| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: HR 4681 For Terrorism - Against The Palestinian People |
| HR 4681 For Terrorism -
Against The Palestinian People
By Terrell E. Arnold
3-28-6
The House of Representatives is about to begin markup on House Resolution 4681, the so-called Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. This bill would prohibit the United States from providing direct assistance to the Palestine Authority unless the President certifies that the Authority has met the subjective and ambiguous conditions outlined below. Markup is the usual step that precedes sending a bill to the floor for a vote. One can ask why this bill is bound for the House floor, when it has no known organized support from the American public, addresses no issue of impact on the welfare of Americans, and flies in the face of the considered views of many American allies.
This bill is moving because it has almost 200 sponsoring members of Congress who have been cozened, promised campaign contributions or intimidated into supporting it by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee and other Israel support groups. AIPAC's immediate weapon is all members of the House are up for reelection in November. For any Member of Congress, the assurance of votes or of campaign funds will be critical in the next few months. An about equal incentive, however, is the fact that AIPAC has funded the defeat of several members of Congress who in the past refused to cooperate by supporting Israeli interests.
HR 4681 is one of the most mischievous pieces of legislation to appear in the Congress in years.
That becomes obvious as its eight stated objectives are examined.
This bill starts by declaring that "It shall be the policy of the United States to support emergence of a democratic Palestinian governing authority that"
1. *denounces and combats terrorism.* The target of this legislation, Hamas, declared and has maintained a truce for more than a year, campaigned successfully in a free and fair election and won a majority in the Palestinian parliament? Isn't that at least a significant step in the desired direction?
2. *has agreed to and is taking action to disarm and dismantle any terrorist agency, network, or facility*. Hamas is supposed to have the authority and will to do those things while under a publicly announced Israeli threat to assassinate its leaders, including the newly designated Prime Minister of Palestine.
3. *has agreed to work to eliminate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement and the commemoration of terrorists in Palestinian society*. And this must be done while Israel continues to confiscate lands, hog water, create roads that are for Israelis only and divide Palestine into fragments where Palestinians are forced by Israeli occupation to live in sub-human conditions. It would be a supreme act of will not to be anti-Israel in these circumstances. Since the Palestinians are Semites, while the Ashkenazi Zionists who persecute them are not Semites, anti-Semitism is actually being practiced on the Palestinians.
4. *has agreed to respect the boundaries and sovereignty of its neighbors.* The only boundary between Israel and Palestine that has international standing, the 1967 Green Line, is constantly violated by Israelis who continue to take additional lands for settlements, while harassing Palestinians to leave the areas of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. The likely winners of Israel's March 28 elections have touted their intent to act unilaterally and take all of Palestine.
5. *acknowledges, respects, the human rights of all peoples. *The human rights shoe is on the other foot.* *The Palestinians are expected to accept willingly the status of second class citizenship in Israel for those who live there, and to live under the sub-human conditions imposed by Israeli occupation. By any objective standard, Israel is guilty of continuing war crimes against the Palestinian people.
6. *conducts, free, fair, and transparent elections in compliance with international standards. *In January the Palestinians actually did that, but HR 4681 is designed to undercut a democratically elected Palestinian Authority. The bill declares that because the Palestinians elected leadership that the neighbors or the American Congress do not like, the Palestinian people shall be punished.
7. *ensures institutional and financial transparency and accountability. *The leadership that has a proven track record for doing this happens to be Hamas, but HR 4681 gives no credit.
8. *has agreed to recognize the State of Israel as an independent, sovereign, Jewish, democratic state. *The Palestinians can do nothing to assure Israeli independence, sovereignty, Jewishness, or democracy*; *they can only agree to Israel's right to exist, but in a world of even minimal fairness, Israel would have to give the Palestinians equal recognition.
In short, the entire purpose of HR 4681 is to impose by American legislative fiat a Middle East peace settlement that serves Israeli interests while giving the Palestinians nothing. If the Palestinians comply with this act, they get only a small order of freedom from American harassment. They will remain under the sub human conditions of continuing Israeli occupation and face continuing theft of their lands, no matter what they do.
The most striking feature of this bill is not the electoral support members of Congress undoubtedly have been promised to pass it. The truly nasty feature of the bill is the use of the US Congress by Israeli lobbies to keep Israeli leadership from having to negotiate fairly with the Palestinian people. It is clear to serious Palestine watchers that, if given the chance, Hamas has some ability to push the Israeli-Palestine relationship toward genuine negotiations for the first time ever. Meanwhile, the Israeli elections, whoever wins, are unlikely to yield new Israeli leadership that is willing to negotiate. The more likely outcome is an Israeli leadership that is dedicated to unilateral actions meant to assure eventual Israeli possession of all of Palestine.
Those prospects contain no recipe for Palestinian reform or prosperity. If this bill is passed, and the Palestinian people are subjected to hardships that cause them to reject Hamas--the clear purpose of this act--then the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will continue and eventually grow worse. Frustration will drive more Palestinians into terrorism. Sympathy for them will drive others into support for terrorism or active involvement in terrorist attacks. The international terrorism generator that Palestine has been for decades will be reignited full blast. Under cover of that conflict, Israel will continue to confiscate Palestinian lands until it reaches the Jordan and the Palestinian people are all expelled.
Shame on the US Congress for being a willing party to such a plan.
**********
The writer is the author of the recently published work, _A World Less Safe_, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State whose immediate pre-retirement positions were as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counterterrorism, and as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College. He will welcome comment at wecanstopit@charter.net | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
| 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 8:17 am Post subject: |
| 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 | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: Judge hints 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 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:13 am Post subject: |
| 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 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject: |
| 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.....
http://www.corvuswire.com/speak_out_against_israel.htm | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
