| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: Fwd: CAIR-NET: 'Israel Lobby' Authors to Speak at DC Press C |
| More Evidence that Mearsheimer and Walt are Right (scroll down to Comments section as well):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman/more-evidence-that-mearsh_b_36373.html
In Pro-Israel Circles, Doubts Grow Over US Policy
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9630
Two scholars say pro-Israel lobby has warped U.S. policy:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14745.htm
Justin Raimondo on Mearsheimer/Walt presentation at CAIR yesterday
Two Elephants in the Room
Israel and its amen corner
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9625
Corvuswire wrote:
Check it out.............r o n
(Video of Speech)
http://www.corvuswire.com/walt-mearsheimer.htm
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Israel's Olmert Counting on Jewish Lobby to foil Baker-Hamilton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/20/olmert-counting-on-jewish-lobby-to-foil-baker-hamilton.php
C-SPAN TO AIR CAIR 'ISRAEL LOBBY' PANEL LIVE
Forum: U.S. Attitudes Toward Lebanon and Israel
Council on American-Islamic Relations - 08/28/2006 - 1:30 p.m. (Eastern)
* Awad, Nihad Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations
* Mearsheimer, John J. Professor, University of Chicago, Political Science
* Walt, Stephen M. Professor, Harvard University, International Affairs
* Saylor, Corey Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Government Affairs
A panel discusses the influence lobbyists for Israel have in the United States and how this may have affected attitudes toward the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The panel features Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who wrote an article in the March London Review of Books that raised questions about the power the Israel lobby wields over U.S. foreign policy, saying that the lobbyists try to prevent criticism by claiming anti-Semitism. Their article was also the cover story in the July-August issue of Foreign Policy Magazine.
The forum may be VIEWED LIVE on C-SPAN's main channel or ONLINE:
http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: CAIR-NET: 'Israel Lobby' Authors to Speak at DC Press Club Forum FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
- MEDIA ADVISORY -
'ISRAEL LOBBY' AUTHORS TO SPEAK AT DC PRESS CLUB FORUM
Mearsheimer, Walt to discuss lobby's impact on U.S. response to Lebanon war
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/18/06) - On Monday, August 28, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will host a panel discussion on "The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Response to the War in Lebanon" at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The panel will feature Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of a recent Harvard University paper titled "The Israel Lobby."
In that paper, the authors stated: "Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel - are essentially identical.
WHAT: The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Response to the War in Lebanon
WHEN: Monday, August 28, 2006, 1-2:30 p.m.
WHERE: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
RSVP: Admission is free, but seating is limited. E-mail irahman@cair.com to reserve a seat. Admittance by confirmed reservation only.
"For America to be regarded as an honest broker in the Middle East, we must disengage our policies in that region from the dictates of the pro-Israel lobby," said CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed.
He noted that public attitudes about the influence of the Israel lobby are changing. He cited a commentary in today's New Jersey Star-Ledger in which that newspaper's national political correspondent stated: "Bush must abandon his policy of unconditional support for Israel in favor of an even-handed one that might gain him credibility in the region as a more or less honest broker. And the best way to move Bush in that direction is by abandoning the unofficial taboo in this country on questioning Israel or our policy toward that country."
SEE: End the Taboo on Challenging Israel (Star-Ledger)
Ahmed said recent studies also show that a majority of Americans favor neutrality in the Middle East conflict.
SEE: Zogby Poll: U.S. Should Be Neutral in Lebanon War
SEE ALSO: Poll: Americans Support Mideast Cease-Fire
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
- END -
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org
-----
CAIR
Council on American-Islamic Relations
453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726
Fax: 202-488-0833
E-mail: info@cair.com
URL: http://www.cair.com
-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionist Groups Seek to Stifle Jewish Historian
Over Anti-Israel Stance
Historian in free speech row over Jewish article
Sarah Baxter
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2460107,00.html
::nobreak::A LEADING British historian has sparked a row about free speech in America after an article criticising Israel prompted a backlash from Jewish groups and the cancellation of meetings where he was due to speak.
Tony Judt, a liberal Jew and former kibbutznik, was accused of calling for the destruction of Israel after he wrote an article in The New York Review of Books in 2003, and in The Sunday Times, arguing for the creation of a secular bi-national state of Jews and Palestinians.
More than 100 leading academics signed a letter in last week’s New York Review of Books protesting at the suppression of Judt’s talks.
The former Oxford history don, who has been professor of European studies at New York University for 20 years, again became a magnet for criticism this year when he defended an essay written by Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago which criticised the “Israel lobby” in America.
Judt was due to give a talk on the subject of the lobby at the Polish consulate in New York last month, but it was cancelled at an hour’s notice after two Jewish organisations, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, signalled their displeasure.
“The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure,” said Krzysztof Kasprzyk, the Polish consul-general.
Judt said: “It is a very sensitive issue for Poles. They are uniquely vulnerable because the country has a long history of moral ambivalence towards Jews.”
The historian also withdrew from a lecture on the Holocaust at a Catholic college in New York after learning that it was to be picketed by Holocaust survivors dressed in pyjamas.
The academics’ letter supporting Judt — whose latest book, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, was well received and was Cherie Blair’s holiday reading this summer — said: “The Polish consulate is not obliged to promote free speech. But the rules of the game in America oblige citizens to encourage rather than stifle public debate.”
Judt intends to hit back with a lecture on December 4 in New York on self-censorship and free speech in open societies. “I’ve been accused of being a self- hating Jew, a conspiracy theorist and an anti-semite,” he said. “It’s absurd but it is an echo of what is said to non-Jews when they criticise Israel.”
He contrasted the lively debate about his views in Israel to the reaction in America, where he has been accused of advocating a “genocidal liberalism” that would lead to the slaughter of Jews.
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, admitted that a member of his staff had rung the Polish consulate, but denied that he had sought to cancel Judt’s talk. “We are perturbed by his views but not enough to prevent him from speaking,” Foxman said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge says "ample cause to believe" AIPAC pair were foreign agents
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/11/irmep-aipac-espionage-case-dismissal-gambit-fails.php
--------------------------------------
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN US UNDER ATTACK:
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.
We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. .... Must Read !!!
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
Iran: The Next War (for Israel):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php
Additional at following URL:
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
US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/07/bamford-discusses-a-clean-break-on-msnbc-s-countdown.php
The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu who is apparently going to replace Olmert:
Honor First?; the liberation of Lebanon :
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14620.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
by James Petras
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2006
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/17/israel-s-attack-on-lebanon-resulted-in-9-11.php
AIPAC, JINSA and similar have prevented Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty from ever being investigated fully (with the survivors testifying before Congress) because traitorous AIPAC hacks like John McCain have helped to keep the USS Liberty cover-up perpetuated in service of a foreign government:
http://www.ussliberty.org
http://rense.com/Datapages/usslib.htm
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:04 am; edited 19 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: Additional clues point to U.S. attack on Iran |
| Additional clues point to U.S. attack on Iran:
Saw the following at http://www.waynemadsenreport.com
Aug. 19/20, 2006 -- Additional clues point to U.S. attack on Iran. State Department sources report that State's Iran Desk Officer Henry Wooster has suddenly been transferred to another position. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney's office is assembling a group of neo-cons from the Pentagon, State Department, and the National Security Council to cook up intelligence and talking points that will show Iran to be an imminent nuclear threat.
Read the 'Rolling Stone' (Iran: The Next War) article by James Bamford again (via the following URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/07/bamford-discusses-a-clean-break-on-msnbc-s-countdown.php
Watch/listen (to) the PNAC chairman Bill Kristol (who is shown at the top of http://www.nowarforisrael.com as well) mention that ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’ (in accordance with his war for Israel agenda, of course!):
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/22/kristol-iran-war/
http://neocon-watch.blogspot.com/2006/08/israels-attack-on-lebanon-was-dry-run.html
The Neocons Ride Again
Priming us for war with Iran
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9603
What Does Israel Want?
It isn't just Lebanon… :
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9570
Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran
By Ray Close
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14694.htm
"Folks, We Are Being Set Up Again!"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14698.htm
Iran's Nuclear "Threat"
By JUAN COLE
We are beset by instant experts on contemporary Iran, like the medievalist Bernard Lewis, who wrongly predicted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would attack Israel on August 22, based on Lewis's weird interpretation of his alleged millenarian beliefs.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082506R.shtml
Just When You Thought You'd Seen Everything: Hoekstra's Hoax
By Ray McGovern
Cooking Intelligence - Again:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51695
War with Iran? Military Movements throughout Eurasia
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
August 25, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060825&articleId=3068
'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author (Dr. Stephen Sniegoski) on Karen Kwiatkowski's
radio program for the Republic Broadcasting Network (via http://www.rbnlive.com):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php
Israel's Double Standard:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/22/israel-s-double-standard.php
Saw the following at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
“Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:13 pm; edited 18 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: Kevin Zeese: Attack on Iran May Lead to WWIII! |
| http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13411/index.php?gt;
Kevin Zeese: Attack on Iran May Lead to WWIII!
By William Hughes
“Our ‘Neocons’ are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and,
evil as Hell.” - Edward Abbey
Kevin Zeese got right to it in his opening remarks at a Forum, entitled,
“Independent Solutions for the Middle East Crisis.” It was held in the
town’s City Hall on Thursday evening, Aug. 17, 2006, in the Council
Chambers. Zeese said: “The dividing line between peace candidates and
pro war candidates is no longer opposition to the Iraq War. It is
whether they oppose the premeditated destruction of Lebanon and a
military attack on Iran.”
Zeese, the “Unity candidate” for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, was one of
six speakers at the event. He has received the endorsements of
Maryland’s growing Green, Populist and Libertarian Parties. Another
speaker was Noura Erakat. She is the National Grassroots Organizer &
Legal Advocate, “U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.” Erakat
recently spoke at protest actions, in Washington, D.C., opposing Israeli
evildoing in Occupied Gaza and Lebanon, on July 25, 2006, at the Israeli
Embassy; (1) and on July 31, 2006, at the State Department. (2) The
other four presenters were Dr. Bash Pharoan, President of the Baltimore
Chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC); Jerry
Raitzyk, Tikkun Maryland; Bob Kaufman, a Democratic candidate for the
U.S. Senate in Maryland; and Steve Warner, a Green Party candidate for
the U.S. Congress, in the 5th district of Maryland. The moderator was
Eric Bond, who is the Publisher/Editor of the Takoma/Silver Spring Voice
newspaper.
Zeese, relying in part on an article by investigative reporter, Sy Hersh
in the New Yorker, charged that the Bush-Cheney Gang was in cahoots with
the Israeli regime, led by the extreme Far Rightist, Ehud Olmert, with
respect to the Israeli Occupation Forces’ (IOF) decimation of Lebanon.
It was planned, he said, long before the July 12th capture of the two
Israeli soldiers, which was just “an excuse” for the invasion. (3) He
cited the “Clean Break Document,” co-authored by the Neocon, Richard
Perle, as further evidence of that design, along with reports that
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Christian Science
Monitor. (4) Zeese underscored that a military attack on Iran could lead
to “a regional war or even WWIII.” He said the U.S.’ desire to dominate
the Middle East is all about the vast “oil resources” in that area.
Zeese said America is moving in the “wrong direction.”
Erakat told the audience, in her wide ranging comments, that the war in
Lebanon has been “devastating on a humanitarian level...The cease-fire
is not the end. The worst is not over for Lebanese civilians and
survivors and for Palestinians, who are continuing to live under
occupation; and for Iraqis who continue to live under occupation and
resist. This is just the beginning, the beginning of a misery at our
door...Two million Lebanese are unemployed. How will they feed their
families? How will they rebuild their homes and their lives? The attack
on Lebanon has destroyed almost all forms of infrastructures” in that
country. Erakat also strongly denounced Zionist Israel as “an Apartheid
state.”
Takoma Park is a breath of fresh air in a country dominated by a
bellicose War Party. It’s a town of about 20,000, situated just north of
the District of Columbia line, in Montgomery County, Maryland. Decades
ago, it bravely declared itself a “nuclear free zone,” which sent some
of the state’s reactionary politicos into a high orbit. It’s laid back,
California-like, and enjoys putting on free concerts and other fun
events. I’ve been there a few times, over the years, to join in the
jambe drumming circles, held in the town’s center. Takoma Park is an
authentic slice of fast-fading Americana. It has the Spirit!
Closer to home, the Baltimore Sun published an unsigned editorial on
August 15, 2006, entitled, “An Imperfect Cease-Fire,” dealing with
Israel’s unjust invasion of Lebanon, which took the lives of over 1,100
Lebanese and left a million of its people, one third of the nation,
homeless; along with tens of billions in damages. It must have been
ghostwritten by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a flaming Likudnut. It stated,
contrary to all the well-know facts: “Israel was dragged into this war
by Hezbollah in early July.” Offering such an absurd opinion is like
arguing that Israel was “dragged into” attacking a clearly identified
USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967, and killing 34 of its crew, because it
couldn’t stand any state of the art intelligence vessel, flying the
American flag, and sailing in international waters, 14 miles off the
Sinai coast. The Israelis’ dubious excuse for that murderous assault was
that it thought the USS Liberty was an out-of-service Egyptian horse
carrier transport boat, El Quseir. (5) If anyone expects to read the
truth about a habitually-deceiving Israel, vis-à-vis the Middle East,
don’t look to the Baltimore Sun’s editorial page to find it. (6) By the
way, talking about proportionality, if Israel can destroy Lebanon
because two of its soldiers were captured, what should the U.S. have
done to the Zionist state for slaughtering 34 of her bravest sons and
injuring 174 more on the USS Liberty?
Getting back to the Forum. Candidate Kaufman gave an erudite history
lesson on the Middle East from a Marxist perspective, which ended up
with him, essentially, blaming the present mess on U.S. Imperialism and
Zionism. Raitzyk argued for a “new bottom line” where we all can begin
to see our common humanity and to seek a decent life for ourselves, our
children and grandchildren. Candidate Warner said he has been deeply
upset about the “foreign policy” of this country, particularly with
regards to the Iraqi conflict and our one-sided support of Israel. Dr.
Pharoan, who was born in Damascus, Syria, expressed his objections to
the discrimination that Arabs have faced and are still facing in this
country. He also pointed out that when the Israelis “pushed” the
Palestinians out from their homeland over the years, they were also
creating “instability in the surrounding countries.” Dr. Pharoan added
that Israel was in violation of at least 29 UN Resolutions, “including
UN Security Council Resolution 242.”
After the six speakers spoke, a question and answer session was opened
up for audience participation. The lively event was cosponsored by the
Maryland Independent Voters Forum and the Takoma/Sliver Spring Voice.
Zeese concluded his remarks by saying that it is time to bring the
troops home from Iraq and to do so “quickly.” He emphasized, “We can not
bring stability to that country. The U.S. has made so many mistakes in
Iraq. We can not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Our being there
is the cause of most of the problems. The more we stay, the more our
fears will come true; the more likely there will be a civil war...a
theocratic state and terrorism. If we don’t get out of Iraq in an
organized way, we will get out in a dangerous way. It will be like
Vietnam all over again.”
Notes:
1. http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13213/index.php
2. http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/186739/index.php
3. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
4. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9533;
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk08152006.html;
http://www.irmep.org/Policy_Briefs/3_27_2003_Clean_Break_or_Dirty_War.html;
and,
http://batr.net/neoconwatch/archives/2004_12_01_neoconswatch_archive.html
5. http://www.ussliberty.org/
6. http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/32357
| | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: US says Iran reply "falls short" of demands |
| Reuters
US says Iran reply "falls short" of demands
19 minutes ago
The United States said on Wednesday that Iran's response to a package of incentives offered by world powers "falls short" of what was demanded by a U.N. Security Council resolution.
In the first U.S. response to Iran's reply, State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the United States was consulting closely with other members of the Security Council over what next steps to take following Iran's response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Iran - Here
We Go Again
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
8-25-6
We are seeing the same pattern of phony diplomacy and prepping for war as we saw just prior to the Iraq invasion. This time the target is Iran. Like Iraq, the Bush administration denies it is planning an attack (though the military option remains on the table), and plays up to international diplomacy while setting conditions that guarantee failure.
It also continues to foment questionable intelligence vilifying Iran's involvement in terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon. To me there is absolutely no doubt the US intends to attack Iran next year or possibly sooner. Worse yet, it is utterly premeditated and unnecessary - unless you consider the globalist motive of engendering world-wide conflict.
Phony Diplomacy: IPS News issued this critical assessment of US claims to be exhausting every diplomatic effort: "Even before Iran gave its formal counter-offer to ambassadors of the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) Tuesday, the George W. Bush administration had already begun the process of organizing sanctions against Iran. Washington had already held a conference call on sanctions Sunday with French, German and British officials, the Washington Post reported.
"Thus ends what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran on the terms under which it would give up its nuclear program. But the history of that P5+1 proposal shows that the Bush administration was determined from the beginning that it would fail, so that [the proposal's failure] could bring to a halt a multilateral diplomacy on Iran's nuclear program that the hard-liners in the administration had always found a hindrance to their policy."
Here's how it is being done: the key US strategy is to give the appearance of seeking a diplomatic solution, but simultaneously sabotaging the process by demanding that Iran give up its enrichment process as a precondition of talks. Acting State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told a news conference, "We acknowledge that Iran considers its response [to the so-called 'incentives' proposal] as a serious offer, and we will review it. The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council, which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." In other words, it doesn't matter what compromises are being proposed by Iran; as long as Iran fails to fully suspend its enrichment activities, the US will not engage in further talks.
The US is simply burning up the clock - counting the days when it can move the Security Council to the issue of force. The Bush administration reiterated Monday that Iran must adhere to the August 31st deadline under U.N. Resolution 1696 to halt uranium enrichment or face U.N. sanctions.
The hypocrisy of this position is remarkable. Why even have talks if, as a precondition of talks, Iran has to yield its entire position? What is there left to negotiate? One commentator told NPR radio that the threat of sanctions and military assault on Iran by the West is such a drastic alternative to talks, that it is unconscionable for the US to put such high preconditions on talks. He suspects that in indicates the US actually wants to make sure talks don't happen. He suspects the US is only building up the pretense for going to war.
But US allies are increasingly reluctant to go to war again in the Middle East. As Helen Cooper writes for the NY Times, "It was always going to be tough for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to hold together her fragile coalition of world powers trying to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon has made that job harder. Now the question is whether Ms. Rice can keep the coalition together to take out their sticks against Iran.
"That will not be easy, in part because the entire United Nations Security Council is supposed to vote on the sanctions package. While only the permanent members can veto, the rising fear, particularly among European diplomats, is that smaller countries on the Council are so angry over how the United States, and now France, have handled the Lebanon crisis that they will give Russia and China political cover to balk against imposing tough sanctions.
"'The Lebanese situation has caused a lot of bad faith and I think that will play into this,' said one European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules. Getting the group to punish Tehran was always going to be difficult. Russia and China have deep economic interests in Iran and dislike the blunt instrument of sanctions. And the West must tread carefully because any sanctions levied in the place that could actually hurt Iran - its energy sector - would ratchet up already high global oil prices and end up harming the West.
"That was the tough road Ms. Rice faced even before the Lebanon crisis began. Now, 'Lebanon has proven that there's no military solution to the problem in the Middle East,' said Trita Parsi ... While there is no talk among the world powers right now about hitting Iran militarily, European diplomats in particular said they worried about a downward spiral if the sanctions did not work. 'They've been dragged into three wars over there by the U.S.,' Mr. Parsi said, referring to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. 'They don''t want a fourth.'"
Indeed, his point about both the failure of the US and Israel to subdue high intensity guerilla warfare has changed the face of the ballgame in the Middle East. Suddenly, the Arab world has the answer about how to defeat US and Israeli military hegemony: wear them down with continual insurgent warfare. You don't actually win a war by guerrilla tactics, but the goal is to create a loss of will in the occupiers to "stay the course."
With US budget deficits in runaway mode, owing largely to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US-led war would be instantly unpopular if those costs were past on each year to the American taxpayers. But they are not. Instead, the US finances the war with monetary creation and inflation - a hidden tax which Americans can't feel in the same way as direct taxes.
Creative Intelligence targeting Iran: Mark Mazzetti of the NY Times writes, "Some veterans of the intelligence battles that preceded the Iraq war see the debate [on Iran] as familiar and are critical of efforts to create hard links based on murky intelligence." Here we go again!
The Pentagon trotted out a relatively unknown General to make some pretty outlandish claims: Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero claimed that "[t]he Iranian government is training and equipping much of the Shiite insurgency in Iraq." According to the Washington Post, Barbero went so far as to claim, "I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these (Shiite) extremist groups and also providing advanced IED technology to them."
The word "irrefutable" is pretty strong in light of a recent Congressional complaint about US intelligence on the issue: Dafna Linzer, also of the Post writes, "A key House committee issued a stinging critique of U.S. intelligence on Iran yesterday, charging that the CIA and other agencies lack 'the ability to acquire essential information necessary to make judgments' on Tehran's nuclear program, its intentions or even its ties to terrorism."
And, this report comes from a Republican staffer not usually critical of the administration's claim. The twenty-nine page report chides the intelligence community for not providing enough direct evidence to support the assertion that Iran is directly responsible for a part of the Iraq insurgency.
World Affairs Brief August 25, 2006 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: U.S. May Curb Iran |
| http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran26aug26,0,2595288.story?coll=la-home-headlines
U.S. May Curb Iran
If the U.N. Security Council won't penalize Tehran for its nuclear program, the White House may forge an alliance to do so.
By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer
August 26, 2006
UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.
The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.
Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and perhaps permanently isolate it.
"I do not know cases in international practice or the whole of the previous experience when sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said.
"Apart from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N. Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem."
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of civilizations."
"But the worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid."
U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text. "Everybody's been on board," he said.
But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said.
Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.
The U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since 1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.
"We will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws."
He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said.
Bolton and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks.
But Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships with Iran.
"We're seeing more financial institutions around the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran — from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said in an e-mail.
Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack of options against a newly emboldened Iran.
"When you start doing things that would be better with the Security Council's endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' "
Perkovich said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.
"There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable."
Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N. charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with those concerns.
That resolution instituted a ban on supplying technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7 with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style invasion.
"There are some aspects of the North Korea resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just going to have be played out."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer David Holley in Moscow contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: Russia rejects sanctions against Iran |
| Russia rejects sanctions against Iran
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060825/2006-08-25T125958Z_01_L24364475_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-DC.html
Aug 25, 8:59 AM (ET)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures while standing under a huge picture of Iran's...
Full Image
By Ron Popeski
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Friday rejected any talk for now of sanctions against Iran and France warned against conflict with Tehran, raising doubt whether it will face swift penalties for not halting nuclear work by an August 31 deadline.
Responding to an offer of economic incentives to stop enriching uranium, Iran hinted to six world powers on Tuesday it could curb its program as a result of talks to implement the package -- but not as a precondition as they demand.
The reply seemed designed to crack the ramshackle united front of four Western powers and Russia and China behind the U.N. Security Council deadline. The West sees Iran's nuclear work as a looming threat to peace. Russia and China do not.
"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east.
"Moreover, I believe that the question is not so serious at the moment for the U.N. Security Council or the group of six to consider any introduction of sanctions. Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue."
Ivanov is regarded as close to President Vladimir Putin.
The Security Council passed a legally binding resolution on July 31 telling Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program within 30 days or risk sanctions.
Iran says it is enriching uranium solely to generate electricity. The West suspects the Iranian nuclear program is a front for building atom bombs.
U.S., French and German leaders said that Iran's 21-page response to the incentives offer was unsatisfactory because it did not specifically agree to stop purifying uranium.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Friday that Tehran's reply had touched on "many different elements, different from the ones that we had proposed."
"For that reason we will have to hold a dialogue session ... or a conversation with the ... Iranians to improve upon some of the expressions and meanings of the subject matter treated in its document," he told Spain's RNE state radio.
But while Washington, backed by closest ally Britain, has said the six powers will move quickly to adopt sanctions if Iran disregards the deadline, Germany and France have been less conclusive in public and Russia and China have been unwilling.
"For the moment, it (the Iranian response) is not satisfactory," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on RTL radio, but added it was important to avoid escalating conflict with Iran and the Muslim world.
"The worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation (between the West and) Iran on the one hand, and the Muslim world with Iran...," he said.
"I'm starting from the principle we should have a dialogue with the Iranians, that we must hold out our hands to them."
CONFLICTS SEEN STRENGTHENING IRAN
U.S. and British forces that overthrew Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 are now mired in an Islamist insurgency while Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrillas recently waged an inconclusive war. Both conflicts are widely seen to have strengthened Iran.
Bloodshed between Israel and Palestinians under an Islamist Hamas government also festers on without a solution in sight.
Some analysts believe that widespread anger in the Arab and Muslim worlds over Washington's perceived slowness to push Israel into a ceasefire with Hizbollah could erode support in the 15-member Security Council for a showdown with Iran.
"The strongest motivation to give talks a chance seems to be the international community's lack of appetite for a fourth conflict in the Middle East," said Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based Iranian author and commentator.
Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant, has traditionally argued that sanctions would not work.
Russia and China, also long averse to sanctions as a policy tool, have major energy and investment stakes with Iran and could veto sanctions in the Security Council.
Mark Fitzpatrick at the International Institute for Strategic Studies said Russia's stance seemed to contradict the intention of the Council resolution but most diplomatic players remained keen to find a palatable alternative to sanctions.
"I'm sure there will be high-level talks on whether there is some formula regarding sequencing of suspension" based on Iran's hint it could shelve enrichment as the upshot of talks to carry out the incentives, he said.
"The question is whether there is a basis to fudge the sequencing -- that is, Iran commits to suspension after a very short time period of negotiations. I don't know if that would be enough for (the West)."
(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich in Vienna and Ann Willard in Paris) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
| September 29, 2006 Edition
‘Israel Lobby' Caused War in Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says
BY IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun September 29, 2006 URL:
http://www.nysun.com/article/40629
A tenured professor at the University of Chicago last night blamed the
"Israel Lobby" in America for both the Iraq war and the attacks of
September 11, 2001.
Speaking to a crowd of hundreds at the Cooper Union, he was met mostly
with support from two other professors, Tony Judt of New York
University
and Rashid Khalidi of Columbia.
"The Israel lobby was one of the principal driving forces behind the
Iraq War, and in its absence we probably would not have had a war,"
said
the University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, at a forum
organized by the London Review of Books.
Later, in response to a question from the audience, Mr. Mearsheimer
claimed that the "animus to the United States" of Qaeda terrorist
mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed "stemmed from U.S. foreign policy
toward Israel."
This, Mr. Mearsheimer asserted, "Simply can't be discussed in the
mainstream media." He appeared to have forgotten the article that ran
on
September 20, 2001, on the op-ed page of the largest circulation
American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, that began with the
sentence: "Is American support of Israel behind the hatred of this
country that p ervades the Arab world and that literally exploded into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11?"
In fact, Mr. Mearsheimer claimed, "There is a considerable amount of
evidence that there is a linkage between the two" - the two being
American support for Israel and the terrorist attacks of September 11.
The event last night at Cooper Union was a discussion of a paper issued
by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University earlier this
year and published in an edited version in the London Review of Books.
The paper was authored by Mr. Mearsheimer and by an academic dean and
professor at the Kennedy School, Stephen Walt. It described what it
alleged to be a vast Israel lobby that included the editors of the New
York Times, "neoconservative gentiles," the Brookings Institution, and
students at Columbia. The "Lobby," the paper said, had the "ability to
manipulate the American political system," "a stranglehold on the U.S.
Congress," and was actively "manipulating the media."
The Kennedy School quickly distanced itself from the paper, removing
its
logo and printing a large disclaimer on the front cover of the paper.
A Brookings scholar and former American ambassador to Israel, Martin
Indyk, said at the Cooper Union debate that the paper "lowers itself to
the level of anti-Semitism" and was "very sloppy" in its scholarship.
A former foreign minister of Israel, Shlomo Ben-Ami, said at the event
that the term "Lobby" as used in the paper "is a cover for the Jews,
basically," and that there was an "element of scapegoating" in the case
made by Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt.
Messrs. Khalidi and Judt both bemoaned the fact that America's
relations
with Israel were not debated more hotly and frequently.
"In American political discourse there is one side to this debate," Mr.
Khalidi said. "There are not two sides to this debate."
Mr. Judt said that the New York Times asked him whether he was Jewish
before publishing his opinion piece on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. Mr.
Judt said he is Jewish, but he sought to distinguish himself from the
American Jewish community. "For many American Jews, there is no
daylight
between America's interests and Israel's interests, the two are one and
the same. We have to somehow unravel this connection," he said. He
tried
to draw a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President
Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its
allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee. Mr. Indyk also noted he had been criticized
by
pro-Israel groups in America while serving in the State Department. "I
have the scars to show it," he said.
Yet Mr. Mearsheimer said Mr. Indyk is "at the core of the lobby," along
with another Clinton administration State Department official, Dennis
Ross.
"That is ridiculous," Mr. Ross said.
He and Mr. Indyk made the point that the American government did not
always do what the so-called Israel lobby wanted.
Mr. Indyk, on his way out of the two-hour session, told The New York
Sun's Gary Shapiro that he thought the debate had been "vigorous." "It
exposed a lot of the flaws in Mearsheimer's paper," he said.
The start of the event was delayed by more than half an hour as those
who had tickets or who were invited guests were scanned by metal
detectors.
September 29, 2006 Edition > Section: New York
Tony Judt sides with Mearsheimer in debate vs Martin Indyk and
Dennis Ross
MondoWeiss: The Great Debate at Cooper Union Last Night
« Never Mind the Bollocks--Here Is Walt and Mearsheimer!
The Great Debate at Cooper Union Last Night
I got home quite late from the Israel lobby debate and am on deadline
for print, so I won't get around to a full report till later, but
thought it best to file a few impressions while the world is still
making up its mind...
The debate was diffuse. It had few dramatic moments. There were six
debaters with five different points of view, and the three men positing
the existence of the lobby had not coordinated their points ahead of
time and so were sorting out differences on stage. My friend Scott
McConnell of the American Conservative said that he missed the great
moment, the climactic clash, then reflected that maybe this is
something
that documentaries manage to create after the fact.
Yet: No one could leave the hall unconvinced that there is an Israel
lobby. The quarrel was over scope and character. If the Israel lobby is
the elephant in the room of American politics, here were six blind men
each naming a different part of it they had felt in the dark. Well
actually, four blind men. The three positing the existence of the lobby
were joined by Shlomo Ben-Ami, from the other side, in a spirit of
intellectual vigor and openness. All four speakers added to the
audience's understanding. The other 2, Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross,
longtime elephant-fattener-uppers, were determined to show the audience
that the elephant was a hamster. They failed.
The debate belonged to Tony Judt. He arrived late to the hall in a
turtleneck - everyone else was in ties - and might have been Mariano
Rivera, for his confidence and dispatch. He was the most imaginative
speaker, and imagination is required when you are describing a King
kong
sasquatch no one has seen and whose wranglers say doesn't exist. When
Shlomo Ben-Ami and Martin Indyk said that John Mearsheimer was
antisemitic for speaking of a collection of Jews who influence policy,
Judt demolished them by quoting Arthur Koestler when he became an
anticommunist and said that Just because idiots and bigots share some
of
his views doesn't discredit the views. The job of the social scientist
is to describe the true conditions of society; are these statements
accurate or not? That is the only issue. I'm paraphrasing. Judt was way
more eloquent.
Judt's second great moment was when he accused Indyk of being
"faux-naive" - a civilized way of saying, You're lying - when Indyk
kept
saying that the lobby was one small factor in an American president's
exertions of power. Here again, he used his imagination. Because when
you're talking about something about which there is very little
information, and those who know something about it are trying to deny
its existence, you need imagination. Anyway, Judt described the real
exercise of power. He said that when a small state defied an American
president, and the president wanted to do something about it, he had a
great number of seen and unseen ways of compelling that state to fall
into line, all sorts of bullying and pressure and fury. None of these
had been deployed in Israel's case, and lo and behold the settlements
had continued to expand, over four decades... Again I'm paraphrasing.
Judt also got the last word of the night when he explained to a hungry
audience that knew in its bones it has been deprived, that this
discussion was an astoundingly rare one, and mind you it was organized
by the London Review of Books. Thus he gave the audience a real sense
of
how the U.S. discourse/policy works, which is what the evening was
after
all fumbling towards.
The most resonant moment of the debate was Judt's, too. He pointed out
that when he had endorsed the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, in an article
for
an unnamed major North American newspaper, he was asked by the editors
whether he is Jewish, and told to stick that fact in the article.
(Otherwise they couldn't publish it, was implicit or explicit, I'll
have
to check my tape). The newspaper - obviously - was the New York Times,
in which Judt's op-ed taking Walt/Mearsheimer's side, appeared last
April, as I recall, to stunning effect. I say resonant, and damning:
Let's consider the lesson of this story: You can only speak out on this
issue if you're Jewish? Oh my god, how did we get here...
The other three intellectuals' knowledge was more limited. John
Mearsheimer deserves the greatest credit of all for breaking the seal
on
this discussion. But his actual knowledge of the lobby is drawn from
reports of people who have seen Kong in the jungle, and lived to tell.
So he read from one account or another of the lobby's existence, and
its
function in pushing for the Iraq war. Living in Chicago, he lacks
intimate knowledge of its workings. His best moment came when he said
that the U.S. ought to put pressure on Israel to come into line on
matters that are important to us and if it fails to do so, or chooses a
different course, the U.S. and Israel "should go their separate ways."
This was a clean and bracing view of the relations of states. While
ideal, in a realistic way, it certainly describes the usual behavior of
the U.S. when a small state defies it on a critical question. E.g., the
settlements. And the absence of democracy in the West Bank. We could
have frozen those settlements with a wave of the hand...
Rashid Khalidi was the emotional life of the debate. He spoke of the
lobby in more sweeping terms than Mearsheimer; he conveyed in a way no
one else was able the ways in which the pro-Palestinian view is
suppressed in the American scene. He got off the best line of the
debate. His neighbor Dennis Ross's mike wasn't working. Khalidi passed
him his own. "This is the first time that a Palestinian has ever
enabled
the Israeli side to narrate..." he said, in so many words. Laughter.
And
after that the audience waited on his words.
Enough for now. It was a fabulous night. We all left improved. The
London Review of Books had extended the boundaries of knowledge, and
freedom.
U.S. House of Representatives approves new sanctions against Iran
JTA: House approves Iran sanctions Message
House approves Iran sanctions
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=4933 The U.S. House
of
Representatives approved new sanctions against Iran.
The Iran Freedom Support Act, approved in a voice vote Thursday, would
extend existing sanctions, scheduled to lapse Friday, and expand them
to
include overseas companies that deal with Iran.
The Senate is due to consider the act, sponsored by Rep. Ileana
Ross-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), before Congress breaks Friday for midterm
elections.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which led lobbying for
the
act, praised its passage.
"The passage of IFSA is an important step in further isolating the
radical regime in Tehran, and represents a unified American commitment
from both the administration and Congress toward ensuring that Iran
does
not obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons," AIPAC said in a
statement.
Ahmadinejad squares off with the foreign policy establishment
From: ECONORTH@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:02:00
IRAN LEADER RELISHES 2nd CHANCE TO MAKE WAVES
By DAVID E. SANGER NY Times | September 21, 2006
When President Bush and his advisers decided to allow President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran into the country to address the United Nations,
their strategy was simple: containment. There would be no visits to
other cities where he could denounce Washington or question Israel's
legitimacy. There would be no opportunities, beyond his speech to the
General Assembly, to turn questions about his nuclear intentions into
repeated diatribes about America's nuclear arsenal.
It turned out that Mr. Ahmadinejad had a Plan B.
The scope of his determination to dominate not only the airwaves but
the
debate became evident yesterday evening, when he entered a hotel
conference room on the East Side with a jaunty smile, a wave and an air
of supreme confidence.
Over the objections of the administration and Jewish groups that
boycotted the event, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the man who has become the
defiant
face of Iran, squared off with the nation's foreign policy
establishment, parrying questions for an hour and three-quarters with
two dozen members of the Council on Foreign Relations, then ending the
evening by asking whether they were simply shills for the Bush
administration.
Never raising his voice and thanking each questioner with a tone that
oozed polite hostility, he spent 40 minutes questioning the evidence
that the Holocaust ever happened - "I think we should allow more
impartial studies to be done on this," he said after hearing an account
of an 81-year-old member, the insurance mogul Maurice R. Greenberg, who
saw the Dachau concentration camp as Germany fell - and he refused to
even consider Washington's proposal for Russia to provide Iran with
nuclear reactor fuel, and take it back once it is used.
(Without the capacity to enrich fuel on its own soil Iran would be
unable to make fuel suitable for a nuclear weapon.) He traced the
history of 50 years of unfilled deals with the United States, Germany,
France and others - skipping over the Iranian revolution and the
hostage-taking that followed - and concluded, "How can we rely on these
partners." His solution? The United States should shut down its own
fuel
production and "within five years, we will sell you our own fuel, with
a
50 percent discount!"
He settled back into his seat with a broad smile that some in the group
described as a smirk. The decision by the council's president, Richard
N. Haass, to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to the session touched off a rare
outcry protest in an organization whose meetings are usually as staid
as
the portraits of long-forgotten diplomats on its walls.
Mr. Haass, who ran the policy planning branch of the State Department
during Mr. Bush's first term, first had to fend off senior
administration officials who had argued that he should not give Mr.
Ahmadinejad the legitimacy of a hearing - especially with the likes of
Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under
President
Bush's father, or Robert D. Blackwill, who directed Iraq policy at the
White House under Condoleezza Rice.
"It's fair to say that Dr. Rice thought this was a bad idea," one
senior
State Department official said. "A really, really bad idea." So did
leaders of several Jewish groups, whom Mr. Haass invited - and who
promptly asked if the council would have invited Hitler in the 1930's.
"
Some of us considered quitting to make it clear how offensive this is,"
said Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation
League, who was one of the Jewish leaders whose attendance Mr. Haass
sought. But after a flurry of phone calls, including with Elie Wiesel,
the writer and Holocaust survivor, they decided against a mass
resignation - particularly after the council made the session a
"meeting" rather than a dinner. (There were light hors d'oeuvres on the
side; Mr. Ahmadinejad never touched them.) "It is more offensive to
break bread with the guy," Mr. Foxman said. "I thought dinner was
crossing the line."
But the council pointed out that it had served as host for many world
leaders equally skilled at repressing dissidents, developing suspected
weapons programs, shutting down a free press and denouncing Israel.
"We've had Castro," said Lisa Shields, the council's communications
director, ticking off the gallery of leaders Washington considered
rogues. "We've had Arafat, and Mugabe. We've had Gerry Adams."
The greeting yesterday evening was not exactly overwhelming. There were
no introductory handshakes, no diplomatic niceties. All of the
Americans
who were invited to attend, including four journalists, were members of
the council. Iran's effort to bring in television cameras was
deflected,
apparently because the council feared that the session would be used
for
political purposes in Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad is presumably eager
to
show that even if President Bush refused to meet him, he got his
message
across.
In fact he did - meeting academics in the morning and religious leaders
at midday, and speeding from the council meeting for another television
interview. He did most of this without leaving the Intercontinental
Hotel on 48th Street in Manhattan. The council would not say how many
of
the invitees had refused to attend. But members said they knew of more
than a half-dozen, from the publisher Mort Zuckerman to the former
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright.
It is unclear why some declined. A few claimed scheduling conflicts,
rather than moral objections. The handful who had a chance to quiz the
Iranian president went out of their way, within the limits of
diplomatic
etiquette, to make clear to Mr. Ahmadinejad that they thought his
characterizations of Israel and the Holocaust were repugnant and that
his nuclear strategy was self-defeating. He gave no ground.
When Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, told Mr.
Ahmadinejad that Iran "did everything possible to destroy'' efforts to
bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the president said,
"If
you believe Iran is the reason for the failure, you are making a second
mistake.'' Why, he asked, should the Palestinians be asked to "pay for
an event they had nothing to do with'' in World War II, saying that
they
had nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews - if those
killings, he added, had happened at all. "
In World War II about 60 million people were killed,'' he said at one
point, when pressed again on his refusal to accept that the Holocaust
happened. "Two million were military. Why is such prominence given to a
small portion of those 60 million?''
A few minutes later, he asked a question himself: "In the Council on
Foreign Relations, is there any voice of support for the
Palestinians?''
Mr. Ahmadinejad's habit of answering every question about Iranian
policy
with a question about American policy was clearly wearing on some of
the
members, but at the end they acknowledged that he was about as skillful
an interlocutor as they had ever encountered.
"He is a master of counterpunch, deception, circumlocution,'' Mr.
Scowcroft said, shaking his head.
Mr. Blackwill emerged from the conversation wondering how the United
States would ever be able to negotiate with this Iranian government.
"If
this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are
heading for a massive confrontation with Iran," he said.
In fact, on the main issue speeding the two countries toward
confrontation, Iran's nuclear program, the president was unwilling to
discuss specifics. He insisted that he was fully cooperating with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, even though it had pages of
questions his government refused to answer. Instead, he steered the
whole conversation toward Iran's rights under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, ignoring an effort by Ashton B. Carter, a
Harvard professor, to get him to answer whether the nuclear effort was
worth the cost to Iranian society.
"The U.S. doesn't speak for the whole world,'' Mr. Ahmadinejad
responded, noting that at a meeting of nonaligned nations in Cuba over
the weekend "118 countries defended the right of Iran to enrich.''
And as he left, it was with a jab to his hosts. "At the beginning of
the
session, you said you were an independent group,'' he said. "But almost
everything that I was asked came from a government position.'' Then he
smiled, thanked everyone and left the room with a light step.
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:58 pm; edited 3 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: Scholars Land Book Deal for Attack on ‘Israel Lobby’ |
| http://www.forward.com/articles/scholars-land-a-book-deal-for-attack-on-israel-lob/
Scholars Land Book Deal for Attack on ‘Israel Lobby’
Farrar, Straus and Giroux to Publish Work by Walt and Mearsheimer
Gabriel Sanders | Tue. Oct 03, 2006
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of a controversial paper criticizing the role of the “Israel Lobby” in American foreign policy, are at work on a book-length version of their findings to be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Article tools
The two, who have argued that it “is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States” printing their work, first published their paper in the March 23 edition of the London Review of Books. A longer version was posted on the Web site of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where Walt is a professor of international affairs. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.
The paper — which argues that America’s “unwavering support for Israel… has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world” — has sparked a wide range of responses among scholars, pundits and former diplomats. Some have called it the stuff of conspiracy theory and antisemitism, while others have praised it as a welcome foray into a subject often thought to be taboo. The debate played out again on September 28, when the London Review of Books staged a lively debate in Manhattan featuring Mearsheimer, Tony Judt of New York Univeristy, Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi, onetime Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Clinton administration Middle East specialists Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk.
Many of the Jewish leaders troubled by the first incarnation of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis were dismayed anew by word that it is to be republished as a book.
“They are saying what David Duke would be saying, what Pat Buchanan would be saying,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “The difference is that they have the patina of respectability, and now they will have another coat of it.”
Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, was an enthusiastic supporter of the paper and claimed that his views had been “vindicated” by it. With figures like Duke in mind, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, worried that Mearsheimer and Walt’s scholarly credentials could serve to further embolden fringe groups. “We shouldn’t underestimate the damage — and the potential damage — of this paper and the legitimacy it gives to the haters,” he said.
Some were especially troubled by the fact that it was Farrar, Straus and Giroux that had decided to acquire the book. The publishers of Isaac Bashevis Singer and Bernard Malamud — and a host of contemporary Jewish writers — FSG is commonly regarded as one of the country’s most distinguished publishing houses.
“The imprimatur of being published by FSG is hard to match,” said Samuel Freedman, a professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. “When a publishing house with its credibility and its reputation acquires a conspiracy theory, it can’t help but make that conspiracy theory look more valid than it deserves to look.”
Many commented on the irony of how a scholarly paper that wore as a badge of pride its purported exclusion from mainstream American media outlets has now been embraced by the most elite of American book publishers.
That the two scholars were shut out from the American mainstream was, according to David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, “a disingenuous claim from the start. It was a way to try and market themselves as victims of the ‘all-powerful group’ they were writing about. It fed into their own conspiratorial notions.”
But not all were dismayed by news of the book. Philip Weiss, a journalist who has written about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper for both The New York Observer and The Nation, said that an expanded version of the thesis would be a welcome addition to an overdue debate. “I think there’s a lot of interest in these ideas,” Weiss said. “The conversation’s just begun.” | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
| Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
Date 04/10/2006
17:59
Tony Judt Speech Shut Down by ADL and more
{Comment - JB} The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which functions as part
of the larger Arab Defamation League otherwise known as the Israel
Lobby
AKA pro-Israel Lobby AKA Jewish Lobby AKA Zionist Lobby is more brazen
than ever in going after NYU Professor Tony Judt. Clearly the
discussion
of the power of the lobby and its influence over US policies and
politicians initiated last February by Professors John Mearsheimer and
Steven Walt has taken root and, to judge from this ADL action, is
obviously seen by the lobby as an increasing threat to its power
despite
the best efforts of a unique and unholy alliance of zionist attack dogs
and certain "left" pundits, plus all of the leading Marxist, Maoist and
Trotskyist groups, to bury it.
Those living in cities where the ADL has offices should call and
complain as well as write letters to editors and even, yes, members of
Congress, to complain about the ADL's latest attempt at censorship. You
might mention that in 1993, an investigation by the San Francisco
Police
revealed that the ADL was running what was probably the largest private
spying operation in the US which included every progressive, ethnic and
environmental organization, but particularly focused on those active on
the Arab-Palestinian issue and fighting apartheid in South Africa. It
turns out that the ADL spy in the San Francisco Bay Area, whose files
contained the name of about 10,000 individuals and 600 organizations,
was also spying on anti-apartheid activists and South African exiles
for
South African intelligence. For more information see www.adlwatch.org
{End}
Tony Judt Speech Shut Down by ADL
Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 in News by Matt Barganier|
Historian Tony Judt, a frequent contributor to the New York Review of
Books and director of the Remarque Institute at NYU, writes,
I was due to speak this evening, in Manhattan, to a group called
Network
20/20 comprising young business leaders, NGO, academics, etc, from the
US and many countries. Topic: the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
The meetings are always held at the Polish Consulate in Manhattan.
I just received a call from the President of Network 20/20. The talk
was
cancelled because the Polish Consulate had been threatened by the
Anti-Defamation League. Serial phone calls from ADL President Abe
Foxman
warned them off hosting anything involving Tony Judt. If they
persisted,
he warned, he would smear the charge of Polish collaboration with
anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me) all over the front page of every daily
paper in the city (an indirect quote). They caved and Network 20/20
were
forced to cancel.
Whatever your views on the Middle East I hope you find this as serious
and frightening as I do. This is, or used to be, the United States of
America.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/10/04/tony-judt-speech-shut-down-by-adl | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
