield with leaking the information in the first place.
On another motion, Ellis asked Lowell to try one last time to get three Israeli diplomats ‹ to whom Rosen and Weissman allegedly relayed the classified information ‹ to give depositions voluntarily. One of them is Naor Gilon, who until last summer was the chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
U.S. Middle East policy CONTROLLED by pro-Israel lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
Treason at a high level: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC and Israel:
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
Israel first Ashcroft lobbies for Israeli company vs. Boeing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/john-ashcroft-lobbyist-_b_17559.html?p=3#comments
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:15 pm; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: The Traitor and Chief threatens Iran for Israel |
| From: "curt womak"
Subject: The Traitor and Chief threatens Iran for that shitty little state of israel
Bush has either got to be a cryptoJew or the Jews have pictures of him fellating goats
Bush warns Iran on Israel
US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.
"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.
On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped "to solve this issue diplomatically" with a "united message" to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia "hopefully" and China.
The message would be that "your desire to having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," he said.
Bush also touched on Iran's agreement to discuss Iraq with the United States, saying that "it's very important, however, for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq.
"We're using this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of interference within a democratic process that is evolving," he said, saying that the talks will not decide Iran's relations with a sovereign Iraq.
"Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
| March 20, 2006
The Lobby
Why is American policy in the Middle East
skewed in favor of Israel?
American foreign policy has been weighed down for all too many years by an albatross hung round Uncle Sam's neck, one that distorts our stance especially vis-à-vis Middle Eastern issues and ultimately works against U.S. interests in the region and around the world: that albatross is unconditional support for the state of Israel. Of course, saying this amounts to a hate crime in today's political atmosphere, and it is almost impossible to criticize the Jewish state without being accused of religious bigotry, which is just how Israel's partisans want it. In the halls of Congress and the corridors of power, Israel is above criticism. But not anymore…
Of course, we've been criticizing Israel, and its inordinate influence over American foreign policy, in these pages for quite some time, and we are not alone. On the Right, some conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative magazine, have broken the taboo, and on the Left, too, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, James Petras, and a host of others have refused to be a part of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong consensus. In the intelligence community, Larry Johnson, Philip Giraldi, and James Bamford have been critical of Israel and its amen corner in the U.S., while among academics, Juan Cole has often provided a skeptical view of Israeli government actions and Israel's apologists in the U.S.
In the "mainstream" media, however, and certainly in Washington, D.C., the power of Israel's lobby is unchallenged. This hegemony has now been thoroughly detailed and analyzed in an important study by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, published by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison distinguished service professor of political science and a co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, is the leading advocate of the "realist" school of foreign policy. Walt is academic dean of the Kennedy School. Their study, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," [.pdf] starts out with a bang:
"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?"
This situation, I would submit, has no equivalent in the history of the world. Nation-states are notorious for jealously guarding and pursuing their own interests. Why, then, would the most powerful state on earth abjectly subordinate itself to the influence and even direction of an ally, one that, furthermore, does not reciprocate this altruism?
Answer: the Lobby.
The reality, say Mearsheimer and Walt, is that Israel is a net liability in the worldwide struggle against terrorism and efforts by the U.S. to modify the behavior of so-called "rogue states." The Israeli-centric policy pursued by Washington's warlords "exaggerates Israel's ability to help on these issues and ignores the ways that Israel's policies make U.S. efforts more difficult." Aside from that, "Israel does not act like a loyal ally." In addition to ignoring pleas to modify their own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israelis sell arms to China and continue to spy on us – yes, even since Pollard.
Aside from the flaws in the practical case for an Israeli-centric policy, the moral case for elevating Israel's interests over our own is very weak. Mearsheimer and Walt note that much of the sympathy for Israel has been based on its alleged status as the underdog: David standing alone against the demographic Goliath of the Arab world. Yet this picture, strenuously promoted by the Israel lobby, is far from the truth. Israelis the underdogs? Give me a break! As the authors point out, Israel is the strongest military power in the region.
Okay, then, what about the fact that Arab regimes oppress their own people, while Israel is relatively free? In the name of promoting "democracy," the Bush administration – and its predecessors – have tilted toward Tel Aviv and held Israel up as a model for the region. But this is based on an incomplete analysis of Israel's internal regime. Israel a democracy? Not for the millions of Palestinian helots it rules. And what about the racist criteria for Israeli citizenship? If a Palestinian marries an Israeli, the former cannot [.pdf] be a citizen of Israel, nor even move there.
The authors even take on the widely held – although rarely expressed – view that unconditional support for Israel is deserved on account of the Holocaust: according to this logic, it's payback time. But who is doing the paying? The Israelis victimized a group that had nothing to do with this crime, which was committed by Europeans. And the Zionists went on to commit their own crimes when they expelled "up to 700,000 Palestinians," according to the authors of this study, from 1947-48.
In detailing the crimes of the Israelis, Mearsheimer and Walt come to a conclusion that will outrage the Lobby, not because it is a lie but because it is indisputable: "In terms of actual behavior," they write, "Israel's conduct is not morally distinguishable from the actions of its opponents." If the suicide bombers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to plague innocent civilians who fall victim to terrorist attacks in Israel, then this kind of violence is a reflection of the activities of the organized Zionist terrorist outfits who fought in the war for independence. These activities included mass expulsions, executions, and rapes by Jewish "settlers" in the early days of the Zionist state:
"Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2,700 and 5,000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. … The IDF also murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners-of-war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars. In 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly-conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights."
The Zionists say they are merely defending themselves against "terrorism," but they themselves utilized terrorism to establish their state, as the authors of this study document. They cite Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, then a member of an underground Zionist organization, as quite honestly advocating methods that one now associates with al-Qaeda:
"Indeed, Shamir openly argued that 'neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.' Rather, terrorism has 'a great part to play … in our war against the occupier [Britain].'"
Israel's alleged moral superiority is a myth. Neither strategic nor moral arguments explain America's unconditional support for Israel: instead, "the explanation lies in the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby."
While it's true that there is no centralized leadership of "the Lobby," as the authors call it, and there are significant disagreements between various groups within the Jewish community over U.S. policy toward Israel, there is, however, a party line that is almost never crossed or contradicted. When it is, the response from the Amen Corner is virulent.
When Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a letter to President Bush expressing his opposition to the "security wall," and asking that the U.S. put pressure on Israel to stop construction, he was accused of "perfidy" by leading figures in the Lobby. The nature of the attacks revealed an attitude toward Israel not unlike that held by the Communists of the Cold War era toward the Soviet Union. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out:
"Critics declared that, 'It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.' When Seymour Reich, president of the Israel Policy Forum, suggested to Condi Rice that the Israelis should be pressured to reopen a Gaza Strip border crossing, the Lobby went ballistic, and Reich soon recanted, announcing that 'the word "pressure" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.'"
Yeah, it better not be, if he knows what's good for him – and that goes for the American Congress, and even the president himself. The reason: again, the Lobby.
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), now embroiled in a spy case [.pdf], has been rated the second heaviest hitter in the world of Washington lobbyists, just behind the AARP, but ahead of the NRA and the AFL-CIO. Adding heft to their efforts is the Christian evangelical factor: the theology of many born-again Christians is linked to unconditional support for Israel, because the ingathering of Jews in the Holy Land is seen as a signal that the End Times are upon us – and God, in the evangelicals' view, is definitely on the side of Tel Aviv.
The Lobby has mastered "interest group politics" like no one else has. They rely on the general indifference of the population and their own zeal to curry favor with legislators, but beyond this they exert a unique influence, one that doesn't just dominate the debate but, instead, prevents any real debate from taking place. As Mearsheimer and Walt put it:
"The Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel's side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy."
This really gets at the core of the Lobby's unique effectiveness: they not only try to influence legislators and policymakers in the executive branch to take a pro-Israel position down the line, they also seek to smear the opposition, to delegitimize and marginalize critics as "anti-Semites."
When it comes to Congress, "Israel is virtually immune from criticism." Some are Christian Zionists, like Dick Armey, who once proclaimed that his "number one priority" in terms of foreign policy is to support Israel come hell or high water. The authors cite Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, as saying:
"There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] … who happen to be Jewish, who are willing … to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness. … These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators. … You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level."
AIPAC is "the core of the Lobby's influence in Congress." Money is used a weapon to bring down perceived anti-Israel candidates, such as former senator Charles Percy. Mearsheimer and Walt even bring up Jack Abramoff (naughty, naughty!) as an example of the power of lobbyists in Washington, and echo Pat Buchanan's famous line that the place is "Israeli-occupied territory":
"The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there."
The authors detail the penetration of the Clinton administration by the Lobby, which meant that the American delegation to the Oslo "peace process" negotiations basically took its orders from Tel Aviv. Yes, the delegation supported Oslo, but only within the limits determined by the Israelis. Palestinian negotiators had every reason to believe that, as they put it, they were "negotiating with two Israeli teams: one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag."
And things only got worse when Bush II took over.
The Lobby is adept at media manipulation, so much so that real criticism of Israel is rarely heard in "mainstream" news outlets. On the editorial pages, pro-Israel commentary is the rule, while pieces sympathetic to the idea that the Arabs might have a case are exceptions that stand out due to their extreme rarity. The news-gathering and reporting departments are a bit better, because it is hard to deny the realities on the ground as Israelis bulldoze Palestinian homes and systematically colonize Arab lands, but this is offset by the intensity of the pressure tactics deployed by pro-Israel activists, who target individual reporters and news organizations. One executive at CNN is cited as saying he sometimes get as many as 6,000 e-mails in one day kvetching that a news report is "anti-Israel."
The authors list most of the big Washington think tanks, and characterize them as having few if any critics of Israel on staff. What happened in this arena is exemplified, they say, by the example of the Brookings Institution, the politics of which might be described as centrist, advocating policies historically associated with the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party:
"A good indicator of the Lobby's influence in the think tank world is the evolution of the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on Middle East issues was William B. Quandt, a distinguished academic and former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for evenhandedness regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, however, Brookings' work on these issues is conducted through its Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, a wealthy Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist.The director of the Saban Center is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. Thus, what was once a non-partisan policy institute on Middle East matters is now part of the chorus of largely pro-Israel think tanks."
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the Lobby is also trying to "police" – their word – the activities and beliefs of college professors and students. Faculty deemed not supportive of Israel are targeted, monitored, and subjected to "overt intimidation," as in the infamous case of Columbia University, where pro-Israel forces went to great lengths – even making a propaganda film – to stifle any _expression of support for Palestinian rights. And it isn't just pressure tactics brought by private groups: they are now seeking to outlaw criticism of Israel by denying federal funds to campuses where Israel is not treated with kid gloves.
The Lobby has walled itself off from any substantive criticism by launching a smear campaign against anyone who points to their privileged status, and that the authors of this study have come to grips with this is an act of bravery that one hopes they will not come to regret:
"No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or says that pro-Israel grops have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stand a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.' In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it."
Exactly. And what's more, they have gotten away with it, at least until now. The effect of all this is that, in the foreign policy arena, the Israeli tail wags the American dog.
The Lobby's efforts to get us into war with Iraq are detailed, and the role played by the neoconswithin and outside the administration is examined with unusual candor. The central role played by neoconservatives is described, and the timeline of their triumph is explained. While they had some limited success in furthering their agenda of regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years, the authors describe 9/11 as the turning point. Key individuals are named: Dick Cheney and his staff, especially the now-indicted [.pdf] Scooter Libby, and former Undersecretary of State for Policy Douglas J. Feith, a co-author of the notorious "Clean Break" document. Without the Lobby, the authors conclude, the decision to go to war would have been far less likely.
It isn't just regime change in Iraq that flowed directly from the Lobby's efforts, however: the entire project to effect a "democratic" transformation of the Middle East via direct U.S. intervention owes its origins to the Lobby's relentless efforts. After Iraq, the efforts to target Syria with sanctions and effect regime change in Iran were ratcheted up in Washington, in spite of the Bush administration's ambivalence. The dominance of the Lobby in Washington means that we are fighting wars for Israel's sake, not our own. The Jewish state is protected, in spite of whatever difficulties the U.S. military encounters in actually carrying out their project in the region, while Americans "do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
The authors of this important study are not optimistic that the power of the Lobby can be curtailed. While there are plenty of opportunities for American policymakers to distance themselves from policies that are not congruent with American interests, "that is not going to happen anytime soon." Why not? The authors aver:
"AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding by expanding their activities and staffs. Moreover, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does."
The blunt pessimism of this conclusion is, I think, unwarranted. But I don't have time or space to go into just why, right now. Suffice to say that the spy charges filed against AIPAC honcho Steve Rosen and his associate, Keith Weissman, will go a long way toward exposing the real nature and role of the Lobby, and may even force AIPAC and its affiliates to register as agents of a foreign power – placing severe limits on their activities, particularly in the legislative-electoral arena.
In any case, the publication of this study [.pdf] is a milestone in the annals of the debate over American foreign policy. For the first time in memory, the power of the Lobby has been challenged by two prominent academics: try as the Lobby's activists might, they won't succeed in smearing either Mearsheimer or Walt as neo-Nazis, nor will they be able to dismiss their concerns as the ravings of fringe characters. As far as the Lobby is concerned, the jig is up – and all I can say is, it's about time.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730
More at the following URL:
U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: Israeli Lobby - The Report |
| Israeli Lobby - The Report
By Ted Lang
3-25-6
"Mearsheimer and Walt's paper leaves absolutely no doubt that Israel
not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy
and our political parties, but our media as well." In federal
government circles, selection by upper management of a candidate to attend the
senior management program offered to upwardly mobile government
executives as offered by the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard
University, is in and of itself a high privilege and an honor. It
clearly signifies to all that an attendee and graduate of the program is
destined for the highest ranks of government service; namely, the Senior
Executive Service.
During my employment with the federal government, virtually every
high-level executive I reported to was an SES that graduated from this
high-power school. The John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard
University is, therefore, a very prestigious center of learning, both in
terms of academic ranking and in terms of its ranking by the highest
levels of management within the United States government. Professor Stephen
M. Walt is a professor at JFK, while John J. Mearsheimer is a professor
in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
The JFK School provides just a vehicle for technical reporting and
essay writing in their "Faculty Research Working Papers Series." It was
through this venue, that Mearsheimer and Walt published their latest
eye-opening report, entitled: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
Needless to say, at this time in our nation's history, it couldn't come
at a more critical time. As Americans feverishly attempt to understand
the workings of the twisted mind of a totally out-of-control genocidal
lunatic and mass-murdering warmongering buffoon and his gang that has
hijacked the government of the United States, explanations for his
unilateral and unnecessary invasion abound in limitless speculation and
inquiry.
However, the most frequently offered rationale, if that is what it can
be called, is that it was primarily about oil. But considering the
hostility of Israel, its penchant and perfected planning and execution of
terror, it becomes increasingly clear that the foreign policy of the
United States is dictated by Israel.
Digressing a moment from the natural order of topics in their
magnificent paper, let's move immediately to the report's treatment of Israeli
control of the American corporate mainstream establishment media (MSM),
as it will be the intention of that un-American element and institution
to work hard and feverishly to spike and cover up this damaging report
that exposes the motivational madness of the Bush regime. Addressing
the section, "Manipulating the Media," Mearsheimer and Walt offer: "In
addition to influencing government policy directly, the Lobby [AIPAC]
strives to shape public perceptions about Israel and the Middle East. It
does not want an open debate on issues involving Israel, because an
open debate might cause Americans to question the level of support that
they currently provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organizations work hard
to influence the media, think tanks, and academia, because these
institutions are critical in shaping popular opinion." The report goes on:
"The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream
media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel.
The debate among Middle East pundits, journalist Eric Alterman writes,
is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel., He lists
61 columnists and commentators who can be counted upon to support
Israel reflexively and without qualification., Conversely, Alterman found
just five pundits who consistently criticize Israeli behavior or endorse
pro-Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds
challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favors the
other side."
Certain key elements of the Alternative Media, this site among them,
have consistently exposed the one-sidedness of the MSM in protecting
Israel and extending this protection therefore to the Bush administration.
That is precisely what empowers the administration as a regime. And
what it doesn't say in the report, is the astonishing control those
sympathetic to Israel, and therefore supportive of the Bush crime machine,
overwhelming own, manage and operate print and TV and cable electronic
news reporting. This subject wasn't even touched on.
The report then turns to a brief analysis of the New York Times. This
is "America's newspaper of record" and as Bernie Goldberg has revealed,
is the national editorial gatekeeper and assessor of what is newsworthy
and what is not. It is the Times that decides what news will be on TV
and cable later in the evening, and you may rest comfortably sure that
this Mearsheimer and Walt report will not make it, nor will Charlie
Sheen. It is the Times, that blocked the Downing Street Memo report and is
now also dedicated to blocking a full, open investigation of the Bush
9-11 plot. Concerning the Times, Mearsheimer and Walt offer: "Editorial
bias is also found in papers like the New York Times. The Times
occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the
Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not even-handed.
In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel
acknowledged the impact of his own pro-Israel attitude had on his
editorial choices. In his words: I was much more deeply devoted to Israel
than I dared to assert., He goes on: Fortified by my knowledge of Israel
and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East
commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from
a pro-Israel perspective.," The report goes on to give examples of the
organized manner in which the Israeli Lobby encourages the supportive
consumers of newspaper, radio and television news, to literally bombard
news entities with protest letters and e-mails in the true and
time-worn fashion of Zionist agitation to stifle news and views they don't
like, and to urge for propaganda favoring Israel.
Examples of Zionist rank and file pressure on CNN and NPR are cited.
The report concludes this section on the media offering, "These factors
help explain why the American media contains few criticisms of Israeli
policy, rarely questions Washington's relationship with Israel, and only
occasionally discusses the Lobby's profound influence on U.S. policy."
It should be crystal clear that my labeling of the MSM as being "The
Zionist Media" is now virtually proven fact, especially coming from this
highly regarded institution of government studies and from trainers of
candidates for the Senior Executive Service. And you can count on the
fact that the Zionist media is burning the midnight oil to feverishly
suppress this critical exposé. The report's opening remarks now: "U.S.
foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is
this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and
enormous strategic importance. For the past several decades, however,
and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S.
Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The
combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to
spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion
and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American
political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside
its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?
One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on
shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show
below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the
remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States
provides to Israel." ........
Where did WE learn how to become terrorists and turn on our own? Why
did we turn against the whole world and ignore human decency and
morality, and ignore the Geneva Conventions and begin campaigns of torture and
mass terror, and slaughter unarmed captive men, women and children? Who
showed US how to do this and get away with it? Who? Ask Israel!!!
Mearsheimer and Walt summarize: "It is not surprising that Israel and
its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all
threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape U.S. policy
succeed, then Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a
free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the
fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying. But even if the United States
fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an
increasingly radicalized Arab and Islamic world, Israel still ends up
protected by the world's only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome
from [AIPAC's] perspective, but it is obviously preferable to
Washington distancing itself from Israel, or using its leverage to force Israel
to make peace with the Palestinians." The report concludes: "Can the
[Israeli-AIPAC] Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so,
given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in
the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC
officials passing U.S. government secrets to Israel.
One might also think that Arafat's death and the election of the more
moderate Abu Mazen would cause Washington to press vigorously and
evenhandedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for
U.S. leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East
policy more consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular,
using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the
Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and
promoting democracy in the Middle East. But that is not going to happen
anytime soon. AIPAC and its allies [including Christian Zionists] have
no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become
more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding by
expanding their activities and staffs. Moreover, American politicians
remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of
political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic
to Israel no matter what it does."
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
____________________________________________________________________________
This the pro-Israeli site that closely monitors news media for the
slightest hint of criticism of Israel - and then pounces on it, denouncing
it as "anti-Semitic".
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
The author of the American Thinker analysis is a reflexive supporter of
israel
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342
And the Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, has never seen or heard of
anything Israeli did that he did not like
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/26/america_takes_side_of_israel/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:43 am Post subject: 'Israel lobby' critique roils academe |
| David Duke mentioned the following article on his Web radio broadcast earlier today (March 29th, 2006) which can be accessed by scrolling down to the archive at http://www.davidduke.com
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/03/29/israel_lobby_critique_roils_academe/
'Israel lobby' critique roils academe
Some assail paper by a Harvard dean
By Charles A. Radin, Globe Staff | March 29, 2006
A paper co-written by the academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government is setting off a firestorm in academic and political circles because of its assertions that US foreign policy is dominated by an ''Israel lobby" that ignores US national interest and makes the United States a target of Muslim terrorists.
According to the paper by Kennedy School academic dean Stephen M. Walt and University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer, American Jewish groups, leading Christian evangelicals, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Brookings Institution, and other think tanks have all contributed to sacrificing of US security needs to the interests of Israel.
''Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards," the authors of the paper write. ''The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel. . . . US support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one."
The authors say that Israel long ago outlived its strategic usefulness to the United States and has become a strategic burden.
The paper first appeared two weeks ago in the Kennedy School website's ''working papers" section, where faculty members routinely post work in progress. It has received attention far beyond academia, drawing praise from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and Arab world media, and condemnation from many intellectuals and Israel advocacy groups.
But as challenges to the accuracy and evenhandedness of the authors have grown, the school removed the Harvard University-Kennedy School logo that originally appeared on the opening page, and inserted a strong disclaimer stating that the paper ''should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position" of Harvard or the University of Chicago.
The paper is a broad synthesis of criticisms and charges against Israel long heard on the fringes of American politics and renewed in the debate over the Iraq war, allegations that also form the core of Arab world critiques of the Jewish state. The authors assert that Israel has not acted as an ally of the United States, that it has received inexplicably large amounts of US support, and that even in Israel's earliest days there was no moral case for the United States to support it.
The Israel lobby's activities ''are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' " Mearsheimer and Walt say. ''For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just much better."
But then they assert that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ''is a de facto agent of a foreign government [and] has a stranglehold on the US Congress," that major newspapers, including The New York Times (which is owned by the same company as The Boston Globe), are biased toward Israel, and that ''pro-Israel forces dominate US think tanks, which play an important role in shaping public debate, as well as actual policy."
The significance of the paper, according to those who condemn it, as well as those who embrace it, lies in the Harvard and University of Chicago credentials of the authors and in the fact that it has been presented in a high-level academic forum, in a heavily footnoted style associated with accurate, objective scholarship.
Duke, a white supremacist whose website is dominated by articles and tape-recordings condemning Jews and Israel, devoted his entire half-hour Internet radio broadcast on March 18 to the paper, reading from it at length and suggesting that it confirms his long-stated views.
''Now it is finally revealed by some of the top academic sources in the country," Duke said. ''It is not just David Duke anymore. None other than researchers at Harvard and the University of Chicago" have said that ''the Israel lobby controls US foreign policy and is responsible for this war" in Iraq. ''What a fantastic step forward this is."
The paper is also getting heavy play on websites operated by the Arab satellite television network Al Jazeera, the Islamic extremist group Hamas, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
In a brief telephone interview yesterday, Walt said: ''My coauthor and I stand behind our paper, and we welcome serious scholarly discussion of its arguments and evidence. Period." He would not respond to questions about Duke's use of the paper or to critics' comments made to the Globe.
In response to a Globe inquiry about the controversial paper, Kennedy School spokeswoman Melodie Jackson said in a statement that ''the Kennedy School is firmly committed to academic freedom and supports the practice of scholars introducing ideas into the public arena where they can be discussed and debated."
Mearsheimer did not return a call to his office in Chicago.
Ronald A. Heifetz, the King Hussein Bin Talal lecturer in public leadership at the Kennedy School, said in a telephone interview yesterday that Mearsheimer and Walt had exceeded the bounds of academic freedom and that the dean of the Kennedy School should look into the matter.
''When a member of the Harvard faculty speaks, people are inclined to view us as credible sources of analysis and insight," Heifetz said. ''We have a special responsibility to clarify the difference between voicing an opinion and presenting a work of scholarship. . . . It behooves us to be careful about what we say . . . if we express a point of view that can be embraced by David Duke and the Muslim Brotherhood to justify racist, terrorist activities."
Marvin Kalb, a veteran journalist and longtime faculty member at the Kennedy School, said the article contained factual errors and was written on the assumption that the United States should side with Muslims rather than Jews in the Middle East because of the much greater number of Muslims.
''I was disappointed that a paper of this quality appeared under the Kennedy School label," Kalb said. ''I understand this is no longer the case. That was a good move."
Alex Safian, associate director of the pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, said that there were numerous factual errors, detailed on his organization's website, such as overstatement of the proportion of US foreign aid received by Israel. Safian also asserted that the authors' real issue is that US foreign policy is subject to public politics and the give and take of interest groups.
''Their problem is not that a cabal is running US foreign policy," he said. ''It is that they would like to be in the cabal."
Charles A. Radin can be reached at radin@globe.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) via the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal out of Cheney's office wants US to attack Iran for Israel as well (like we did in Iraq):
Whose War (Israel's war)?:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Pro-Israel lobby is finally under attack:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2006/03/21/pro-israel-lobby-in-us-under-attack-finally.php
Israeli Lobby - The Report:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/28/israeli-lobby-the-report.php
UN Security Council Demands Iran Suspend Uranium Enrichment...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/03/29/un-security-council-deman_n_18130.html
Cost of America's War in Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
Fool Me Twice:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3416 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:16 am Post subject: [b]Financial blackmail in play at Harvard |
| Forwarded:
Subject: Zionist Jew Robert Belfer [ENRON] seeks to suppress Harvard Study
Financial blackmail in play at Harvard
Yesterday’s issue of The New York Sun reported that an “observer” familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from “pro-Israel donors” concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt’s professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School’s Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997.
"We do NOT control the US and we will financially wreck anyone who says we DO!"
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378
News
KSG Seeks Distance from Paper
Controversial paper on “Israel Lobby” will not display KSG logo or series
Published On 3/24/2006 3:48:11 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer
The Kennedy School of Government (KSG) removed its logo from a controversial paper published last week by Academic Dean Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago’s John J. Mearsheimer. A disclaimer stating that the views expressed belong only to the authors was also made more prominent on the working paper’s cover.
In their paper, Walt and Mearsheimer argued that the “Israel Lobby,” composed of active supporters of Israel, has seized control of U.S. foreign policy and made it reflect Israel’s interests more than those of the U.S. Since its publication in the London Review of Books last Thursday, the authors have drawn heated criticism from many academics, including Harvard’s Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz and longtime Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who is also the editor-in-chief of The New Republic.
According to a statement released yesterday by KSG Dean David T. Ellwood ’75, the paper’s logo was removed after some news agencies “were mistakenly reporting the paper as a ‘Harvard study’ written by ‘two Harvard researchers.’”
Usually, papers like Walt and Mearsheimer’s, which is part of the faculty working paper series and available on the KSG’s website, display the school’s logo, the series name, and a standard disclaimer stating that the views expressed may not reflect those of the KSG or Harvard.
The removal of the logo and series name was supported by Walt, the KSG said in the statement.
The authors also strengthened the wording of the disclaimer that appeared on the cover of their study, writing that “as academic institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago do not take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty, and this article should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of either institution.”
According to their assistants, both authors were travelling yesterday and unavailable for comment.
Yesterday’s issue of The New York Sun reported that an “observer” familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from “pro-Israel donors” concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt’s professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School’s Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997.
“Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,” the source told The Sun.
Belfer did not respond to a request to comment yesterday.
—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:18 am Post subject: Israel Rules America! |
| Israel Rules America!
By Ted Lang
Exclusive to Rense.com
3-31-6
Having voiced many times in the past much mental agony and hand wringing in this space as concerns the unbelievable outrages and injustices consistently and increasingly practiced by American government against the people of this once-great nation, the events of just the past week have clearly presented the one and only reason this is happening in America. Our nation's government is no longer our own. Our government is not responsive to the collective will of the American people. Let's look at two readily recognizable opinion segments of present day American society: the people and the military.
Over 75 percent of the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan want out right now! The majority of American citizens want the troops out of Iraq also. What are "our representatives" in Congress doing? They are ignoring US! That's because Israel, the Israeli Lobby, AIPAC, and the Jewish owned and operated media shilling for Israel, are all wielding a power over this once-great nation grossly disproportionate to their numbers. What the fools in Congress, as well as the American fools classified as dispensationalist Christian fundamentalists, fail to come to grips with, is that the interests and the well-being of America and its people are no longer in the equation that balanced out the United States as the greatest nation on Earth.
What made our nation great was the structure of American government designed to support individual freedom, thereby capitalizing upon each and every individual citizen's creativity, intelligence, and rugged "can do" perseverance. We all know the effectiveness of defeating a captive or prisoner held for interrogation by playing the good cop/bad cop role employed to obtain a confession. This is accomplished by breaking down an individual's emotional and natural instincts for self preservation. Nationally, we have had our instincts for political self-preservation destroyed by a meaningless "two party system," a feigned opposition that has given unlimited license to the destroyers of American freedom. But the single controlling factor in American governmental politics is the rule of Israel in both our domestic and foreign policy.
First, it must be fully understood, that insofar as the Jewish nation-state of Israel is concerned, it is their number one intention not only to rule totally the people of the United States, but all the people of the world. This at first seems to be a statement of astronomical absurdity, but it is nothing of the kind; it follows logically and easily. And it may not necessarily be the intention of each and every Israeli citizen either, but merely that of their current political rulers. Nevertheless, Israel's political power governs both our domestic and foreign policy, and in the latter regard, we are their surrogate as the most powerful nation on Earth.
The prestigious John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University published the Mearsheimer-Walt Report, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," as part of their Faculty Research Working Papers Series. I think that it can readily be concluded that Harvard, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, is a responsible institution capable of producing unbiased essays, papers and other publications generally free of favoritism and/or those of a discriminatory or defamatory nature.
Yet, no sooner did the report air on March 26th
, than organized Jewish pressure was directed full blast at Harvard, the authors, and the report itself. Protesting Jews offered that the report was "anti-Semitic." This smear tactic is always employed by Jews out to ensure Israeli supremacy over anything or any event that even remotely smacks of the truth, and anything that remotely resembles a patriotic commitment on the part of an individual or individuals to our own nation that is beneficial to our own national interests.
How can the small Jewish nation of Israel, a nation of only slightly more than six million in population, a number only three fourths the population of New York City or the tiny state of New Jersey, be considered as having world domination on their agenda? Supported by six to ten million Jews in the United States, the exact number not being available thanks the manipulation of the US Government census by the Jewish lobby, AIPAC, the total therefore uncertain, Israeli citizens are now in charge of and in control of the Pentagon. The Jewish lobby controls our politicians, and the Jewish media protects Bush and spreads Israeli propaganda. But even if we were to stretch the Jewish population to its maximum estimates, their numbers still do not justify their magnified power. Fortune magazine placed AIPAC as the second most powerful lobby in Washington and right behind AARP.
The Mearsheimer-Walt Report attributes Israel's domination over the US in terms of only
Mearsheimer and Walt clearly convey, however, the tremendous influence the MSM has on public opinion in America, and given their stipulation of a pro-Israel leaning, as well as the Rense.com evidence of Jewish ownership and control, the existence of an extremely powerful and influential Zionist MSM propaganda machine is no longer merely prescient speculation.
As the unbelievable power of the Jewish lobby combines with the unbelievable power of the Jewish owned and operated Zionist media, Mearsheimer and Walt have confessed that Jewish control of the publishing industry would have precluded their report from ever seeing the light of day. This view echoes that of renowned American author Truman Capote, who referred to the dominance of Jews in publishing as the "Jewish mafia."
But concentrating on Mearsheimer and Walt's effort with regard only to the Israeli lobby, they conclude in their report: "Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing U.S. government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat's death and the election of the more moderate Abu Mazen would cause Washington to press vigorously and evenhandedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for U.S. leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East."
That the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is pro-Israel, and therefore Zionist, can of course not be denied. It, along with Israel, represents the greatest threat that the United States of America has ever been faced with. Israel is, therefore, our greatest enemy. Yet, the Zionist MSM insists otherwise offering that Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East.
But check out the prices at the gas pump, and then reflect upon how and why we're in Iraq. Remember the price of gasoline before Israel and its "dual" citizens in the Pentagon maneuvered US into Iraq. Remember how AIPAC and Israel clamored for American involvement to destroy Iraq and remove Saddam, Israel's former greatest threat. And just look how AIPAC and Israel are pushing for US to invade and destroy Iran now. Do either AIPAC or Israel care that this might ignite World War III? How can they be our "allies?" What is America's interest in initiating such an unwarranted act of mass murder and mayhem?
As Mearsheimer and Walt ask the question whether or not AIPAC's power can be curtailed, this will never happen unless corrupt American government's power can be curtailed. American government, at all its levels, runs on cash, and American government and its corrupt elected politicians don't really give a damn where the cash it runs on comes from. And increasingly, it is beginning to appear that the American people don't give a damn either!
Israel receives more US foreign aid and taxpayer cash than any other nation. Contributions to AIPAC are tax-deductible. Wealthy Jewish professionals contribute millions to both AIPAC and Israel, providing a virtual unlimited cash pool for "contributions" to fund American politician's campaigns as well as to provide the latter with downright payoffs and bribes. And politicians who even remotely suggest an even-handed approach between Israel and the Palestinians, such as Howard Dean, a former frontrunner in the Democratic Party for President of the United States, can be trashed overnight by the Jewish MSM. Political elections here in the United States constitute domestic affairs, yet through both the Jewish Lobby and MSM, American politicians can be made or crushed.
Political correctness, a "philosophy" attributed to "liberalism," should really be attributed to that sector of "American" society that concocts it, communicates it, and actually enforces it. That entity is the Jewish MSM. As Mearsheimer and Walt have pointed out, the MSM controls American public opinion, and Jews control the MSM. It is for this reason that the "liberal" MSM doesn't turn on the criminal regime of Bush As long as G. Bush continues both a domestic and foreign policy favorable to Israel, the Jewish MSM will never expose any of the zillions of crimes engineered and perpetrated by the Bush gang.
This explains the futility members of the American military feel as 75 percent want out of Iraq. Those wanting US there, and then eventually in Iran, have absolutely nothing whatsoever at stake, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to lose. We and we alone, America, we are the only ones who stand to lose big-time. And Bush is the last "American" to care about this.
If we are to get out from under a situation whereby our entire nation, its economy, its natural resources, its wealth, all its people, and our military are available to a tiny nation whose population is only three quarters of our largest city, why wouldn't such a nation, Israel, risk OUR all? What do they have to lose? Can G. Bush, president, ever see this? Can the criminals and traitors in "our" Congress see this? Sure they can, but they don't care. Remember the AIPAC battle cry each of our elected politicians is required to frequently utter in public: "Israel has a right to exist!"
Not only does Israel and AIPAC control both domestic and foreign policy through their purchase and disposal of "American" elected politicians, but organized Jewry attacks, terrorizes, smears and intimidates ALL aspects of American society. As some columnists and commentators have already reported on Rense, I too have been threatened by Zionist phone callers, e-mailers and letter writers. This too is a tactic of criminal Zionism: direct threats against anyone who speaks out concerning the horrific condition that places Israeli interests over those of our own.
Several weeks ago, an American theatrical group tried to stage a play in New York City presenting the sacrifice and tragic murder of Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist who tried to protect a Palestinian home from being arbitrarily and unjustly leveled by an Israeli military bulldozer. The bulldozer operator deliberately ran over her, dropped the blade, and backed over her broken body to ensure her death. The theatrical group was bombarded with whining, complaining organized Jews who intimidated the producers and probably threatened to attack them with hoards of Jewish lawyers.
Alan Dershowitz, the Jewish lawyer and Harvard Law professor, and founder of American torture, was first to introduce his warped approach for justice in America thus: "No democracy, other than Israel, has ever employed torture within the law. Until quite recently, Israel recognized the power of its security agencies to employ what it euphemistically called 'moderate physical pressure' to elicit information from terrorists about continuing threats." But now this very Jewish and very pro-Israel Zionist is attacking his own school for authorizing the Mearsheimer-Walt report critical of Jewish influence on our foreign and domestic legal procedures. Wasn't it Israel and Dershowitz's love of torture that has changed both our domestic and foreign policy? Isn't that the influence of Israel and international Jews?
Yet Dershowitz, who was first to point out Israel's penchant for inhumane treatment of prisoners, now calls the open, honest report authored by Mearsheimer and fellow Harvard professor Walt, "trash." He cites "mistakes." He calls the report "absurd." The only absurdity in the report is the way we allow Jews like Dershowitz to smear those who tell the truth about the way minority Jews like him feel their interpretation of the facts is gospel, and any other interpretation "trash" and "anti-Semitic."
A theatrical production reflecting the selfless sacrifice of Rachel Corrie is deprived to the American people by angry Jews. An angry Jewish lawyer who introduced torture to America now is angered by the truth of Jewish influence favoring Israel. And now, Jewish whining, complaints and smear tactics cause Harvard to affix a very noticeable disclaimer onto the report, and even pull its logo from the cover sheet of that truthful and accurate report. Ed Asner, supporting fellow actor Charlie Sheen's contention of a Bush administration and Kean Commission cover-up regarding 9-11, was barred from appearing on CNN's Showbiz Tonight, probably once again attributable to whining, complaining and "anti-Semitic" screaming Jews. I'd just like to know the names of the stupid, ignorant CNN management morons who caved on this, thereby trashing CNN's outstanding opportunity to regain its number one position as a cable news entity. This probably explains Ted Turner's recent lament concerning CNN.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8787
Before I was even able to conclude this piece, yet another disgraceful episode of Jewish Zionist whining and smearing is taking place. Harvard not only placed a disclaimer and lifted its logo from the Mearsheimer and Walt Harvard University JFK School of Government Report, but according to Justin Raimondo in his Antiwar.com article of this very date, March 31st, Harvard has demoted their JFK dean and disgraced him after being attacked by hoards of whining Jews.
Raimondo comments on an article in the New York Sun: "Yesterday's issue of The New York Sun reported that an 'observer' familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from 'pro-Israel donors' concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt's professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School's Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997. 'Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,' the source told The Sun."
Raimondo continues: "Now, somebody please tell me that Mearsheimer and Walt have overplayed the power and influence of the Lobby in American political life. The hate campaign directed at Mearsheimer and Walt underscores and validates the study's contention that all attempts to objectively discuss our Israel-centric foreign policy and the pivotal role played by the Lobby are met with outright intimidation. We have O.J. Simpson defender and pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz claiming that the scholarly duo filched the majority of their sources from 'hate sites' although how Dershowitz knows this, without having looked directly over their shoulders as they wrote, is very far from clear. But don't worry, he assures us, a 'team' of researchers on his staff is looking into the matter. One wonders if this is the same 'team' that looked into the evidence and concluded that Simpson was innocent."
As can now readily be seen in this effort, sensitivity to accusations involving "Jews" as opposed to "Zionists," the latter term having always been used by this writer to include dispensationalist Christian fundamentalists, has degenerated to only the former classification. For me to devolve back to my original usage of the terms, I need to see, and very quickly I might add, an apologetic and honest assessment of this egregious Jewish "hate crime" against Americans perpetrated by the Jewish population against the oldest institution of higher learning in America, as well as this blatant assault upon the time-honored principle of free speech articulated in our First Amendment. This not forthcoming, and in a prominent and aggressive manner, then the efforts of this writer to separate the good, the bad and the ugly in separating pro-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-American Jews, from patriotic and Christian-tolerant Jews, will be forever suspended. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: MIDEAST POLICY: Criticism of U.S ties to Israel draws fire |
| MIDEAST POLICY: Criticism of U.S ties to Israel draws fire
Washington Post
Sunday, April 2, 2006
International relations scholars John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University ignited a furious debate recently with their essay "The Israel Lobby," appearing in the London Review of Books. Their argument --- that the influence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States threatens U.S. national security --- has reverberated through academic and policy circles, the media and the blogosphere. A sampling of their article and the ongoing controversy:
The essay
"Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War II, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. . . .
"Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the United States, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 percent of its allocation to subsidize its own defense industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the U.S. opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank.
"Moreover, the U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the U.S. gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. . . .
"Since 1982, the U.S. has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. . . .
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: The U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. . . .
"The Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the U.S. to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don't need another Iraq."
The blowback
Harvard Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz: "These are two serious scholars and you need to expose what they have done as ignorant propaganda." (Jerusalem Post)
University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole: "Political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt bravely take on the issue of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the way it distorts U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Most American Jews deeply disagree with the policies advocated by the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, etc., but a sliver of the political spectrum, falsely insisting that it represents all American Jews, manages to skew U.S. politics and reporting on the issue of Palestine." (juancole.com)
Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East envoy: "It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship." (New York Sun)
Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, whose Web site says that he "has dedicated his life to the freedom and heritage of European American peoples": "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." (New York Sun)
Daniel Drezner, assistant professor of political science, University of Chicago (Mearsheimer's department): "Walt and Mearsheimer should not be criticized as anti-Semites, because that's patently false. They should be criticized for doing [expletive]-poor, monocausal social science." (danieldrezner.com)
Editorial on Forward.com headlined "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews": "What is new and startling is the document's provenance. Its authors are not fringe gadflies but two of America's most respected foreign-affairs theorists. One, Mearsheimer, is a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. The other, Walt, is academic dean of the nation's most prestigious center of political studies, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Though it's tempting, they can't be dismissed as cranks outside the mainstream. They are the mainstream. Even more startling, given who they are, is the flimsiness of their work. Countless facts are simply wrong. Long stretches of argument are implausible, at times almost comically so. . . . An undergraduate submitting work like this would be laughed out of class. A dean apparently gets to see it posted on Harvard's Web site."
Ruth R. Wisse, professor of comparative literature and of Yiddish literature at Harvard: "It would be a mistake to treat this article on the 'Israel Lobby' as an attack on Israel alone, or on its Jewish defenders, or on the organizations and individuals it singles out for condemnation. Its true target is the American public, which now supports Israel with higher levels of confidence than ever before." (Wall Street Journal)
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America: "Even a cursory examination of 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' reveals that it is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgment regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject."
The fallout
Mearsheimer and Walt's study appeared in March as an 83-page "Faculty Research Working Paper" on the Web site of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where Walt serves as academic dean.
Following the uproar, the Kennedy School discreetly removed its logo from the paper.
The Harvard Crimson reported that "according to a statement released yesterday by Kennedy School Dean David T. Ellwood, the university's logo was removed after some news agencies 'were mistakenly reporting the paper as a "Harvard study" written by "two Harvard researchers." ' " And the Boston Globe quoted Ellwood as saying that the Kennedy School would now open faculty members' working papers to rebuttal and discussion by other Harvard faculty. This came in response to a request from Dershowitz that his rebuttal of the paper be placed alongside it.
The original document also features a more detailed and prominent disclaimer: "The two authors of this Working Paper are solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As academic institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago do not take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty, and this article should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of either institution."
LECTURE
David Newman, the British-born and -educated professor of political geography at Ben Gurion University in Israel, will speak at Georgia State University this week on "Prospects for the Israel-Palestinian Peace Process after the Israeli Elections." Newman is also chief editor of the quarterly journal Geopolitics. He will speak at 11 a.m. Thursday, 500 General Classroom Building, Georgia State. Information: 404-651-4239.
CHRIS van ES / NewsArt
Illustration of the U.S. flag with a Star of David in the union.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/sunday/content/epaper/editions/sunday/issue_44f2475c61f20199005a.html
Keeping It Quiet: The Israel Lobby's Crushing of Dissent:
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8791
U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
| http://www.ussliberty.com/findleybook.htm
BEYOND ASSAULT
Thirty-five years after the assault, Ennes has written a new edition of his book and finds glimmers of hope:
Every attempt to hide this story seems to bring more
attention. This past year brought a sixty-minute docu-
mentary, produced by CBS News Productions, that was
broadcast by The History Channel--much to the dismay
and over the heated objections of the Israeli Embassy
and various spokesmen for Israel, who did all in their
power to block it. CAMERA, a leading pro-Israel propa-
ganda arm, produced an extended and angry critique of
the film, accusing survivors and CBS of producing a
"propaganda-laden bogus history" that is deliberately
distorted and anti-Semitic. The History Channel's
report was aired as scheduled and rebroadcast later.
Although CAMERA urged The History Channel not to sell
a video version, it was made available anyway. In
June 2002 London's BBC released anew documentary
called DEAD IN THE WATER. It reveals secret collabor-
ation between Washington and Tel Aviv during the Six-
Day War. A new book, called Operation Cyanide, argues
that carefully laid plans were made to sink the
Liberty, and that the United States was as much to
blame as Israel for what happened.(50)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli
Spy Scandal
(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). | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
