Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 27, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Breaking the Taboo: Why We Took On the Israel Lobby

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 4, 2007
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.
israellobbybook.com

“The Israel Lobby” authors John J. Mearsheimer (left) and Stephen M. Walt.

(Page 2)

Why do you focus on Israel and not on other U.S. allies?

We focus on Israel’s policies in this book not because we have any animus toward Israel or because we regard its behavior as worse than other states’. Rather, we focus on it because the United States has long focused so much of its financial, diplomatic, and military attention on Israel. Israel is often said to deserve this support because it supposedly acts better than other states do, but we show that this is not the case. It has not acted worse than other states, but neither has it acted significantly better. Regrettably, uncritical U.S. support has led to policies that are harmful to the United States and Israel alike.

If the strategic and moral rationales don’t account for the exceptional backing of Israel, what does?

The pro-Israel lobby. The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and groups that actively works to push American policy in ways that will benefit Israel. It is not a cabal or conspiracy, or a single, hierarchical organization with a central leadership and total unanimity of views. Rather, it is a set of groups and individuals who all favor steadfast U.S. support for Israel but sometimes disagree on certain policy issues. Prominent groups in the lobby include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and pro-Israel think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Leading individuals in the lobby include the heads of these various organizations, as well as neoconservatives who served in the Bush administration like Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser, some of whom are closely associated with hard-line pro-Israel think tanks and conservative politicians in Israel, or Christian Zionists like John Hagee of CUFI and ... Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Religious and ethnic identity does not define who is part of the lobby, as it includes gentiles as well as Jewish-Americans. It is the political agenda of an individual or a group, not ethnicity or religion, that determines whether they are part of the lobby. Thus, the Israel lobby is not synonymous with American Jewry, and “Jewish lobby” is not an appropriate term for describing the various groups and individuals that work to foster U.S. support for Israel. These groups and individuals sometimes disagree on particular issues but they are united in their belief that the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel should not be substantively questioned. They are not all-powerful and they do not “control” U.S. foreign policy. Rather, they form a powerful special interest group, which over time has acquired considerable influence over U.S. policy in the Middle East. 

What are the strategies the lobby uses to influence the policymaking process and public discourse about Israel and its relationship with the United States?

The Israel lobby uses the same basic strategies that other interest groups employ. It pushes its agenda in Congress by supporting friendly candidates and legislators with votes and campaign money and by helping to frame legislation; by getting sympathetic individuals appointed to key policy positions in the executive branch; by monitoring the media and pressuring news organizations to offer favorable coverage; and by writing articles, books, and op-eds designed to move public opinion in directions they favor. These various strategies are as American as apple pie, and there is nothing illegitimate about them. Yet it ought to be equally legitimate to examine and discuss how the Israel lobby works to push its agenda in government, and to debate whether its influence is beneficial, the same way that one might examine other interest groups like the gun lobby, the farm lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, the energy lobby, and other ethnic lobbies (e.g., Cuban-Americans, Indian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, etc.).

Do you think the Israel lobby’s tactics sometimes go beyond acceptable interest-group politics?

Unfortunately, yes. Although most of the lobby’s tactics are legitimate forms of political participation, some groups and individuals in the lobby also try to silence or marginalize opponents and critics by smearing them as anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. This sort of response was evident in the personal attacks directed at Jimmy Carter for writing a controversial book about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, and in the efforts of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League to prevent the historian Tony Judt from giving a lecture on the Israel lobby to a group in New York City. True anti-Semitism is loathsome and should be firmly opposed, but using this sort of accusation to silence or marginalize critics is antithetical to the principles of free speech and open debate on which democracy depends.

Why is it so difficult to talk about the role of the Israel lobby?

Primarily because of the many centuries of anti-Semitism in the Christian West, which culminated in the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. Given this long history of sometimes violent persecution, Jewish Americans (and many gentiles) are understandably sensitive to any argument that is critical of Israel or of the political influence of groups in which Jews are central participants. This sensitivity is compounded by the memory of bizarre conspiracy theories of the sort laid out in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notorious anti-Semitic tract that was discredited long ago. Such paranoid views remain a staple of neo-Nazis and other fringe groups, however, which reinforces Jewish sensitivities even more. Given this history, some people are likely to suspect that anyone who criticizes Israel is in fact questioning its right to exist, or that anyone who examines the political influence of the Israel lobby is questioning the loyalty of pro-Israel individuals or accusing them of some sort of illegitimate activity. We explicitly reject these anti-Semitic notions, but given past experience, we understand why it is easier to talk about the influence of other special interest groups than it is to talk about the Israel lobby.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 5, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

Heckler Howard…Your ADL/Zionist attempt to smear Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky on this forum is NOT going to achieve anything for you and your zionist agenda.

Your efforts to keep searching for something to support you deliberate smear tactics regarding these two solid scholars has exposed your agenda’s zionist foundation.

You just keep posting “Dershowitz’s garbage” on here; you’re just the perfect “janitor” for his trash.

Finkelstein and Chomsky are scholars, respectable individuals, full of humanity and integrity!

NO DOUBT ABOUT THEIR GENUINE QUALITIES!

Report this

By Howard, November 5, 2007 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

RE:  #111703 by Tony Wicher on 11/04 at 10:57 pm

FYI:
A good defense of Norman Finkelstein by his mentor and mine, Noam Chomsky, is to be found
=========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++==

Wow,  some mentor;  he certainly is not to be taken seriously.,  just an irrational non-expert( he’s a linguist by training ) espousing stuff that doesn’t hold up to any visible light.

N. Finkelstein is in the same camp of followers.  Both have been debunked. And yes, I did read that defense on that web-site.

Marc Fisher of the Washington Post correctly described Finkelstein as ” a writer celebrated by neo-Nazi groups for his Holocaust revisionism and comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany.”

Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic wrote: “You don’t know who Finkelstein is. He’s poison, he’s a disgusting self-hating Jew, he’s something you find under a rock.” Others describe Finkelstein’s theories as “crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis all over the world.”

One eminent scholar added:
“No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotations in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites . . . Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. ”

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment

FYI:

A good defense of Norman Finkelstein by his mentor and mine, Noam Chomsky, is to be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ENawcSliA

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

Re #111677 by Howard on 11/04 at 8:02 pm

OK, a little research, and I know where you got this crap. That lying scumbag Dershowitz, who else? Here is a piece of an article from Finkelstein’s site, which he evaluates by saying “A sane, reasoned voice at Brandeis - and a credit to an institution that seems to have lost its way.”

03.09.2007 | The Brandeis Hoot
By Kevin Montgomery

Editor’s note - Kevin Montgomery is a member of the Brandeis Hoot editorial board.

“After WWII, Hungarian author Arthur Koestler gave a speech in London about the rise of the Cold War, the Soviet Block and everything he perceived as wrong with communism. He was then attacked, immediately following the lecture, for bringing aid and comfort to individuals now known as McCarthyists. Koestler responded by simply saying, “You cannot help it if idiots and bigots share your views for their reasons. That doesn’t mean you can be tarred with their views.”

This is an apt realization of which many intellectuals fail to take note. Alan Dershowitz has ruthlessly slandered Dr. Norman Finkelstein because of “idiots and bigots” who use Finkelstein’s works to support their outrageous views. In Dershowitz’s March 3rd column in The Huffington Post, he asks students and universities, “Would You Invite David Duke to Your Campus?” Of course, the column is not about Duke, it is about Finkelstein. Dershowitz claims that “Finkelstein willingly collaborates with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites,” and quotes generously from Ernst Zundel, who Dershowitz labels as a “notorious Hitler-lover and Holocaust denier,” saying “Finkelstein’s exceedingly useful to us and to the Revisionist cause.”

Dershowitz also makes inaccurate references to Finkelstein’s invitation to Iran’s “International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust,” claiming in the Feb. 2nd pages of The Justice that Finkelstein did not attend “because he was too busy trying to testify, as a crackpot witness, for Hamas.” Of course, this is not the truth, Finkelstein dispelled this rumor at a Feb. 22nd lecture at Dershowitz’s own Harvard University, saying that he declined the invitation because he was not interested in attending a “non-academic circus.” It is obvious that Dershowitz believes that rejected invitations are cause enough to link an individual to the KKK and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but, as Koestler brilliantly noted, you cannot blame an individual if idiots and bigots twist his or her ideas to promote evil.”
—————————————————————————
You can read the rest of the article and also listen to his whole lecture at Harvard University where he covers this point at: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=925.

If you are interested, that is.
————————————————————————
So there you have it, Howard.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

Re #111677 by Howard on 11/04 at 8:02 pm

Howard, you do a huge smear job on Finkelstein in connection with that Ahmedinejad conference without giving even a hint of where you get this so-called information. I would like to see you site one single source for this crap that I could check out. After all, if Finkelstein, whose mother, father and entire family was exterminated in the Holocaust is really a Holocaust denier, I would like to find out about it.

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111680 by Tony Wicher on 11/04 at 8:19 pm
(337 comments total)
RE: #111674 by Tony Wicher on 11/04 at 7:45 pm
The last post is ‘ history’. Not copied , but well backed up in any history of what happened. And well known.
This is not “history”, this is propaganda. You wrote it yourself, did you? From memory? Not one word of it is true. Let’s just take the first sentence.
“Virtually everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer.” In refutation of this sentence, I offer the following discussion moderated by Amy Goodman between Norman Finkelstein and former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo ben-Ami,
=====================================
===========================

Not true?

Well, I beleive the people who were there like President clinton and the U.S. chief negotiator, Dennis Ross, more than anyone else.  Also Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who was there as an advisor to Arafat, has publicly said he was surprised by Barak’s “remarkable” offer that gave the Palestinian state “about 97% of the occupied territories, the Old City of Jerusalem other than the Jewish and armeninan quarters, and $30 billion in compensaion for the refugeees. Bandar warned Arafat: ” I hope you take that offer and say yes to it. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy, it is going to be a crime.”  But Arafat still refused this fantastic offering.. Bandar has told publicly of how extremely dissapointed he was with Arafats refusal.

Today, they could be living in a Palestine comprised of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of Arab east Jerusalem. They would have greater control of the Temple Mount and an unimpeded highway between Gaza and the West Bank. That was Barak’s offer !!  Instead, most of their cities are under curfew and surrounded by Israeli forces because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and waged a war of terror in hopes of achieving his dream of liberating all of “Palestine.”

The best chance for the Palestinians to achieve statehood in the short-run would be to tell Isael they are now prepared to end the violence, replace the Hamas leaders, and negotiate. They should offer to accept whatever deal Olmert offers even if it means a Palestinian state the size of a postage stamp. Why? For the same reason the Zionists accepted a state that was little more than a postage stamp.

Think about it. After agreeing to make peace with Israel, within a nanosecond of declaring statehood, the United States will recognize the new state. The rest of the world will follow suit. Within a few minutes, the Americans and Europeans will begin throwing so many dollar bills at the Palestinians that they’ll think that it’s a plague of locusts. If the Palestinians truly wish to live in peace, they can spend the next 50 years building their state, developing an economy, infrastructure, governmental institutions, and all the rest, and the world will cheer and do everything to help them. Israel will be first in line with assistance.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

Interview is at

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Watch the video. From the standpoint of international law, which says that Palestine should have full sovereignty over 100% of the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem, the Palestinians made 100% of the concessions, and Israel made 0%. The only “concessions” Israel made was in comparison, not with international law, but with the Zionist objective of sovereignty over all of Eretz Israel, from the river to the sea, with the Palestinians migrating to Jordan or Egypt. That is still their objective.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111674 by Tony Wicher on 11/04 at 7:45 pm
The last post is ‘ history’.  Not copied , but well backed up in any history of what happened. And well known.

This is not “history”, this is propaganda. You wrote it yourself, did you? From memory? Not one word of it is true. Let’s just take the first sentence.
“Virtually everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer.” In refutation of this sentence, I offer the following discussion moderated by Amy Goodman between Norman Finkelstein and former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo ben-Ami,

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111674 by Tony Wicher on 11/04 at 7:45 pm

Re #111670 by Howard on 11/04 at 7:09 pm
You could at least tell us who wrote that tripe you just copied in your last post. It’s bad enough that every statement made in it is completely unsubstantiated, but you won’t even tell us who made them! Anyway, thanks for the Finkelstein video. I’m such a groupie for Finkelstein! He’s my main man!
====================================
==================================
The last post is ’ history’.  Not copied , but well backed up in any history of what happened. And well known.

And as to Finkelstein he may be your man;  but not to many others.

Rememmber earlier in the when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his henchmen created a list of the most virulent Holocaust deniers in the world ?  And then invited them all to their notorious Holocaust denier hate-fest in Tehran.  High among those on the list were the neo-Nazi and klansman David Duke and the Holocaust justice denier Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein’s name appeared on the schedule alongside Duke’s, though apparently Finkelstein, at the last minute, decided not to appear. The reason Finkelstein has given for eventually declining the invitation had nothing to do with any principled opposition at being a speaker at such an anti-Semitic hate-fest. Instead, he claimed that negotiations with the Iranians broke down over details. He says that he wanted “at least 45 minutes to speak”—apparently because he needs at least that much time to spew his hatred—but they wouldn’t agree to his conditions. He has refused to disclose his communications with the Iranians regarding his invitation. What does he have to hide? Who is he protecting; the Iranian hate mongers or himself? He should be urged to disclose his communication, both with the Iranian Holocaust deniers and his neo-Nazi cartoonist friend.

The real reason he did not attend is that he was too busy trying to testify on behalf of Hamas in a Chicago criminal trial. After listening to his proposed testimony and learning of his lack of credentials—he has never even visited Israel—the federal judge concluded that he did not have any expertise, essentially characterizing him as a crackpot. This was consistent with other, similar characterizations. A New York Times review by a leading expert of Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry called it:
“. . . a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” [It] verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world. ”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 4, 2007 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/04 at 11:04 am
(449 comments total)

(1) ITW speaks of my “total hatred for Israel”:

On the whole I am indeed very hostile to the state of Israel as an actor in the world and an influence on my government, because of its actions and because of its governing ideology. But I do not think Israel should be “wiped off the face of the earth” or anything of the kind. In fact, I think if Irael’s existence were ever genuinely threatened, my country should come to its aid. I consider this a reasonable position, given the facts. You, however, seem to think that anything less than a loving emotional attachment to Israel is “anti-Semitism.” I don’t even love my own country as much as you seem to think I should love Israel.

************************

I’m delighted to hear that you would like Israel to survive. Shocked, astonished, but delighted, none-the-less. Damned decent of you, and it’s far better than a lot of the bigots posting here.

Never once have I EVER demanded a non-questioning anything-goes acceptance of Israeli actions or behavior.  I whole-heartedly support serious, valid criticism.  Nor do I advocate Americans “loving” Israel or any nation other than the USA.  Rather, despite the denials and the rhetoric, and, of course, the flat-out lies and exaggerations Israel IS a valuable ally to the US, nearly as valuable as the UK, and should be viewed and reviewed as such.

To say I’ve said or implied anything else is as dishonest as you accuse me of being.  Something about people who live in glass houses springs to mind…

**************************

(2) ITW also speaks of my “adoration for a society that is rapidly going more and more the Taliban route….” It’s unclear just which society ITW is referring to. “The Palestinians”?  “The Arabs”? “The Muslims”?

But it doesn’t matter. This “adoration” does not exist, nor does anything I have ever said imply any such thing. This is nothing more than an absurd and baseless smear, characteristic of ITW’s utter dishonesty and laziness.

***********************

Not at all.  The continual attacks on Israeli actions against Palestinians without any balance whatsoever attacking actions by Palestinians against Israelis indicates a fervent bias, one you HAVE expressed repeated. Yet it is this very society that is sinking rapidly into a Taliban-like dictatorship, but you have no criticism of it, at least none I’ve discerned.  Nor have I EVER seen you express ANY sympathy for Israeli citizens DELIBERATELY targeted by terrorists despite having no strategic value.

I’ve said this before: If the terrorists attacked military and strategic targets, I’d at least be able to say, well, it IS a war—that’s what you attack.  But to simple spread terror for terror’s sake, randomly and arbitrarily is criminal.  Whatever the IDF has done, it has always either been TOTALLY accidental, or directed at someone hiding or connected to terrorists.  It’s never just random.

Yet I’ve not seen you ONCE condemn random attacks on children or civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers.  Not once.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

Re #111670 by Howard on 11/04 at 7:09 pm

You could at least tell us who wrote that tripe you just copied in your last post. It’s bad enough that every statement made in it is completely unsubstantiated, but you won’t even tell us who made them! Anyway, thanks for the Finkelstein video. I’m such a groupie for Finkelstein! He’s my main man!

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111574 by Robert on 11/04 at 7:16 am
(530 comments total)
ONE MORE…FOR THE RECORD ON PEACE, NEGOTIATION…FACTS, TRUTH FROM A SCHOLAR/HISTORIAN.
WHO MADE THE CONCESSIONS AND GUESS WHO WALKED OUT AND LEFT THE NEGOTIATIONS? JUST READ THE TRUTH BELOW…HMMM!
Norman Finkelstein ......
==============================================
=======================================

Virtually everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer. President Clinton, who was furious at Arafat and has called him a liar,has blamed the failure comletely on Arafat. Dennis Ross, who was the chief U.S. negotiator, has said that Aarafat was unwilling to accept any peace proposal, because for Arafat “to end the conflict is to end himself.” The best proof of Ross’s point is that arafat did not even offer a counterproposal to Israel’s offer. He simply rejected it and ordered preparation for renewed terrorism. President Bush, according to the New Yorker, also “ places all the blame for the increase in violence on Arafat.”
Even some of Arafat’s most trusted advisers and senior associates are now regretting the decision, and Arafat himself let it be known much later that if the same offer would now be made, he might accept it—-after approximately 3,000 entirely avoidable deaths.
Of coure, no one in Washington or in Israel took Arafat’s promises seriously after he lied both to the President at Camp David and to President george bush when he denied knowlege of the boat load of Iranian arms destined for use by Palestinina terrorists, despite an admission by the ship’s captain that his orders came directly from Arafat.
Nor was Arafat trusted after that by the most dovish members of the Israeli peace camp, many of whom felt absolutely betrayed by his rejection of an offer that they pressed Barak to make and that they assured Barak that Arafat would accept. They blame Arafat for Barak’s electoral loss to Sharon following the rejection of what many Israelis now regard as a naive and overgenerous offer. If Arafat was unwilling to accept THAT offer they believed he was unwilling to accept any peace offer that left Israel in existence.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

Re #111635 by Howard on 11/04 at 2:54 pm
(157 comments total)

“Finkelstein willingly collaborates with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Just watch him on YouTube.com, where a clip is posted of his appearance on a Holocaust denial program on Lebanese TV, where he claimed that Holocaust survivors are liars and that Swiss banks—which have agreed to pay back millions of dollars belonging to deceased Jewish depositors and their heirs—never withheld any money from Jews.”
—————————————————————————-
Hey, everybody! Howard has just made a big contribution to this discussion! I wanted to check out the UTube video he mentioned, but he did not provide the link. So, I put “finkelstein Zundel utube” into Google to see what came up. Lo and behold, the first thing that came up was David Duke’s website http://davidduke.com/index.php?s=youtube&submit=go. When you scroll down you get to a big splash on a Norman Finkelstein interview, “Watch Norman Finkelstein blast apart the Holocaust Industry”.

Now, Finkelstein cannot be held responsible for what David Duke does in his efforts to make Naziism respectable. I am sure Duke never asked Finkelstein for permission to post that video on his web site. However, if you go directly to the U-Tube video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eew4Z-KFPeA, you will find a very interesting series of six great interviews by Michal Coren about “The Holocaust Industry” with Norman Finkelstein. It is an extremely powerful statement. Everybody should watch them, especially you, Howard. What do these fine interviews have to do with David Duke? Nothing.

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

The following right off of Finkelstein’s web page and here is what he has said (2002)
————————————
“I did make a point of publicly honoring the heroic resistance of Hezbollah to foreign occupation. Why not? The Communist parties throughout Europe organized the downtrodden and led the resistance to Nazi occupation. Probably, I wouldn’t have fared very well under Communists, just as I probably wouldn’t very well under Hezbollah . Their historic contributions are, nonetheless, undeniable. The shock and shame are that Young apparently doesn’t respect the tortures Hezbollah (and others) endured at Khiam to liberate Lebanon. Hezbollah asked to interview me on its television station. Initially I hesitated, not from principle, however, but from cowardice. If I’m willing to appear on CNN – the main propaganda organ for America’s terrorist wars – why shouldn’t I appear on al-Manar? After finally agreeing I was equally forthright during the interview in my criticism and my support of Hezbollah. Even if al-Manar ultimately decides not to air the full interview, it bears notice that Hezbollah accorded me the maximum respect - which is much more than I can say for the AUB administration. To paraphrase Juvenal: Who will enlighten the enlighteners?

To my thinking the honorable thing now is to show solidarity with Hezbollah as the US and Israel target it for liquidation. Indeed, looking back my chief regret is that I wasn’t even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack.”

Sincerely,

Norman G. Finkelstein

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Re #111635 by Howard on 11/04 at 2:54 pm
(157 comments total)

Howard, nowhere in this response do you make the slightest attempt to show where Finkelstein has falsified anything. He is in fact a scholar of the highest integrity. You, on the other hand, are engaging is McCarthyite smear tactics in “refuting” him by saying that certain neo-Nazis quote him (out of context) with approval. That is not his fault, and it does not mean that what he says is not 100% true. Which it is, and I repeat the challenge to produce one actual sentence he has said which is not true and which you can prove is false.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Re #111541 by Howard on 11/04 at 3:46 am
(155 comments total)

Contrary to the assertions of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer , and some pundits on this site, who claim that no compelling strategic argument can explain American support for Israel, which they argue has been promoted by “the unmatched power of the Israel lobby,” the two countries have, in fact, developed strong strategic ties over the years that have evolved into a unique alliance.  Spell that many, many years.

Presently, U.S.-Israeli defense ties have grown even tighter. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 15, 2007, USEUCOM commander General Bantz J. Craddock stated that Israel was America’s “closest ally” in the Middle East and that it “consistently and directly” supported U.S. interests. This professional evaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship flies in the face of Walt and Mearsheimer’s assertion that Israel is a “strategic burden” that does not serve the American national interest.
——————————————————————————-
Howard,

Over and over I keep telling you the same thing, but you never respond. For you, the “American national interest” is the same as the interest of the U.S. military-industrial complex. I say the interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex are diametrically opposed to the interests of the American people and of democracy. This interest group, which is far, far more powerful than AIPAC, and has been growing in power since Eisenhower warned us about it in the 50’s, is what is corrupting our own democracy, selling arms, installing and supporting dictators and causing war all over the world. So I am against Israel because it is, as you rightly say, an important part of that destructive force which is the main thing preventing progress, peace and democracy in this country and the world.

Now, would you please say something indicating that you at least grasp my point?

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111634 by Robert on 11/04 at 2:42 pm
Hey Howard…Can you give us some examples of what Finkelstein has been falsifying…and can you be very specific with your answer?
Only a severely brainwashed ADL/Zionist would make such a statement about Finkelstein!
============================================
=======================

Finkelstein willingly collaborates with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Just watch him on YouTube.com, where a clip is posted of his appearance on a Holocaust denial program on Lebanese TV, where he claimed that Holocaust survivors are liars and that Swiss banks—which have agreed to pay back millions of dollars belonging to deceased Jewish depositors and their heirs—never withheld any money from Jews. Neo-Nazis also love Finkelstein, and for good reason. Listen to Ernst Zundel, the notorious Hitler lover and Holocaust denier who is now in prison in Germany:

“Finkelstein’s exceedingly useful to us and to the Revisionist cause. He is making three-fourths of our argument - and making it effectively. Never fret - the rest of the argument is being made by us, and will topple the lie within our lifetime. We would not be making vast inroads in Europe with our outreach program, were it not for his courageous little booklet, “The Holocaust Industry.”

Zundel’s wife and fellow Neo-Nazi, Ingrid Rimland, referred to Finkelstein admiringly as the “Jewish David Irving”—a reference to the well known Holocaust denier and admirer of Hitler. Finkelstein himself admires Irving’s “historical” research.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

#111624 by Howard on 11/04 at 1:50 pm
(156 comments total)

RE:  #111574 by Robert on 11/04 at 7:16 am
RE:  #111619 by Non Credo on 11/04 at 1:00 pm
(447 comments total)
Robert quoting Finkelstein:
==========================================
=================================
Your quoting N. Finkelstein is an easy yokel to dispute. He’s been falsifying and trying to change reality for a long time A true nut case.
====================================

Hey Howard…Can you give us some examples of what Finkelstein has been falsifying…and can you be very specific with your answer?

Only a severely brainwashed ADL/Zionist would make such a statement about Finkelstein!

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

#111624 by Howard on 11/04 at 1:50 pm
(156 comments total)

RE:  #111574 by Robert on 11/04 at 7:16 am
RE:  #111619 by Non Credo on 11/04 at 1:00 pm
(447 comments total)
Robert quoting Finkelstein:
==========================================
=================================
Your quoting N. Finkelstein is an easy yokel to dispute. He’s been falsifying and trying to change reality for a long time A true nut case.
=======================

Hey Howard…can you give us some examples of what Finkelstein has been falsifying… and can you very specific?

Only a severely brainwashed ADL/Zionist would make such an statement!

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111574 by Robert on 11/04 at 7:16 am
RE:  #111619 by Non Credo on 11/04 at 1:00 pm
(447 comments total)
Robert quoting Finkelstein:
==========================================
=================================
Your quoting N. Finkelstein is an easy yokel to dispute. He’s been falsifying and trying to change reality for a long time A true nut case.

Virtually everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer.  President Clinton, who was furious at Arafat and has called him a liar,has blamed the failure comletely on Arafat. Dennis Ross, who was the chief U.S. negotiator, has said that Aarafat was unwilling to accept any peace proposal, because for Arafat “to end the conflict is to end himself.”  The best proof of Ross’s point is that arafat did not even offer a counterproposal to Israel’s offer. He simply rejected it and ordered preparation for renewed terrorism.  President Bush, according to the New Yorker, also ” places all the blame for the increase in violence on Arafat.”

  Even some of Arafat’s most trusted advisers and senior associates are now regretting the decision, and Arafat himself let it be known much later that if the same offer would now be made, he might accept it—-after approximately 3,000 entirely avoidable deaths.

  Of coure, no one in Washington or in Israel took Arafat’s promises seriously after he lied both to the President at Camp David and to President george bush when he denied knowlege of the boat load of Iranian arms destined for use by Palestinina terrorists, despite an admission by the ship’s captain that his orders came directly from Arafat.
Nor was Arafat trusted after that by the most dovish members of the Israeli peace camp, many of whom felt absolutely betrayed by his rejection of an offer that they pressed Barak to make and that they assured Barak that Arafat would accept.  They blame Arafat for Barak’s electoral loss to Sharon following the rejection of what many Israelis now regard as a naive and overgenerous offer.  If Arafat was unwilling to accept THAT offer they believed he was unwilling to accept any peace offer that left Israel in existence.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 4, 2007 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Re #111503 by Aretologist on 11/03 at 10:37 pm
(20 comments total)

“A couple hundred years ago our problem was with them “no good dirty Indians.”

After America’s “immigrants” finally eliminated their indigenous Indian problem - our problem today is “over there in the Middle East - with those “no good stinking Arabs”.

Why do we have a problem with the Arab and Muslim people?

Because they don’t appreciate what Israel - with our 100% support - has done and is doing to the
Palestinian people. Because they don’t cherish Israel like we do.

The Palestinians are as “guilty” as America’s indigenous Indians were. Guilty of living in a land and of fighting back to defemd their land and try to stop it from being stolen by Jewish “immigrants.”

The Palestinians are only “guilty” of migrating into a land that had been vacated by the Jews hundreds of years earlier - after the Roman’s ordered the Jews out - sending them into Europe and Russia - and then not turning the land back to the Jews who wanted all of their land back - 2,000 years later.”

——————————————————————————
Aretologist,

I agree with this part of what you say. Zionism, the 19th-century idea of the conquest of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state there is a pernicious one that leads to nothing but war without end; it is a primary cause of Islamic terrorism, and support for Zionist goals by the United States makes this country a target for terrorism and greatly harms our moral standing in the world. It is bad for the whole human race - Jews, Americans, Arabs and everybody. 


Having said that, I take issue with your over-estimation of the power of Zionism to influence U.S. policy. This is where you sound genuinely anti-Semitic to the trained ear: 

“America’s politicians all sing out of the same “hymn book.” The hymn book given to them by AIPAC - the hymn book exalted by America’s mass media (Israel’s PR agent’s here in the U.S.)

A shortage of character and the absence of intelligence - two of the primary attributes of America’s politicians - enabled AIPAC and Israel to gain control of America. “We (Israel) own America - and America knows it,” bragged the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon…

Israel’s “main squeeze” and “principal puppet” - America - won’t allow the UN to solve the Palestinian problem because the UN would want to use such annoying principles such justice and impartiality instead of intimidation, imprisonment, punishment, retribution and conditioning - which is how Israel desires to “solve” the problem there…
——————————————————————————
Aretologist,

The genuine anti-Semitism that I hear in these words lies in the idea that somehow Israel invented realpolitik, as if every other nation state did not engage in it as well in their own right, especially including the most powerful country in the world, the United States. As if Israel were the fundamental cause of the corruption we do indeed see everywhere. As if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. etc. were not war profiteers that have their own corrupt and anti-democratic agendas, for which they are glad to use Israel as their most convenient excuse. As if they were not the ones who really control the mainstream media. As if they were not the primary beneficiaries of Zionism’s endless wars. Imperialist forces have backed Zionism from the beginning, or it would never have been anything but a crackpot 19th century idea that nobody ever heard of.

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

We are unfortunately stil dependant on oil from the Mid-east, no matter what percentage we get from Venezuala.

Unfortuantely, also, Saudi Arabia is really in conflict with vital U.S. interests. Bush administration officials admit privately that of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month to fight U.S. and coalition forces, roughly half come from Saudi Arabia. In August 2003, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage admitted that funds from private Saudi charities were funding insurgents in Iraq. Senior officials hint that such connections continue to this day. There is a striking irony in the way that Walt and Mearsheimer complain about the influence of pro-Israel groups in Washington, and yet both academics were prepared to appear at the National Press Club in August 2006, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that has received financial support from Saudi and other foreign benefactors abroad and lobbies on behalf of various Middle Eastern causes throughout the United States.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

ONE MORE…FOR THE RECORD ON PEACE, NEGOTIATION…FACTS, TRUTH FROM A SCHOLAR/HISTORIAN.

WHO MADE THE CONCESSIONS AND GUESS WHO WALKED OUT AND LEFT THE NEGOTIATIONS? JUST READ THE TRUTH BELOW…HMMM!

“NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I don’t want to get now into the interminable question of what 242 meant. I will simply state the International Court of Justice in July 2004 ruled on that question. It stated Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, including Jerusalem. To my mind, it’s no longer a matter of dispute, however you want to interpret 242.

Let’s now turn to, just quickly, the last issue. It’s going to be hard for a lot of your listeners, because even though I have read two dozen books on the topic, I keep getting things confused. Camp David accord talks are in July 2000. Clinton parameters are roughly December 23rd, 2000. Taba, in January 2001. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami says Camp David, I can understand why the Palestinians turned down. Unfortunately, in his book he keeps referring to Arafat’s unyielding positions, even though now he acknowledges Palestinians made concessions at Camp David. In fact, as I said, all the concessions, within the framework of international law, came from the Palestinians.

Let’s now turn to those Clinton parameters. Dr. Ben-Ami accurately renders their content. I don’t think he accurately renders in the book what happened. He states in the book that at Taba, Israelis accept — excuse me, at the time of the Clinton parameters, the Israelis accepted the Clinton parameters. Arafat didn’t really accept the Clinton parameters. He said he did, but he didn’t. What actually happened? What actually happened was exactly as what was announced by the White House spokesman on January 3rd, 2001, the official statement was both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Clinton parameters with some reservations. Both sides entered reservations on the Clinton parameters. Dr. Ben-Ami leaves out in the book both sides. He only mentions the reservations by the Palestinians.

Number two, I was surprised to notice one of the books Dr. Ben-Ami recommends is the book by Clayton Swisher called The Truth at Camp David. I looked in the book. On page 402 of Clayton Swisher’s book, when he’s discussing the issue of entering reservations to Clinton’s parameters, he quotes none other than Shlomo Ben-Ami. You acknowledged — you call them relatively minor, but you acknowledged that Barak entered — you called it several pages of reservations. In fact, Barak sent a ten-page letter of reservations to the Clinton parameters. It was exactly symmetrical. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians agreed to the Clinton parameters with some reservations.

Wait, one last point. One last point. Dr. Ben-Ami left out another crucial point in his account. He doesn’t tell us why Taba ended. It ended officially when Barak withdrew his negotiators. It wasn’t the Palestinians who walked out of Taba. It ended with the Israelis walking out of Taba, a matter of historical record, not even controversial.”

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

PEACE NEGOTIATION…FACTS, TRUTH FROM A SCHOLAR/HISTORIAN!

“NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I want to put aside for a moment the question of Hamas and just return to the previous point, namely, the relevance or not of international law. It’s not an abstract question, and it’s not a question fortunately only to be left to lawyers. It’s a question which bears on the last third of Dr. Ben-Ami’s book, namely, who is responsible for the collapse of or the impasse in the negotiations at Camp David and Taba? Whereas, in my view, when Dr. Ben-Ami wears his historian’s hat, he gets everything right; when he puts on the diplomat’s hat, he starts getting things, in my opinion, wrong, and it’s that last third of the book where I think things go seriously awry.

Now, I can’t look into Mr. Arafat’s heart, and I don’t know what he did or didn’t believe, and frankly I have no interest in it. My concern is let’s look at the diplomatic record, the factual record. What were the offers being made on each side of the Camp David and in the Taba talks? And the standard interpretation, which comes — which is — you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat’s unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% — 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, “occupied Palestinian territories.” Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.”
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT)

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

(PART I)

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS…FACTS, TRUTH FROM A SCHOLAR/HISTORIAN

“Norman Finkelstein:  Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now — they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact — I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.”

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 4, 2007 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

#111563 by Howard on 11/04 at 6:18 am
(154 comments total)

“The results of those efforts have America still overly dependent on Middle Eastern oil with few energy alternatives.”
=============================

Hey Howard…Can you tell us how much oil does the USA import(in percent) from the Middle-East? Give us the percentages(%)as compared to imports from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela…etc…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 4, 2007 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/03 at 8:11 pm
(445 comments total)

re: #111426 by Inherit The Wind on 11/03 at 10:18 am:

Actually, ITW, I have to conclude that you are simply not very bright. Just for the record, since you need it spelled out: I have absolutely no objections to homosexuality whatsoever. And I favor full marriage rights for gay people. All discrimination against gay people in housing and employment should be illegal.

If that surprises you, then you’re just not very perceptive. In case you haven’t figured it out, ITW, I am (unlike you) a consistent liberal, which is why I am not enamored of your little pet nation, the militarist, expansionist, racist quasi-theocracy known as Israel. I happen to subscribe to the rather radical, liberal notion that Jews are not better than people.

****************

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how absurdly you formulate it.

I go further than you: What consenting gay adults do is NOBODY’S business.  Marriage, divorce, adoption, surrogate, etc, equal employment benefits—I’m all for it.

But your total hatred for Israel and adoration for a society that is rapidly going more and more the Taliban route is your problem.

Unlike you, I’d like to see a Palestinian nation side by side with Israel, at peace with each other, trading to the benefit of both.  Yet even when Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia told Arafat to take the SWEETEST deal Israel ever offered or will offer, Arafat said “no”, preferring war, chaos and terrorism to peace.

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Its overblown with poor reseach this book by Mersheimer and Walt. Poor scholarship and trite innuendos througout the book. Lousy job of bashing Israel.

How about the Saudi lobby?

Saudi Arabia trie always to tilt U.S. policy using a vast array of powerful PR firms, former diplomats, and well-connected officials. The results of those efforts have America still overly dependent on Middle Eastern oil with few energy alternatives. Given the ultimate destination of those petrodollars in recent years (the global propagation of Islamic extremism and terrorism), a serious investigation of those lobbying efforts appears to be far more appropriate than focusing on relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Report this

By Howard, November 4, 2007 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Contrary to the assertions of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer , and some pundits on this site, who claim that no compelling strategic argument can explain American support for Israel, which they argue has been promoted by “the unmatched power of the Israel lobby,” the two countries have, in fact, developed strong strategic ties over the years that have evolved into a unique alliance.  Spell that many, many years.

Presently, U.S.-Israeli defense ties have grown even tighter. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 15, 2007, USEUCOM commander General Bantz J. Craddock stated that Israel was America’s “closest ally” in the Middle East and that it “consistently and directly” supported U.S. interests. This professional evaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship flies in the face of Walt and Mearsheimer’s assertion that Israel is a “strategic burden” that does not serve the American national interest.

Detractors of the U.S.-Israel relationship like to insinuate that Israel seeks to get America to fight its wars for it. The truth is completely the opposite: while U.S. forces have been stationed on the soil of Germany, South Korea, and Japan to provide for the defense of those countries in the event of an attack, Israel has always insisted on defending itself by itself. If Israel today seeks “defensible borders,” this is because it wants to deploy the Israel Defense Forces and not the U.S. Army in the strategically sensitive Jordan Valley.

Report this

By Aretologist, November 3, 2007 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment


America’s politicians all sing out of the same “hymn book.” The hymn book given to them by AIPAC - the hymn book exalted by America’s mass media (Israel’s PR agent’s here in the U.S.)

A shortage of character and the absence of intelligence - two of the primary attributes of America’s politicians - enabled AIPAC and Israel to gain control of America. “We (Israel) own America - and America knows it,” bragged the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon.

We’ve created the mess in the Middle East by being subservient to Israel - allowing AIPAC to coerce our government into subsidizing Israel’s unethical and immoral “wars” there. And then preventing the U.N. from arbitrating for an honest moral peace.

We’ve helped create the terrorist problem by allowing Israel’s PR agent here in America - our mass media - to inculcate and condition us into supporting Israel 100% and not seeing the problem there with objective impartiality.

America can’t solve any problem in the Middle East using justice because “justice” equals “ethics” and “morals.”

How can we solve the terrorist problem when we can’t solve Israel’s - AIPAC’s - immoral and unethical control of America. Perhaps if we solved the second problem we could use morals and ethics and solve the terrorist problem. Perhaps if Israel was a moral and ethical nation there would be no terrorist problem worldwide. Anyone at the Institute of Advanced Study ever think about that?

A couple hundred years ago our problem was with them “no good dirty Indians.”

After America’s “immigrants” finally eliminated their indigenous Indian problem - our problem today is “over there in the Middle East - with those “no good stinking Arabs”.

Why do we have a problem with the Arab and Muslim people?

Because they don’t appreciate what Israel - with our 100% support - has done and is doing to the
Palestinian people. Because they don’t cherish Israel like we do.

The Palestinians are as “guilty” as America’s indigenous Indians were. Guilty of living in a land and of fighting back to defemd their land and try to stop it from being stolen by Jewish “immigrants.”

The Palestinians are only “guilty” of migrating into a land that had been vacated by the Jews hundreds of years earlier -  after the Roman’s ordered the Jews out - sending them into Europe and Russia - and then not turning the land back to the Jews who wanted all of their land back - 2,000 years later.

Israel’s “main squeeze” and “principal puppet” - America -  won’t allow the UN to solve the Palestinian problem because the UN would want to use such annoying principles such justice and impartiality instead of intimidation, imprisonment, punishment, retribution and conditioning - which is how Israel desires to “solve” the problem there.

We won’t allow the UN to solve the problem because the UN wants to use unpleasant ideals such justice and fairness - and that wouldn’t be “good for Israel.”

Has anyone noticed how annoying the words “justice”  “right versus wrong”, “ethical and moral” have become in the current administration?  And how much our government today compares to a skid row moral “flophouse” and in this respect resembles the cruel and ruthless government of Israel’s?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 3, 2007 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

#111488 by Non Credo on 11/03 at 8:22 pm
(444 comments total)

#111434 by PatrickHenry on 11/03 at 11:13 am
(274 comments total)

“Howard,

“My hat is off to you, unlike many of the pro-Israel posters who frequent this site, you don’t insult ...”
———————-

Oh yes Howard does insult people, Pat.

To pretend to rebut posts critical of Israel by thoughtlessly spamming us with bloated blobs of cut and pasted verbiage which fails to address the point is deeply insulting to those of us who do give our posts the proper time, effort, and good faith.

Howard’s robotic ejaculations of hasbara are just his passive-aggressive way of saying “f#$% you”.
—————————————————————————
NC,PH -

It is annoying the way Howard hardly seems to pay any attention to what other people post and just goes on with the official Israel lobby line like some kind of commercial. But I will say he is not abusive and has not engaged in personal insult. Who knows, maybe we can de-program him. Don’t forget, Americans have been brainwashed with this stuff for decades, and Jewish Americans have been brainwashed worse than the rest of us.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 3, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

Re #111384 by Howard on 11/03 at 7:07 am
(151 comments total)

“A good case can be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget, rather than of the aid budget because Israel is, next only perhaps to Britain, by far the most important ally of the United States. Virtually without exception, Israel’s government and its people agree with and support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the United Nations, Israel’s votes coincide with those of the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, virtually all of them recipients of American largess, almost reflexively vote against the United States in most instances.”
——————————————————————————
Howard,

Yes, Israel is a “staunch ally” of the fascist warmongering crooks currently running this country. Wonderful. For those of us who are trying to restore democracy and peace, not wonderful.

Report this

By Howard, November 3, 2007 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

RE:  #111434 by PatrickHenry on 11/03 at 11:13 am

Howard,
My hat is off to you, unlike many of the pro-Israel posters who frequent this site, you don’t insult or attempt to demean others viewpoints by wild ass accusations.
Your post #111429, which is a repost, while clearly embellishing Israel’s role in American adventurism, misses the mark that an ever growing majority of Americans are tired of it. Our federal government is wastefully spending tax dollars “over there” while many essential problems remain here at home requiring our states to raise local taxes.
================================================
Patrick,
  Thanks much for the kind words…..and me hat is off to you for the same reason, also.  Nothing is gained as you know by any of us if use castigating and harmful words etc, on each other.  Tough as it is to write and think properly under even under the best conditions !

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 3, 2007 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Howard,

My hat is off to you, unlike many of the pro-Israel posters who frequent this site, you don’t insult or attempt to demean others viewpoints by wild ass accusations.

Your post #111429, which is a repost, while clearly embellishing Israel’s role in American adventurism, misses the mark that an ever growing majority of Americans are tired of it.  Our federal government is wastefully spending tax dollars “over there” while many essential problems remain here at home requiring our states to raise local taxes.

Report this

By Howard, November 3, 2007 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Israel is the major strategic asset of the United States in an area of the world that is the cradle of Islamo-fascism, which is dominated by tyrants and permeated by religious obscurantism and shows almost total disregard for human rights. During the decades-long Cold War, Israel was America’s indispensable rampart against the inroads of the Soviet Union. It is now the bulwark against the aggressive intentions of Iran. During Desert Storm, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi deserts to pick up downed American pilots.

Gen. George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, stated publicly that “Israel is worth five CIAs,” with regard to intelligence passed to our country. He also stated that the yearly $1.8 billion that Israel received in military assistance was worth $50 to $60 billion in intelligence, R&D;savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon. In contrast to our commitments in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other parts, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and infrastructure — is estimated to be about $200,000, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 3, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/03 at 8:19 am
(442 comments total)

re: #111353 by Howard on 11/03 at 3:09 am:

Gee, little Howie, you sure do love to brag about how smart the Jews are.

So what happened to you?

Do you feel like a gay man with no fashion sense?

******************

I guess you are bothered by gay men as well.  Why? What business is it of yours who they have sex with, as long as they are consenting adults.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 3, 2007 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel

By Richard H. Curtiss

“For many years the American media said that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid” or that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid.” Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That’s true. But it’s still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America’s foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it’s been going on for more than a generation.

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel’s Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don’t.

The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.

Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel’s 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.

The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.”


http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm#Lies

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 3, 2007 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know

by Tom Malthaner

“This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.

Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel’s foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.”

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm#Lies

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 3, 2007 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

It’s easy to see why they are our staunchist ally, we bribe them.  I’m, sure of their appreciation by the way they tip our legislators.

Its exactly that symbiotic relationship between Israel and the defence industry (imperialists) which has to end and the only way I know to do it is remove the taxpayers money from the equation.

I’ll bet the idea of a Ron Paul presidency scares the hell out of them.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 3, 2007 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Monday, October 29th, 2007

University of Michigan Press to Continue Publishing Joel Kovel’s “Overcoming Zionism” After Initially Dropping Book Due to Rightwing Criticism


“Last week the University of Michigan Press voted unanimously to continue distributing books from the London-based independent publishing house Pluto Press. The controversy began earlier this summer when the university press initially decided to stop distributing Joel Kovel’s “Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine.” [includes rush transcript] We turn now to an important victory in the battle for free speech here in the United States. Last week the University of Michigan Press voted unanimously to continue distributing books from the London-based independent publishing house Pluto Press. The controversy began earlier this summer when the university press decided to stop distributing a new book by author and activist Joel Kovel published by Pluto Press. It’s called “Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine.”

The press dropped Kovel’s book in August after receiving a series of threatening emails from a rightwing pro-Israel group called Stand With Us. But faced with a growing campaign led by fellow academics and civil libertarians, the board overturned its earlier decision regarding distribution of Kovel’s book. Last week’s key decision to continue ties with Pluto Press came in the midst of a series of events organized around what rightwing groups called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.”

Joel Kovel is an antiwar activist and former Green Party candidate for Senate. He is the author of over ten books. “Overcoming Zionism” is his most recent book. He joins me now in the firehouse studio in New York.

  * Joel Kovel, activist and author of over ten books. His latest book was temporarily dropped by University of Michigan after an initial controversy. It’s called “Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine.”
—————

Click on link to read transcript or watch the interview with Amy Goodman:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/141215&mode=thread&tid=25

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 3, 2007 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

THE LOBBY FAILS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE THE TRUTH ABOUT ISRAEL


Joel Kovel, author of Overcoming Zionism, said, “What we don’t have is any kind of real debate on this subject in our country at this time ... basically these Zionist repression groups have had pretty much a free hand ... that’s why I wrote the book. I mean, I wanted to—I disregarded all the taboos, that you’re not supposed to talk about Israel in any depth in this country.”

The video is presented below…

http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/11/lobby-fails-in-attempt-to-silence-truth.html

Report this

By Howard, November 3, 2007 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

RE:#111377 by PatrickHenry on 11/03 at 6:35 am
(260 comments total)
#111353 by Howard
Quite impressive credentials for a small country of 5-6 million. Norway, a country of 4 million recieves no aid from the U.S.
=================================
=============================


Israel is indeed a major recipient of U.S. aid. Israel receives yearly $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, a substantial portion of our yearly aid budget. Almost all of the military aid is spent in the United States, making Israel one of the major customers of the U.S. defense industry. Virtually all of the economic assistance goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years.
America’s staunchest ally. A good case can be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget, rather than of the aid budget because Israel is, next only perhaps to Britain, by far the most important ally of the United States. Virtually without exception, Israel’s government and its people agree with and support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the United Nations, Israel’s votes coincide with those of the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, virtually all of them recipients of American largess, almost reflexively vote against the United States in most instances.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 3, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

#111353 by Howard

Quite impressive credentials for a small country of 5-6 million.  Norway, a country of 4 million recieves no aid from the U.S.

As Howard put it:

“9. Israel’s $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.”

Its serves my point of cutting all economic and defense “aid” as those monies are best spent here in the U.S. or for truely needy countries.

The lobby issues with AIPAC are inextricably linked with campaign finance reform and antitrust action against media monopolies (print, TV and radio), these are both issues congress fails to address as the status quo ensures their continual reelection.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 3, 2007 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/03 at 1:45 am
(438 comments total)

#111304 by Inherit The Wind on 11/02 at 5:57 pm:

ITW: more demonstration of your bad character, I’m afraid. You simply refuse to understand what you you wish not to understand.

*****************

It’s a character flaw.  I wish I could be perfect like you.

Meanwhile, I’m taking pills for it, AND getting regular injections from my doctor.  I hope to be cured in 30 or 40 years.

And be just like you.

Report this

By Howard, November 3, 2007 at 4:09 am Link to this comment

RE: #111334 by Aretologist on 11/03 at 12:00 am

“Many Israelis know that they own America and that Jews represent only 2% of America’s population.
They know that the executive branch and most of Congress act like Israel’s pet dog, enjoy getting a pet on the head whenever they do something “good for the Jews.”
==========================================
===========================

What stunning info you have given us…....man alive.  Now we know who to blame, huh ?  With someone to blame, perhaps we better leave little Israel alone.  You know , like we used to blame a brother or sister when we were kids.
Also look what the dickens they’ve done !

1. The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

2. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel

3. The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel.

4. The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

5. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

6. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D;facilities outside the US in Israel

7. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

8. According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry’s most impenetrable flight security. US officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

9. Israel’s $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined

10. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita

11. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world

Report this

By Aretologist, November 3, 2007 at 1:00 am Link to this comment

“We own America - and America knows it.” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

Sharon asserted this fact because he knew from his own personal dealings with many American officials ( from America’s Presidents down) that they were all cognizant enough to realize that Israel owned America and that all of America accepted and embraced the fact.

All of the intellectuals at the Institutes of Advanced Studies, all the Think Tanks,  99% of the professors at all of America’s universities - all accept and embrace the fact too and don’t find it aberrant.

If all of the intellectuals at the Institute of Advanced Study and most professors at America’s prestigious universities are not aware of it then they are not really conscious (of reality).

But how can you be an intellectual - a professor and not be conscious of reality?

Maybe they and all of America have been conditioned to think and to be conscious of only a corrupted reality.

I think America’s intellectuals are aware of uncorrupted reality and the aberrant fact that Israel owns America but are too scared - too “owned” and too gutless to speak out about it.

“Whoever criticizes Israel can expect painful and incessant reprisals and even the loss of his means of existence by the pressure of the Israeli lobby in Washington.” Ex-Congressman Paul Findley, 1993

And this is why many Israelis - amongst themselves - disparage and ridicule the gentiles in America.

Many Israelis know that they own America and that Jews represent only 2% of America’s population.

They know that the executive branch and most of Congress act like Israel’s pet dog, enjoy getting a pet on the head whenever they do something “good for the Jews.”

So we - America - cause them to laugh and ridicule us (among themselves).

Many in Israel also know that they also “own” or “control” most of the Western world. And the East. Either through their control of America or by their own efforts - using the same means and methods they used in all the other countries they “own” that they used here to master us.

Everyone in America ignores the obvious - that Israel owns America - because being too cognizant of this fact creates a very high level of consonant dissonance - feelings of shame embarrassment
humiliation.

So to avoid feeling humiliated - everyone in Washington and everyone at the Institute of Advanced Studies and the vast majority of our university professors - dodge this aspect of reality even though the reality that Israel owns America is quite aberrant.

Isn’t that what their responsibility is - to discover the mysteries of and the mysteries in the universe?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment

Re #111320 by Lefty on 11/02 at 9:02 pm

This is such out-and-out racism.  Nazis talk exactly the same way about “the Jew”. Lefty, you are sick and you are a hate peddler.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment

Re #111320 by Lefty on 11/02 at 9:02 pm

Lefty, you’re too much! So this out-and-out Islamophobia you are pushing is recommended by General George S. Patton? He’s your authority on this subject? You keep his picture on the wall of your padded cell, is that it?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Re #111197 by Leefeller on 11/02 at 8:55 am
(471 comments total)

“Some how I believe the above has a better chance of being real then BS I read spewed on this bashing and bickering post.

Bigots, point those fingers, let the moles guide you, put the blame on anyone but the people in office. Deception making sure you are fed anything but the truth, continue pursing ignorance, buy into it, hook line and sinker.”
—————————————————————————-
Jeez, Leefeller, I thought we were having a civilized discussion. Your coming in to this thread without understanding very well what is being said and calling it all “bickering and bashing” makes you the biggest bickerer and basher currently posting here. However, I agree with what I take to be your main point. Our Nazis like the German ones work by misdirecting people’s attention, creating an artificial enemy, whether that be Islam or Jews. “We have met the enemy and he is us”.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 2, 2007 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/02 at 12:36 pm
(437 comments total)

re: #111175 by Inherit The Wind on 11/02 at 8:04 am:

ITW;

I wish there were some reason for me to muster more “grace”, as you put it, in response to your slight softening in attitude towards me. But I just can’t. There are several good reasons for this, but I don’t want to write an overly long post, so I’ll pick one and explain.

At one point you asserted that you “knew for a fact” that I was getting my information from neo-Nazi websites. You didn’t say that you believed I “probably” was doing this - you said that you knew it.

Now, other people who read that may not be sure whether you were being truthful, but I do know that you were not being truthful. Furthermore, I can’t imagine how it could possibly have been an honest mistake on your part. I can only conclude that you were deliberately lying in order to smear me. This alone makes it impossible for me to have any real respect for you - unless perhaps if you were to admit having done this, apologize, and then demonstrate a reformed and more honest approach to our discussions.

Forgive me for treating you like an intelligent human being capable of reasoning and giving you a modicum of respect.

If you prefer, I’ll stop.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Re #111207 by Robert on 11/02 at 9:26 am
(519 comments total)

War Drums
By Charley Reese
6-17-7

The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd.
——————————————————————————
Robert,

I agree with this article 95%, yet I would like to point out the over-emphasis on Israel in this first sentence. I would agree with it completely if one word were changed: “The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-war crowd.” Senator Lieberman’s Zionism does indeed make him pro-war; absent Zionism, he would be a normal liberal corporate Democrat something like, say, Joe Biden, and would be against the war as much as they are. Everybody knows it’s his Zionism that makes him vote with Republicans on the war. 

Lieberman is certainly leading the charge to war with Iran, and Bush, Cheney, oil companies, defense contractors and the whole right-wing fascist end of the corporate political spectrum is glad to let him do it. Clinton and the other Democrats (except designated gadflies Kucinich and Gravel) represent the progressive end of that spectrum. Right now the best hope against war with Iran is that this progressive end of the corporate spectrum opposes it as being against their interests. If that is so they will not let Lieberman and the Zionists lead them by the nose into war.

Let me say this before ITW does: rense.com is an interesting site, but there is no doubt that large numbers of tinfoil-hat Neo-Nazis post there.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Re #111175 by Inherit The Wind on 11/02 at 8:04 am
(20 comments total)

Robert-abu:  Check with Aryan-tologist—I think your brown shirts and swastikas are back from the dry cleaners.

Not Credible at least isn’t a nazi like you two.  I may think little of him, but not as little as I think of you two, and your insane buddies.

FYI: Nobody I know doubts that the NEO-CONS (not Jews, not Israelis, but NEO-CONS) wanted any excuse to invade Iraq. Not even Lefty or LilMamzer.  That’s a straw man.

Where your argument turns to fantasy is that you see them all as zombies or marionettes for Israel, not their own cold, deviant, form of evil.
——————————————————————————
ITW,

I agree with you that Israel has been more than anything else a pretext for U.S. hegemonists (whether Jewish or not) to justify the Iraq war - not the reason for the war itself. Today they use Jews to justify their war, and tomorrow they will blame Jews for having gotten us into it.

I don’t think you should call Robert a “Nazi”. As I understand him, Robert is really deeply concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, and is against the Zionist state of Israel for that reason. He is against U.S. government policies which support Zionism. I agree with him 100% about both of these things. I only think he overestimates the influence of Zionism on U.S. foreign policy and underestimates U.S. imperialism as the major force involved, which makes his position similar to that of M & W. With Robert, my impression is that this mistake does not come from any malevolence toward Jews or any affection for imperialism but is rather a political misjudgement which it is easy to make and hard to avoid. I think we can bring him around. It is up to progressive Jews, such as I deem you to be, to make clear to people like Robert where you stand on Israel, Zionism and Palestinian human rights.  He spends all his time attacking Zionism, and you spend all your time attacking anti-Semitism. Let’s have our own peace conference. Don’t we all want peace?  How about looking for some mutual understanding and good will?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 2, 2007 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

November 2, 2007

True Torah Jews’ Statement on Jerusalem

In anticipation of the American-sponsored peace conference next month between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, certain Modern Orthodox Jewish groups, including the Orthodox Union, the National Conference of Young Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America, have joined forces to protest against any potential Israeli concessions on Jerusalem. They “respectfully remind the American sponsors that Jerusalem is not merely a piece of territory. Since Biblical times Jerusalem has been and remains central to Jewish faith and practice.” Rabbi Pesach Lerner of Young Israel stated that “world Jewry opposes Israeli negotiations which would include any discussion of ceding sovereignty over part or all of Jerusalem.”

This militant Zionist position does unfortunately represent Modern Orthodoxy, a movement that is characterized by Jews bending Jewish law to fit their modern agenda. However, it is inaccurate to say that it represents world Jewry. World Jewry includes hundreds of thousands of more traditionally Orthodox Jews who do not see any inherent value in Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem or any other place. Most of these Jews, in fact, see the Zionist occupation of the Holy Land as a terrible sin and a misfortune.

Rabbi Hersh Lowenthal, spokesman for True Torah Jews, explained the traditional Jewish position. “Jews recite in their prayers, ‘Because of our sins we were exiled from our land, and we are unable to ascend, appear and bow before You in the Temple.’ We affirm that the exile was a Divine decree, and that during exile we have no right to sovereignty over the ancient Jewish holy sites. The Talmud (Kesubos 111a) forbids Jews to wage wars or take over the Holy Land; we must only wait for the Messianic era, when G-d will bring peace to all humanity. These principles, which were once clear to all Jews, have apparently been forgotten by the Modern Orthodox movement.”

Torah Jews praise the efforts of President Bush and his administration to bring about peace in the Middle East. The Torah teaches that Jews must maintain a peaceful relationship with all nations among whom they live. To use the Jewish religion as a reason to oppose peace is nothing less than a falsification of Judaism.

We continue to pray for the safety and security of all Jews and non-Jews in the Holy Land.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 2, 2007 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

War Drums
By Charley Reese
6-17-7

The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd. Lieberman seems to be under the impression that the U.S. can bomb Iran and not get into a full-fledged war.

Well, we know all about cakewalks and how they turn into long, bloody and dreary marches. We learned nothing from Vietnam, and apparently some of the people have learned nothing from Iraq, now a cakewalk war that has lasted longer than World War II, though not with the same intensity and mass.

If the senator, who seems to be one of those who loves war as long as he doesn’t have to fight it, really believes that we can attack Iran without Iranian retaliation, then he’s naïve. If he knows better, he’s a liar, and to lie the American people into a second war before the other lied-into war in Iraq is even over is despicable. He should be shunned by all decent people.

I don’t see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors. Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years. Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence ­ I repeat, no evidence ­ to the contrary. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly authorizes countries to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran has not done anything illegal.

Iran has no intercontinental missiles, and the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is Israel. Please note that the United States flatly refuses to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it. Iran admits international inspectors. Israel flatly refuses to allow international inspectors. The only country in today’s Middle East with weapons of mass destruction and a history of invading and occupying other people’s countries is Israel.

As for Iran’s alleged threat to “wipe Israel off the map,” that is propaganda based on a mistranslation. Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily. The accurate quotes from Iranians have been simply that Israel as a Zionist state will eventually collapse, just as the Soviet Union as a communist state did. Iranian officials have even explicitly said they have no desire or intention of attacking Israel.

You should ask yourself, What is the real motive of people who deal in lies? What is the real agenda of people who wish to paint Iran as a threat to the world? (Remember what a threat they said Iraq was?) Why, if the United States is really concerned about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has it steadfastly refused to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East ­ something Iran and the Arab countries have proposed time and again?

Finally, of course, there is the matter of deterrence. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union’s 30,000 nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Anybody who says Iran would not be deterred from using a handful of nuclear weapons ­ assuming it even developed them ­ is a fool or a liar.

Furthermore, Iran would gain nothing by attacking Israel, the U.S. or Europe. Americans might disagree with how Iranians choose to run their country, but that doesn’t mean that Iran’s leaders are insane. They are, in fact, intelligent and well-educated.

As for the United States’ latest claim that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, I simply don’t believe it. The U.S. government has lied and lied to the American people. It has zero credibility. Iran is a Shiite country; the Taliban are a fanatical Sunni sect. Iran volunteered its assistance during the initial American attack on Afghanistan. Why would Iran suddenly change its mind?

http://www.rense.com/general77/wardrums.htm

Report this

By Howard, November 2, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

RE: #111170 by Robert on 11/02 at 7:46 am
======================
===================

ALLRIGHT .

thanks for printing that nice letter.
More power to ‘em.
good bunch of Americans !!!

Report this

By Howard, November 2, 2007 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

ALLRIGHT .

thanks for printing that nice letter.
More power to ‘em.
  good bunch of Americans !!!

Report this

By ender, November 2, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The power of the Israeli lobby makes more sense viewed in the modern historical context of the region. The state of Israel was created at the behest and under the direction of Western powers that were well aware of the power that billions of barrels of the most readily available oil on the planet could bestow on whomever controlled it.  Israel was partitioned in a way that insured that a zionist minority in Israel would never comply with the UN charter that created the boundaries.  This minority are allowed undue influence in Israeli policy, because they hold the key to the Billions in American aid.  Israel is the largest single recipient of American aid, an amount that would easily cover the small increase in SCHIP required to keep insurance of American children from losing ground.

The land grabs and terrorism inflicted on Palestinians, keeps the entire middle east in such a turmoil, that the populations can be kept in a chaotic and frendzied state.  This administration uses these same tactics to instill fear and confusion on Americans so they can continue with the business of enforcing American energy policy without interferrence, or even recongition. 

So instead of having to deal with a Venzuela, where literacy is on the rise and the standard of living improves daily, we have been able to deal with despots like Saddam, Syria’s Husein, Kyhdaffi and the Saudi Royalty.

It is much more cost effective to make a few people rich than to let a real majority of profits flow to a whole nation of people.

Israel is our tool, just as much as they work us.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 2, 2007 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

Inside neocon world, so complex.

Boss thinking hard, “Let’s see,  if we invade Iraq we can make it look like we are supporting Israel, maybe even giving the illusion that they have undue influence and came up with the idea.”

Puppet, not thinking hard “What is illusion? Oh, Much more influence than all the other lobbies put together?”
Boss off the cuff, “Of course, the bigots will eat it up.”

Puppet, still not able to think, Bigots? “Didn’t we do that with the Religious Right?”

Boss getting pissed now “We got them busy bashing other minorities and each other”

Boss, in his we have been over this before tone,  “Just need to keep the focus away from us.” 

Puppet, admiringly, “Letting in the Mexican trucks was a good one.”

Boss, chuckling,  “I pat myself on the back for that one.”

Puppet, questionably “What is the next thing we want to take out of the Constitution?”

Boss, down to business, thinking “I don’t know,  let’s get the old dart board out.”

Some how I believe the above has a better chance of being real then BS I read spewed on this bashing and bickering post.

Bigots, point those fingers, let the moles guide you,  put the blame on anyone but the people in office. Deception making sure you are fed anything but the truth, continue pursing ignorance,  buy into it,  hook line and sinker.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 2, 2007 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Prominent US Jews, Israel
Blamed For Start Of Iraq War

By Nathan Guttman
Haaretz Correspondent

“WASHINGTON - As the argument in the United States over the necessity of the war in Iraq and the manner in which it was waged intensifies, and as the presidential election date draws nearer, those who have tried to accuse Israel or the U.S. Jews of pushing the administration into battle are once again sounding their voices.

In the American Jewish community, they warn it could get worse.

The most blatant example in recent weeks was an article written by veteran Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (Dem.-South Carolina), who charged in an article published in a Charleston newspaper at the beginning of the month that behind the decision to go to war was “President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

In his article, Hollings mentions the names of three prominent Jews, from the neoconservative stream in the administration, as those responsible for pushing for the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Two weeks later, Hollings stepped up to the podium in the Senate and delivered an emotional address in which he defended his statements, attacking the Jewish establishment and repeating the main thrust of his claims.

Hollings has been the most outspoken U.S. official against the alleged Israeli-Jewish connection to the war; but a week ago, the issue was also picked up by retired general Anthony Zinni, a well-known and esteemed figure from the center of the American political spectrum.

In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Zinni, who, with Tom Clancy, is about to publish a book in which he harshly criticizes the war and Bush’s team, said there were a number of neoconservatives who had promoted the idea of the war in Iraq with the purpose, among others, of “strengthening the position of Israel.”

Zinni mentioned the names of five representatives of the neoconservative stream - all of them Jewish. He did say, however, that the religious or ethnic affiliations of the members of the administration were of no bearing on the matter.

Despite the significant difference between the statements of Zinni and those of Hollings, certain members of the U.S. Jewish community are beginning to feel a little uncomfortable.

“The fact is that this claim is out there,” says the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, on the charge that the Jews and supporters of Israel were the ones who pushed the U.S. into the war. “We were pointed out at the beginning, and it’s easier to blame us when things go bad,” he adds.

The claims about the Jewish-Israeli link to the war were raised even before they were voiced by extreme right-wing spokespersons such as Pat Buchanan and Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, who found himself having to apologize for saying that without the Jewish community’s strong support, the U.S. would not have gone to war in Iraq.

Foxman says the charges are being voiced anew because the argument over the war is heating up. “We knew that if things went wrong, they will look for someone to blame,” he says. “The more protest, the more politicizing of the issue, people will be sloppier and will not be careful in what they say.”

But the link between Israel and the war in Iraq espoused by Hollings is not the only one. More voices are making the connection from a different direction, charging that the only solution to the embroilment in Iraq is a more intensive approach toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last week, in an article by Nicolas Kristof in the New York Times, Zinni was reported to have said that he had been surprised to hear from members of the administration that the advantage of the war in Iraq is that “the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad.”

http://www.rense.com/general53/strt.htm

===========
ITZW…great previous post! Just what I’ve been describing. Keep them coming…ITZW/lilmamzer!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 2, 2007 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Robert-abu:  Check with Aryan-tologist—I think your brown shirts and swastikas are back from the dry cleaners.

Not Credible at least isn’t a nazi like you two.  I may think little of him, but not as little as I think of you two, and your insane buddies.

FYI: Nobody I know doubts that the NEO-CONS (not Jews, not Israelis, but NEO-CONS) wanted any excuse to invade Iraq. Not even Lefty or LilMamzer.  That’s a straw man.

Where your argument turns to fantasy is that you see them all as zombies or marionettes for Israel, not their own cold, deviant, form of evil.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 2, 2007 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

#110982 by Tony Wicher on 11/01 at 1:32 pm:

“Tony, the “Sharon tried to stop the war” myth is utterly ridiculous baloney. I can’t believe you feel for it. Sharon’s objection to the Iraq war plan amounted to a quibble.

Specifically, this was a minor intra-Israel-lobby disagreement as to strategy and timing. The US neocons, who were so closely tied to Sharon’s government that they were virtually part of it, wanted to do Iraq BEFORE Iran. Sharon - just at first - was a little skeptical, because HE WANTED THE US TO “DO” IRAN FIRST. The neocons insisted that the Iraq war was a necessary preliminary to the war against Iran, and then Sharon was fully on board. The record of his enthusiastic backing for the war is voluminous.”
++++++++++++++++

“On Sept. 20, 2001, nine days after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Perle wrote:

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism.

...Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism, and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq.

...Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in our fight against terrorism.”

Six months later, on April 3, 2002, Mr. Perle and most of the same group wrote the president again:

We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism…In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism…we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence…

Mr. President, it can no longer be the policy of the United States to urge, much less to pressure, Israel to continue negotiation with Arafat…”

Sincerely,

William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Gary Bauer, Jeffrey Bell, William J. Bennett, Ellen Bork, Linda Chavez, Elliot Cohen, Midge Decter, Thomas Donnelly, Nicholas Eberstadt, Hiflel Fradkin, Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey Gedmin, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Charles Hill, Bruce P. Jackson, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, John Lehman, Tod Lindberg, Rich Lowry, Clifford May, Joshua Muravohik, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen P. Rosen, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, William Schneider, Jr., Marshall Wittmann, R. James Woolsey”

===================
NC…as you well know, the fanatic zionists, ITZW/lilmamzer, Howard, Lefty-Ephraim and others…are purely for Israel and its zionist ideology. Their aim has been and will continue to be…keep trying to sidetrack the issues, plant doubt, deceptions, attack the messenger, heckle…and so on…JUST THAT OLE ADL AGENDA!

These guys prefer articulate commenters to get tangled up with their deceptions and NOT to post comments with TRUTH that are not favorable to Israel and their Nazi-Zionism!

THEY WANT TO KEEP THE NEWS/COMMENTS ABOUT ISRAEL…VERY POSITIVE!

Report this

By Aretologist, November 2, 2007 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

“The Indian people must, of course, feel that we are masters, but it should be done kindly and not offensively, as alas is so often the case.”  Queen Victoria to Lord Salisbury, Viceroy of India

I believe the question on everybody’s Jewish mind in America is whether AIPAC, using America, will be as successful in subjugating the Iraqi people and making them as subservient to Israel as they have in making American’s subservient to Israel.

AIPAC and Israel have enjoyed awesome success in making America subservient to them.

But will they enjoy the same success in Iraq?

Will they be as successful in levelling and conditioning the Iraqi people into as total a subservience as they succeeded in accomplishing in America?

Will Israel be able to take advantage of the Iraq invasion and all the money spent there to accomplish something “good and lasting for the Jews” in Israel?


Will the subjugation of Iraq by Israel using their control of America require that we break the country up into three separate (but homogenous) regions with their own separate political systems and flags in order make their subjugation and subservience simpler and easier?

Will America allow the Iraqi people a real freedom choice or will they corrupt an already corrupt society by giving Iraqi politicians who show too much independence and want to much freedom enormous sums of American taxpayers money not to run for office?

Are Iraqi “businessmen” who are 100% supportive of America and Israel quietly taking control of Iraq’s mass media - newspapers, television etc - using monies provided by American or CIA banks?  Buying up Iraq’s mass media in order to ensure that their mass media supports Israel and America as thoroughly as our mass media does?

Or will all that money we’ve spent -  and the soldiers who have died and been maimed for life -  end up being just a waste of money and lives?

Will AIPAC ever trust the Iraqi people enough to do “what’s good for Israel” on their own, every single day of the year, year in and year out without them being there to coerce and compel them one way or another?

Will AIPAC allow genuine freedom and independence in Iraq when they don’t allow it here?

The answer is NO because they will never trust the Iraqi people - or the American people for that matter - to provide Israel with steadfast solemn devoted love and support they think they deserve -  on their own without being contantly browbeat and incessantly conditioned to do this.

AIPAC will never give the Iraqis - or the American people - genuine independence - ever.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 1, 2007 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

VERY interesting!  While you and I VEHEMENTLY disagree on what should be done to bring peace to the region, I find it fascinating that you see through the BS and anti-semitism and the propaganda.  You make a basis for discussion and debate possible.

Well Done!

As for BenedictArnold—doing a ditto-head chorus for Non-Credible is a waste of band width.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 1, 2007 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

#110932 by Non Credo on 11/01 at 9:35 am

Facts well stated, a very good idea.

Time to free the future politicians of America.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 1, 2007 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

Re #110650 by Inherit The Wind on 10/31 at 6:35 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Non Credo on 10/31 at 5:50 am
(423 comments total)

So anyway, as I proved in #110229, the stationing of large numbers of US troops in Saudi Arabia - provoking increased animosity against the US - was done for Israel’s benefit.

***************

You didn’t prove CRAP!  All you did was quote from these guys’ book—whose very validity is the question.  You need to learn what “Proof” is and means.  In no way, shape, or form did you disprove my statement that we did NOT station troops in Saudi Arabia at Israel’s request and for Israel’s benefit.

Nor have you shown that it is in any way LOGICAL to station troops in Saudi Arabia for Israel’s benefit and security.  Might as well station them in Siam…

Just because some bozos with an axe to grind write something in a book doesn’t make it fact.  You might as well cite Ann Coultergeist as an “authority” (OK, I KNOW you won’t do that…but it’s as (un)reliable as M & W).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guys,

This month’s Tikkun magazine (http://www.tikkun.org) has several excellent articles on this subject which are available for reading online. I was fascinated by the Stephen Zunes piece called “The Israel Lobby”. I think all of the participants in this Truthdig discussion should read it.

The thing I found most interesting is the perspective from which the criticism of M & W comes. The criticism comes from “the left” and says that M & W exaggerate the power of “the Lobby” because they are apologists for the acts of Middle East hegemonists in the U.S. military-industrial complex. Zunes agrees with Howard that Israel and the lobby are falsely blamed by M & W for “getting us into the Iraq debacle”, that Sharon did advise against it just as Howard said. So this puts the hegemonists in a position to “blame the Jews” for the debacle. Let me quote a piece of it and again recommend reading the whole thing:   

“It is important to recognize the broad array of interests that find it advantageous to exaggerate the Lobby’s power. There are members of Congress and their aides who want to deflect criticism from progressive constituents opposed to their support for the Occupation and other Israeli policies; there are foreign service officers who want to do the same in talks with foreign leaders by making the U.S. government appear to be a hostage to special interests beyond the administration’s control; there are the constituent components of the Lobby itself, which finds it useful for fundraising purposes and as a means of intimidating members of Congress; there are Jews who find the idea of having such power and influence a liberating reflection of overcoming centuries of oppression; and, of course, there are bigots who find the exaggeration of Jewish power and influence a highly–effective means of spreading their anti–Semitic ideology.

As a result, while it is important to acknowledge where the Israel Lobby does indeed have clout, it is also important to be wary of the multiplicity of reasons why so many people would, consciously or unconsciously, tend to overstate its influence.

In an article published four weeks prior to the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq (“Iraq, Israel and the Jews,” [Tikkun, March/April 2003], I predicted that sooner or later, the American public would realize that a U.S. invasion of Iraq had been a disaster, and “in order to divert attention from those who were responsible” there might be some in the foreign policy establishment who would revert to the time–honored tradition of blaming the Jews.”

Read the whole article at http://www.tikkun.org

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/01 at 8:14 am
(433 comments total)

#110819 by Inherit The Wind on 10/31 at 7:38 pm:

Once again, you totally fail to address any specifics.

For example: You claimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE that our troops are in Saudi Arabia for Israel’s benefit. M & S state and document that this policy originated as a proposal from Martin Indyk, a career lobbyist for Israel; that the policy itself was essentially a copy of an Israeli proposal; and that the major organizations of the Israel lobby pushed long and hard for its adoption.

You refuse to address whether any of this is factually true, and instead simply scream that smart people are sometimes wrong.

You are a total coward and fraud. Everyone here can see that.

Well, everyone here wearing a tin-foil-hat (like yourself) already thinks I’m Satan’s spawn, so what’s a few more “honorifics” from a non credible non thinker like yourself? I’m sure Howard, and Lefty and lilmamzer and MS and several others are willing to have you speak for them…NOT! But, of course, in your little world, you define “everyone” solely as everyone who agrees with YOU, and “anyone” who disagrees with you is simply…. “no one”.

It’s a mark of total hypocracy that you call yourself “non credo” when you have a credo as strong as any loony back-woods or desert religious fundamentalist.

So keep up the insults—you still haven’t proven CRAP other than you choose to believe who and what you want to believe, when they say what you want to hear.

Report this

By Howard, November 1, 2007 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

RE#110932 by Non Credo on 11/01 at 9:35 am
#110932 by Non Credo on 11/01 at 9:35 am

====================================
There are already quite a few lobbies like that which you could join. They should be thrilled to have you.
One is the pro-Al Quida Lobby; also the pro-Iran lobby; and then the pro Hezbillah and Hamas Lobby. And another for sure, is the American Military-Arms Manufacturing Companies who Export to Arab Countries Lobby. Also the Oil Lobby could be included.

Report this

By Aretologist, November 1, 2007 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

“You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.”  James Thurber

If nothing changes soon in Washington with regard to AIPAC and Israel’s (provable beyond any reasonable doubt) inappropriate immoral and unethical control over America then it proves (beyond any reasonable doubt) that America is not the “land of the free and the home of the brave” as our National Anthem claims.

It has actually become the “home of the slaves and the land of congressional cowards.”

“We (Israel) own America - and America knows it.” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

If this is true then a fat lady from Israel should come to Washington and sing to a Joint Sessions of Congress and make America’s subservience official.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 1, 2007 at 4:13 am Link to this comment

Howard on 11/01 at 3:00 am
(138 comments total)

Let’s examine some of the distortions and half truths that Mearsheimer and Walt emply in support of their dubious thesis.

The Jews were wrong, and that’s the end of the discussion.

***********************

And for the anti-semites, left-wing-nuts, and Non Credo, that’s good enough. An “authority” says it—it must be true—and evidence doesn’t matter.

But I have to say something in Non Credo’s defense: He recognizes the difference between supporting Palestinians and Arabs against Isreal, and the full-fledged Hitlerian biological racism that Aryan-tologist spews and abhors the latter.

As he said about me—even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Report this

By Howard, November 1, 2007 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

Let’s examine some of the distortions and half truths that Mearsheimer and Walt emply in support of their dubious thesis.

On Israel’s founding, they cite as truth several of the most extreme anti-Israel perspectives.  They write, for example,of Israel’s “crimes” against the Palestinians in the creation of the state, describing,in particular, how “Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile” (pg 10)  This is, at best a very cursory, one-sided description of a complex sequence of historic events,  one that fair-minded scholars have studied and debated for years, freely criticizing Israel when such criticism is warranted.  Were some Palestinians forced from the land by Jewish soldiers?  Yes. Did others leave voluntarily,at the urging of Arab leaders?  Did still others flee simply to escape the random violence that, tragically, always accompanies war?  Yes, and yes again.  But Mearsheimer and Walt don’t seem to be interested in a balanced account.  They cherry-pick facts that serve their purpose wile disregarding or distorting the rest. The Jews were wrong, and that’s the end of the discussion.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 10/31 at 7:11 pm
(428 comments total)

#110804 by Inherit The Wind on 10/31 at 6:37 pm

ITW writes: “Your last regurgitation was no refutation at all.”

All righty then: once again I see proof that you are nothing but a reflexive pro-Israel hack. Like a stopped clock, you are right twice a day, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

This entire thread is about a book by two of the most important political science scholars in the US, a book you refuse to read or understand and whose specifics you refuse to address. You are simply not competent to post on this thread, ITW. You are a hack with zero integrity and zero credibility.


*****************

Yeah, I’m crushed.  If the tin-foil-hat crowd doesn’t think much of me, it just (sob) breaks my heart.

If you think these two phonies are the best political scientists in America, then your opinion must be that Political Science in the US is in the gutter.

A bit of wisdom for you: Citing “authorities” doesn’t mean squat.  Only their factual basis justifies them being seen as authorities—and THAT factual basis must be verifiable by anyone.

M&W;say what you want to hear. That doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t make them “authorities”.  Linus Pauling won TWO Nobel prizes but it didn’t keep him from making an ass of himself at the end of his life with his insane recommendations about taking toxic and near-toxic levels of vitamin C.

When the “Hitler Diaries” were published, one of THE top scholars on Hitler, Gerhard Weinberg, endorsed them as genuine.  After all, Professor Weinberg discovered Hitler’s second book: “Hitler’s Secret Book” was the American title. How can you be a better “authority” than that?  Yet they were proven to be total fakes and other scholars like Hugh Trevor-Roper were VERY reluctant to go near them until chemical tests confirmed their authenticity—or condemned them as fakes.

They were fakes and Weinberg made an ass of himself in his eagerness to get a jump on the other scholars.

Call me all the names you want. Non Credo, you are simply NOT CREDIBLE.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 10/31 at 5:52 pm
(427 comments total)

re: #110702 by Inherit The Wind on 10/31 at 10:12 am:

ITW: It may seem counterintuitive, but M & W explain how the Israel lobby manages effectively to target Senators and members of Congress for harrassment and electoral defeat, even where the politician represents a district that has very few Jews. Am I going to have to type out another long passage refuting you, only for you to ignore it as you did my last refutation?

Type away—it’s your fingers.  Yeah, it’s counter-intuitive. Read the history.  The ADL and others did their best to defeat Fulbright, but you, like so many others seeking secret conspiracies look at the hobo riding on top of the train and assume he’s the engineer.

M&W;are as bised and reductionist as Ann Coultergeist or Rash Limberger (what a stink!). And religious fanatics can “explain” how it’s clear I’m going to Hell for being Agnostic. It doesn’t make it so.

Your last regurgitation was no refutation at all.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 31, 2007 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

October 31, 2007

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag
Attacking Iran for Israel?

By RAY McGOVERN

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world” is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone’s reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice’s credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.

If this sounds familiar it is, in fact, déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC’s Tim Russert, “I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong.”

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, US intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus “proof” adduced for Iraq-the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes-the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related “evidence.” Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?” There is a simpler answer.
—————————-

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and Robert Gates’ branch chief in the early 1970s. McGovern now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10312007.html

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 31, 2007 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

(Continued from previous comment)

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions will take a “united United States in this matter,” lest the Iranians conclude, “come January ‘09, they have it their own way.”

Meridor stressed that “very little time” remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 US intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years. It has become downright embarrassing-like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called “neo-conservatives” like James Woolsey, who in August publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described “anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,” put it this way: “I’m afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb.”

The day before Ambassador Meridor’s unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush’s apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran’s nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. That is why the Israeli ambassador says there is “very little time”-less than 15 months.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976. Westinghouse and General Electric successfully lobbied for approval to sell the Shah for $6.4 billion the kind of nuclear facilities that Iran is now building, but the deal fell through when the Shah was ousted in 1979.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and Israel’s current leaders are pressing for the US to obliterate Iran’s fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran’s ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush in the past. And the real rationale is reminiscent of the one revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10 2002, Zelikow said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:

  “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is-it’s the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name…the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 31, 2007 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

(Continued from previous comment)

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities. During a Jan. 20, 2005 interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush’s second inauguration, Cheney put Iran “right at the top of the list of trouble spots,” and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Cheney then added, with remarkable nonchalance:

“Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”

Does this not sound like the so-called “Cheney plan” being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli attack; Iranian retaliation; the United States springing to the defense of its “ally” Israel?

A big fan of preemption, the vice president was the first U.S. official to speak approvingly of Israel’s air attack on Iraq’s reactor at Osirak in 1981. He included that endorsement in his important speech of Aug. 26, 2002, in which he set the terms of reference for the subsequent campaign to persuade Congress to approve war with Iraq.

Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel’s penchant to preempt. Ten years after the attack on Osirak, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, “Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.”

Nothing is known of Ivri’s response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of “we could not have done it without your country’s help.” Indeed, although the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq at the time), intelligence and operational support that the Pentagon shared with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid. With Vice President Cheney now calling the shots, similar support is a virtual certainty in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

It is no secret that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was already pressing in 2003 for an early preemptive strike, insisting that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than the time forecast by U.S. intelligence. Sharon even brought his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.

More troubling still, in the fall of 2004 Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as Chair of the younger Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.

A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush “mesmerized;” that he had our president “wrapped around his little finger.” Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately ousted from the advisory board and is now persona non grata at the White House in which he worked for so many years.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 31, 2007 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

(Continued from previous comment)

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister at the time and took Bush on a helicopter tour of the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:

  “If there’s a starting point for George W. Bush’s attachment to Israel, it’s the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, ‘Amazing Grace.’ He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved.”

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of “honest broker” between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he had decided to take Sharon “at face value” and unleash him.

At that point the president brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians. In Ron Suskind’s Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who took part at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: “Looked real bad down there,” the president said with a frown. He then said it was time to end America’s efforts in the region: “I don’t see much we can do over there at this point.”

O’Neill reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of more nuanced and balanced longstanding policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and “the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians.” According to O’Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.” O’Neill says that Powell seemed “startled.”

It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 31, 2007 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

(Continued from previous comment)

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is unusual-but-sensible foot-dragging by the U.S. military. It seems likely that the senior military leadership has told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6-and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.” And in an online Q-and-A on Sept. 27, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest spoke of a possible “revolt” if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

  “This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, has said…that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Besides, it’s not the ‘war’ or ‘bombing’ part that’s difficult; it’s the morning after and all the days after that. Haven’t we learned that (again) from Iraq?”

How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it. If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.

And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey, “cakewalk” Ken Adelman and other “neo-cons.” The air campaign “will be easy,” says McInerney, a FOX pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. “Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can’t penetrate,” he adds, and several hundred aircraft, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

  “Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.”

And the likely White House rationale for war? Since, particularly with the fiasco of Iraq as backdrop, it will be a hard sell to promote the idea of an imminent threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, the White House PR machine has already begun focusing on other “evidence”- amorphous so far-indicating that Iran is supporting those who are “killing our troops in Iraq.”

The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how “easily” it can all be done-Cakewalk II.

Madness.

It is not as though our country has lacked statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other countries:

  “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”
(George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10312007.html

Report this

By Howard, October 31, 2007 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Yes, ITW;  corrected I am;  it was Senators Morse and Gravel !!

Report this

By Aretologist, October 31, 2007 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

“The human race is facing forms of slavery which are new and more subtle than those of the past.” Pope John II, 1999

“It’s suicide for any politician to oppose them.” ex-Senator Fulbright, 1973

“Whoever criticizes Israel can expect painful and incessant reprisals and even the loss of his means of existence by the pressure of the Israeli lobby in Washington. The President of the United States is afraid of it. Congress gives in to all its demands. The most prestigious universities see to it that in their programs there is nothing which opposes it. The mass media giants and the military chiefs give in to its pressure.”  Ex-Congressman Paul Findley, 1993

America’s politicians need the courage to ask for their freedom and independence from AIPAC.

Maybe America should try buying its freedom.
Perhaps if Congress doubled or tripled the yearly assistance Israel receives from America AIPAC and Israel will give our politicians a little more freedom and independence of choice.

The ascendancy of a highly organized largely disingenuous minority, obeying a single impulse and working together towards a collective goal,  over a gullible, unenlightened, generally aboveboard, trusting majority is feasible and possible since the intelligence, loyalty, tenacity and determination of the minority is much greater.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

Howard on 10/31 at 11:28 am
(133 comments total)

Re:  110702
by ITW

Right on about Sen. Fulbright, ITW; as there were maybe 23 or 25 jewish people who could vote in Arkansas at that time !

As I remember that time and election well, why one Jewish group (the ADL) may not have been enchanted with Fulbright, but most people all over the country were very happy with that man, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc, because he was only one of two who voted Against the Tonkin Resolution. When it was most unpopular to do.
His unhappiness with us being in Vietnam, as he expressed with speeches and book writing was a most important rallying force against that war.
I knows some older Jewish vets and all of ‘em liked Fulbright.  They’re no more a monolithic block when it comes to voting or politics than any other group or religion. Stop running with that nonsense.

***********************

One correction, Howard: The two senators who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were Mike Gravel (same one running for President) and Wayne Morse, from Oregon.  Fulbright voted FOR the Resolution.

It was only later that this racist, bigoted Dixiecrat got amazing street cred because he saw the mess we were in in Viet Nam and had the stones to try to do something about it.

Report this

By lilmamzer, October 31, 2007 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

#110680 by voice of truth

Forgive my earlier post on the Noam Chomsky thread.  This one is, in reality, the funniest thread I have ever read.  Thanks to the moonbats for giving me a little smile today!

It’s comedy, isn’t it?

Have you tried to read Cyrena’s posts on this thread? She’s straight out of a ‘70s sitcom - picture the batty old conspiracy-buff wacky next-door-neighbor - there she is. Babbling on and on making no sense whatsoever.

Report this

By Howard, October 31, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Re:  110702
  by ITW

Right on about Sen. Fulbright, ITW; as there were maybe 23 or 25 jewish people who could vote in Arkansas at that time !

As I remember that time and election well, why one Jewish group (the ADL) may not have been enchanted with Fulbright, but most people all over the country were very happy with that man, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc, because he was only one of two who voted Against the Tonkin Resolution. When it was most unpopular to do.
  His unhappiness with us being in Vietnam, as he expressed with speeches and book writing was a most important rallying force against that war.
  I knows some older Jewish vets and all of ‘em liked Fulbright.  They’re no more a monolithic block when it comes to voting or politics than any other group or religion. Stop running with that nonsense.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

Hey Aryan-tologist:

How many times are you going to post this same piece of tripe?  Jews didn’t vote Fulbright out of the Senate—He was Senator from Arkansas, a Southern, racist state and there just weren’t enough Jews LIVING and VOTING in Arkansas in 1974 to make a difference.

That’s just another one of your neo-nazi lies you keep posting.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

I need some levity!

All these two authors need is a pair of 1950s army fatigues and they’ll be ready to go trick-or-treating as Col. Sherman T. Potter and Major Charles Emerson Winchester (the Third)!

I can’t help it! That’s what they look like…

M*A*S*H LIVES!

Report this

By Aretologist, October 31, 2007 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

“The human race is facing forms of slavery which are new and more subtle than those of the past.” Pope John II, 1999

In1972 Sen William Fulbright declared that the United States was “subservient” to Israel and bore “a very great share of the responsibility for the continuation of Middle East violence.” Fulbright added that “The Israelis control politics in Congress and in the Senate.” For daring to speak out against AIPAC and for not supporting Israel 110%
Jewish Americans voted together to kick Fulbright out of the Senate.  In confirming that AIPAC was responsible for Fulbright’s defeat at the polls, a former head of AIPAC boasted: “The Jews in America gathered to oust Senator Charles Percy and the (other) American politicians got the message.”

Fulbright warned sombrely that “Israel’s supporters in the United States…by underwriting intransigence, are encouraging a course which must lead toward her destruction - and just possibly ours as well.”

Pondering the future (in 1973) Fulbright sees little hope that Capital Hill will effectively challenge the Israeli lobby: ‘It’s suicide for politicians to oppose them (AIPAC).’

‘AIPAC demands 100%. If a fine Senator like Hathaway, Fulbright, Percy fails to cooperate just once, they are ready to trade in his career.’

Another staff member of a Senate committee declared: ‘To please AIPAC, you have to be more pure (more Jewish) than Ivory soap - 99.44% purity is not good enough.’

Lacking the purity AIPAC demanded, Hathaway,
Fulbright, Percy, Findley were defeated in the next elections.

“The (French) Republic has governed in the interest of the Jews… It is.. The Republic which by raising Jewish power to new heights…has stirred up wishes for revenge.”  Arthur Mayer

In 1794 the French philosopher-mathematician Condorcet conjectured that because of the trusting nature and obliviousness of the vast majority of the French people, a cunning minority, working together would be able to seduce and indoctrinate and condition the French public at will -  and create an elite ruling class behind a‘‘democratic smokescreen.’’

The ascendancy of a highly organized largely disingenuous minority, obeying a single impulse and working together towards a collective goal,  over a gullible, unenlightened, generally aboveboard and trusting majority is feasible and possible since the intelligence, loyalty, tenacity and determination of the minority is much greater.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

Is the perception and acceptance of an uncorrupted reality really “good or bad” for the Jews?

And if not why not?

Report this

By Howard, October 31, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

#110670 by Non Credo on 10/31 at 8:05 am

IRRELEVANT !

Report this

By Howard, October 31, 2007 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

After years of ignoring abuses of human rights in Saudi Arabia, government officials and pundits are waking up to the reality that the kingdom is hardly better than the Taliban we demonized in Afghanistan. Recent revelations that the United States government and major corporations condone and comply with discriminatory Saudi policies have been particularly shocking. Instead of acting politically correct and considering Saudi Arabia’s apartheid policies as an acceptable culture, it’s time to adopt the type of aggressive policies against the Saudis that were used to crack apartheid in South Africa.

Maybe you’re not familiar with the apartheid practices in Saudi Arabia. I am not referring to discrimination based on race, but bias based on gender, specifically the segregation of women. Some people will say that this is part of Islamic culture, and Americans have no right to tell Muslims in general, and the Saudis in particular, what to do. As columnist Colbert King noted recently, this was exactly what South Africans used to say, that criticism was a violation of their sovereignty and interference in their internal affairs. People also argued that we should defer to the local culture.

As you probably have read, Lt. Col. Martha McSally, the U.S. Air Force’s top-ranked female fighter pilot, sued the government because when based in Saudi Arabia she was forced to wear an abaya (a form of head-to-toe gown similar to those worn by many women in Afghanistan), and prohibited from driving, sitting in the front seat of vehicles, and leaving her base except in the company of men. She said this policy discriminates against women and the clothing restriction violates their religious freedom by forcing them to adopt the garb of another faith. Finally, after McSally’s seven-year fight, the Pentagon agreed at the end of January to drop the requirement about wearing the abaya, but retained the other restrictions.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Non Credo on 10/31 at 5:50 am
(423 comments total)

So anyway, as I proved in #110229, the stationing of large numbers of US troops in Saudi Arabia - provoking increased animosity against the US - was done for Israel’s benefit.

***************

You didn’t prove CRAP!  All you did was quote from these guys’ book—whose very validity is the question.  You need to learn what “Proof” is and means.  In no way, shape, or form did you disprove my statement that we did NOT station troops in Saudi Arabia at Israel’s request and for Israel’s benefit.

Nor have you shown that it is in any way LOGICAL to station troops in Saudi Arabia for Israel’s benefit and security.  Might as well station them in Siam…

Just because some bozos with an axe to grind write something in a book doesn’t make it fact.  You might as well cite Ann Coultergeist as an “authority” (OK, I KNOW you won’t do that…but it’s as (un)reliable as M & W).

Report this

By weather, October 31, 2007 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

Again - what Israel fears most?

Confronting the truth about themselves.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 4:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Howard on 10/30 at 5:38 pm
(128 comments total)

Well, they’ve been offered all those things !
.....
The root cause of thPrime Minister Ehud Barak shocked the world by offering the Palestinians virtually everything they had been demanding, including a state with its capital in Jerusalem,, control over the Temple Mount, a return of approximately 95 % of the West Bank all of the Gaza Strip,and a $30 billion compensations package for the 1948 refugees.  How could Yasser Arafat possibly reject that historic offer?  Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who was serving as an intermediary among the parties, urged Arafat to “ take this deal.” Could you ever get “ a better deal”?..he asked.  “Would you rather negotiate with Sharon?” As Arafat vacillated, Bandar issued a stern warning: “I hope you remember, sir, what I told you . If we lose this opportunity, it is going to be a crime.

******

Howard, How DARE YOU?

How dare you bring up…. FACTS?????

The Israel-haters pretend facts they can’t use, or mis-use, don’t exist…Like the mis-use YET AGAIN of Bishop Tutu’s comments on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians—which the good Bishop says have been taken out of context, mis-interpreted and mis-used.

He bleeds for innocent people suffering—Black, White, Jew, Moslem, Israeli, Palestinian—that’s what makes Desmond Tutu special.

That’s also what makes him different from Robert, Cyrena, and all the rest of the Destroy Israel gang—they CONSTANTLY see the attacks on Israeli civilians and children as justified, and are always making excuses for the suiciders.

You know, if the suicide bombers targeted Israeli military and police units in the West Bank and Gaza, or even their bases in Israel, I’d see that as legitimate targets in a war.  But to walk into a bus or a wedding JUST to create terror—no excuse.

Then, the terrorists hide among the population, COUNTING on Jews to value their fellow Palestinians more than they themselves do—they use their own as human shields.  They COUNT on the humanity of Israelis, and when the Israelis value the safety of Israel over the human shields, they get their shills (like Robert) to loudly yell “See? See? Nazi tactics!”

In Northern Ireland the “freedom fighters” devolved into Mafia thugs, terrorizing their neighbors…that to a large extent is why peace was finally possible there—the people just got f***‘n sick of living in a deadly $#it#ole and refused to support it anymore.

In Gaza, the election of Hamas has made things far worse. And because Hamas is STILL firing missiles into Israel, the IDF retaliates—and the Gaza population suffers.  Yet the Roberts and the Cyrenas blame Israel for that—ALL they have to do is stop shooting at Israel, and Israel will not only leave them alone, it will trade with them again.

Report this

By Howard, October 30, 2007 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

APARTHEID?  Israel is a Democracy in Which Arabs vote ?

Go into any hospital in Israel and you will see Jewish and Arab surgeons; Arab and Jewish anaesthetists. The doctors and nurses who look after pateients are Jews and Arabs.  Jews and Arabs share meals in restarurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes.

Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid?
Of course not.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, October 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

POLITICS: Desmond Tutu Likens Israeli Actions to Apartheid

By Adrianne Appel

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu

BOSTON, Oct 28 (IPS) - South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu compared conditions in Palestine to those of South Africa under apartheid, and called on Israelis to try and change them, while speaking in Boston Saturday at historic Old South Church.

“We hope the occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel will end,” Tutu said.

“There is a cry of anguish from the depth of my heart, to my spiritual relatives. Please, please hear the call, the noble call of our scripture,” Tutu said of Israelis.

“Don’t be found fighting against this god, your god, our god, who hears the cry of the oppressed,” Tutu said.

Tutu spoke with political activist and lecturer Noam Chomsky and others to a largely religious audience about “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel,” a conference sponsored by Friends of Sabeel North America, a Christian Palestinian group.

Israeli policy toward Palestine is an inflammatory topic in the U.S. and is not commonly discussed in large, public forums.

In Boston, complaints were lodged with Old South Church in the weeks prior to the event, in an effort to halt the conference. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting complained that Sabeel is “an anti-Zionist organisation that traffics in anti-Judaic themes,” according to press reports.

Outside the church Saturday, Christians and Jews United for Israel demonstrated against Tutu and the conference.

“Sabeel is an organisation that seeks to demonise Israel. Tutu several years ago made anti-Semitic comments,” May Long, president of the group, told IPS. Long did not hear Tutu’s speech, she said.

Tutu was an inspirational leader in the South African fight against apartheid, which officially ended 13 years ago. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 and today continues to speak around the globe for peace and justice, and to call for Palestinian rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 76-year-old Tutu also appears to have won a battle against prostate cancer, which he was last treated for in 2000.

“Because of what I experienced in South Africa, I harbour hope for Israel and the Palestinian territories,” said Tutu, who invoked passages from the Christian bible throughout his talk.

Tutu drew parallels between the apartheid of South Africa and occupied Palestine of today, including demolitions of Palestinian homes by the Israeli government and the inability of Palestinians to travel freely within and out of Palestine.

“I experienced a déjà vu when I encountered a security checkpoint that Palestinians must negotiate every day and be demeaned, all their lives,” Tutu said.

Tutu said that Palestinian homes are being bulldozed, and new, illegal homes for Israeli’s built in their place.

“When I hear, ‘that used to be my home,’ it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloreds had no rights,” Tutu said.

Tutu is a pacifist and he said only non-violent means should be used to confront the oppression at play in Palestine.”

“Tutu said that while fighting apartheid in South Africa he drew inspiration from the Jewish struggle as the bible describes it.”

“Spiritually I am of Hebrew decent. When apartheid oppression was at its most vicious, and all but knocked the stuffing out of those of us who opposed it, we turned to the Hebrew tradition of resistance,” and the belief that good will triumph over evil, and that a day of freedom from oppression will come, he said.

“The well-to-do and powerful complain that we are mixing religion with politics. I’ve never heard the poor complain that ‘Tutu, you are being too political,”’ he said.

“I am not playing politics when it involves children who suffer,” Tutu said. “A human rights violation is a human rights violation is a human rights violation, wherever it occurs.”
===
Click URL for the rest:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39829

Report this

By Howard, October 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

Well, they’ve been offered all those things !

The root cause of the never-ending conflict is the unwillingness of the Arabs (and not just the Palestinians) to accept the reality of Israel. What a pity that those of the Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have lived and continue to live in poverty, misery and ignorance. They could have chosen to accept the proposed partition of the country in 1947, would now have had their state alongside Israel for almost sixty years and could have lived in peace and prosperity. They could have kept hundreds of thousands of refugees in their homes and could have saved tens of thousands of lives. Peace will only come when the Arabs finally accept the reality of Israel. And that is not a myth —— that is a fact!
And then in the peace negotiations of 2001-20002 at Camp David-Taba, Israel was rebuffed again. And then in 1993 at the Oslo Accords everything looked good toward the acceptance of a two-state resolution, with Israel and Palestine finally living in peace after so many years of violent conflict.
As the process moved toward resolution, Prime Minister Ehud Barak shocked the world by offering the Palestinians virtually everything they had been demanding, including a state with its capital in Jerusalem,, control over the Temple Mount, a return of approximately 95 % of the West Bank all of the Gaza Strip,and a $30 billion compensations package for the 1948 refugees.  How could Yasser Arafat possibly reject that historic offer?  Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who was serving as an intermediary among the parties, urged Arafat to “ take this deal.”  Could you ever get “ a better deal”?..he asked.  “Would you rather negotiate with Sharon?”  As Arafat vacillated, Bandar issued a stern warning: “I hope you remember, sir, what I told you . If we lose this opportunity, it is going to be a crime.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 30, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Howard:
To say that ALL Jews or ALL Israelis want expansion is, as you rightly point out, absurd.

But just as there are crazy Moslem fanatics who believe that Jihad must continue until EVERY human in the world lives under Sharia, so there are ultra-orthodox fanatical Jews who DO believe that there needs to be a “Greater Israel” and drive all non-Jews over the Jordan River.

These people are EXTREMELY dangerous to Jews and Arabs alike because they don’t want peace, they don’t want to live as good neighbors, and one of them, Egl Amyr, murdered Israel’s best chance for peace.  They advocate tearing down the Dome of the Rock because they have NO tolerance for other religions.

They DO exist, they support Netanyahu, and believe Sharon betrayed them (He did—and it was far better for Israel that he did).

If they get into power it will be as bad as George W. Bush coming to power.

Religious fanatics the world over want to build a tower to Heaven and God—inevitably built on dead bodies.

The safety of Israel critically depends on these fanatical bigots NEVER coming to power.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Howard,

I don’t want to help Israel live in peace and be left alone by killing and destroying all day every day for the next 100 years. Could you think of some other way, like admiitting their responsibilities,  recognizing the human rights of Palestinians, giving them citizenship, compensating them for the land they have taken from them and living together with them as equals?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Soffer interview, conclusion

Returning to Iran, you believe that demographic imbalance is Israel’s greatest danger in the long term. But isn’t Iran’s soon-to-be nuclear capability a much more immediate and comprehensive threat? 

Personally, I don’t believe that if Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear weapon, it will actually use it. Even the most suicidal of those nuts understands that if even a single missile is launched in Israel’s direction, it will provide the opportunity for Israel or for America to execute the strike we’re all waiting for. 

Are you saying that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t mean what he says about wiping Israel off the map? 

Everything that madman says indicates he is hysterical. 

Hitler was also hysterical, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying out his plan. 

Hitler was hysterical, but in this case, Iran is closed off 360 degrees by the “cowboy” America. I want to tell you: Two missiles on the Iranian islands of Karaj and Siri, and Iran’s entire oil revenue drops from $60 billion to zero. Iran is so weak and vulnerable that it’s unbelievable. 

You’re saying that Iran does not constitute a threat. 

That’s right. I think it’s much ado about nothing. 

So, why would Bush strike before leaving office? 

Ahhh… great question. The answer is that I have been speaking as an Israeli, and Iran won’t jeopardize its interests so totally just in order to harm us. Furthermore, if it does direct a nuclear bomb at Israel, it would destroy Jerusalem and the Arabs they care about. It’s not logical. Not only that. The second strike would come from us and the free world, and then there would be no more Iran. Iran won’t commit suicide. 

But Bush’s considerations are a different story. The world’s superpower cannot accept that 2/3 of the world’s oil is in the hands of a crazy person like Ahmadinejad. 

Your geostrategic assessments don’t seem to take religion into account - global Islam as a genuine ideology on the one hand, and the Jewish belief in the right to the Land of Israel on the other. You even speak of Jerusalem from a demographic perspective, rather than its being the heart of the Jewish homeland. 

I definitely do take global Islam into account, as I do the Jewish people’s affinity for Jerusalem. That is why I call Tel Aviv the enemy that betrayed it. 

Are you saying that by wanting to live in Tel Aviv, Israelis have brought about the necessity to divide Israel’s capital? 

Right you are. 

But a person can love Jerusalem without wanting to live there. If, as you agreed, people can’t be forced by the government to reside in a particular place, what are you suggesting - other than territorial withdrawal? 

The first thing I’d do is finish the fast train line to Jerusalem. Next, I’d move the IDF Spokesman’s Office, Army Radio, the defense colleges and the offices of the General Staff there, as well as all government industries. Finally, I’d give subsidies for development and hi- tech. 

Still, you favor further territorial withdrawals. 

I’m originally a Mapainik, which means I’m a pragmatist. Today, I’m in the center, which is why both the Left and the Right attack me. The point is that our young people are leaving the country and we are an island in a sea of Middle Eastern countries. This is why we have to fortify ourselves with a fence. Then, whoever tries to cross it gets a bullet to the head. 

But, while Israel is prepared to complete the fence, it is not keen on giving anyone a bullet to the head. 

Well, then, we’ll cease to exist.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Soffer interview from below

So, now you’re asking me - and rightly so - whether we have to evacuate the rest of the territories. Since our last interview, I have changed my mind about the Jordan Valley. I said then that we were probably going to have to relinquish it. I had been persuaded that there was no longer an eastern-front threat, now that Iraq had become friendly, that Syria was rusty and that our strategic peace with Jordan was sound. But then, suddenly, in November 2005, there was a suicide attack in Amman, which showed that there are al-Qaida cells there. 

I also said that we would have to hold on to the Philadelphi Corridor in order to prevent an Egyptian-Gazan connection. Now, if we put our hands to our hearts, we have to admit that the IDF failed to secure Philadelphi - a 200-meter wide and 10-kilometer long area, on one side of which is a terrible country like Egypt, and on the other side of which is Iran. According to reliable sources, Iran was already in Gaza 10 months before disengagement. Why am I bringing this up in connection with the Jordan Valley? [President of the Council on Foreign Relations] Richard Haass, who was director of policy planning for the US State Department at the time, told me personally: “We’ll allow Israel to establish a ‘Philadelphi Corridor’ in the Jordan Valley, to guarantee the neutralization and demilitarization of Judea and Samaria.” 

But because we failed to secure Philadelphi in Gaza, of course we would also fail in the Jordan Valley. 

Aren’t you being unfair to the IDF? Isn’t it the policy that failed? 

Look, when England sent the British army to fight Gallipoli [in World War I], the policy was to win. The same applies here. 

But the policy in this case was to give Egypt control over the Philadelphi Corridor and the tunnels. It was a political deal between Israel and Egypt. 

No. It’s because the IDF failed that we made that deal. That’s why today I think we have to retain control of both the Philadelphi Corridor and the Jordan Valley. 

And if we return to Philadelphi, it will no longer be a mere 200 meters. It will have to be widened at the expense of the refugee camps in Rafah, which we will have to destroy, destroy and destroy. 

You just said that the beauty of Sharon’s disengagement plan was that America was behind it. But the United States would support neither an Israeli return to the Philadelphi Corridor nor Israel’s retaining of the Jordan Valley. 

You’re right. But my gut feeling is that Bush is going to attack Iran before he finishes his term in office. 

Recently, when I told members of the [Israeli] government that we will have to hold on to the Jordan Valley, they all said, “It’s too late.” 

I say that when it comes to our security, there’s no such thing as “too late.” 

In the meantime, we have no choice but to keep Hamas out through military operations like Defensive Shield. 

What about Fatah? Is it any less bent on destroying Israel than Hamas? 

No. But neither are Israeli Arabs any different in that respect. No Palestinian wants us here. No Muslim wants us here. No Arab wants us here. 

Not even Christian Arabs? 

[He guffaws sarcastically.] Are there any of those left in the Middle East? They’re absconding! They, who used to be the founding fathers of pan-Arab nationalism, have become victims of radical Islam.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Soffer interview continued from below


Look [he takes out a population map of Israel]: First of all, the Israeli Arabs are enclosing the country from the Upper Galilee all the way around. And here in the center, there is the rich, cynical, cosmopolitan “state of Tel Aviv.” 

As for the Arabs of the South: They’re the bridge between Gaza and Judea-Samaria. And I want to tell you, if we fail to keep that bridge closed, Katyushas will be launched from Kalkilya to Tel Aviv - right onto the Stock Exchange. Then the party will be over. 

What has to be done to keep that bridge closed? 

I’ve written a whole booklet on what we have to do to save the State of Israel. Yes, to save it. This “state of Tel Aviv” - this hermetically sealed state - has to be weakened and fast in order to save Jerusalem, which is no longer Jewish-Zionist. As we speak, Jerusalem - a mere 60 kilometers from Tel Aviv - is being betrayed by the 220,000 Jews who ran away from it. It is a national disaster. 

How can Tel Aviv be “weakened”? 

The government has to decide to close it for the next five years. 

Not allowing people to move there sounds pretty totalitarian. 

No, I’m not saying we should do what Stalin did. I’m for democracy. What I’m saying is that the government should announce that for the next several years not a single agora of the state budget goes to Gush Dan [greater Tel Aviv]. All money for roads and railways has to go to the periphery. All construction in the center has to cease, while increasing construction in Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem. And, after that, in the Negev. People will be able to live outside Tel Aviv and commute to work and recreation by train. Believe me, once there are half a million Israelis living in Beersheba, there will be plenty of hoity-toity trendy restaurants there, too. 

As someone so concerned about demography, how do you see the Beduin of the Negev fitting into this? 

If half a million Jews end up living in Beersheba - today, there are 200,000 - it will develop and spread out, reaching the Beduin-populated areas. The Beduin will benefit by becoming part of the larger melting pot of Beersheba. 

If the Beduin can become part of the larger melting pot of Beersheba, why can’t the Palestinians become part of the larger melting pot of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem? 

Good question. As long as the entire Israeli-Arab population, including the Beduin, comes to 1.4 million, in a country of seven million total, Jews have a 70-80 percent majority. 

In spite of Arab birthrates?

Yes, because Jewish birthrates are on the rise, and Arab birthrates are on the decline. That’s why there’s no danger inside Israel. But once you add the territories, Jews and Arabs are in a demographic tie. 

Because of the withdrawal from Gaza, today Jews make up 60% of the Israeli population and Arabs only 40%. If we we wait 20 years, the tie will return. 

Is this why you favor further withdrawals? If Israel returns to the ‘67 borders - guaranteeing a clear Jewish majority - what then? 

That’s not necessary. Thanks to this completely crazy security fence [here he points to another map, and runs his finger along the jagged line delineating it], we have succeeded in reducing the suicide bombings to zero. This by itself is a huge accomplishment. But [former prime minister Ariel] Sharon’s real achievement, which the public doesn’t appreciate, is having included Modi’in, Betar Illit and Ma’aleh Adumim in Israel. In other words, 180,000 Jews remain within greater Jerusalem with American support. 

Today there are 270,000 settlers in the territories, and their numbers are increasing, through natural growth and due to Bnei Akiva members moving there. Through Sharon’s cleverness, Jerusalem remains in Israel and 210,000 settlers are within the fence. Only 60,000 remain outside. In other words, 86% of the settlers are at home. This is an unbelievable victory.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment

Soffer Interview, continued from below

Hasn’t the flow of arms and missiles from Egypt into Gaza been detrimental to Israel? Isn’t Egypt’s control of the tunnels allowing for an al-Qaida state to be blossoming there? Doesn’t all of this actually endanger Israel? 

Al-Qaida’s presence in Gaza endangers both Israel and Egypt, but first and foremost it endangers Egypt. The Egyptians will learn this the hard way, because they know full well what is being smuggled into Gaza. 

But Israel gave Egypt control over that border. 

That’s true, but let me ask you this: What were the alternatives? They were either for us to be responsible for Gaza or for them to be. Let them wrack their brains over it. Let them be stuck with the consequences. 

But are they “wracking their brains over it”? Are they “stuck with the consequences”? 

Yes, because when the arms from el-Arish reach Rafah, some go to Nueiba and Sharm e- Sheikh, where there are suicide bombers. Indeed, there are al-Qaida cells throughout the Sinai. We’ve seen how much blood has been spilled there over the past few years. Egypt is paying for that and will continue to pay for it. 

When you refer to Egypt, you are talking about President Hosni Mubarak. But what about the Muslim Brotherhood - a powerful and spreading force there? 

Every morning, when I read the papers and see that Jordanian King Abdullah II is healthy and Mubarak is still alive, I know we’ve earned another day. I live with the sense that one day we will wake up to the news of a coup in Jordan and Egypt. And woe is the day when insane Islam takes over those two countries. In other words, in spite of everything he does, Mubarak is still among our friends. He’s also got problems. 

So, you have said that there is a demographic pressure cooker; that Israel will have to live by the sword for at least another 100 years; and that when Mubarak and Abdullah die, we’re in for worse trouble. Is your response to all of this that Israel needs to keep withdrawing from territory? And if so, then what? 

My geostrategic assessment is that Israel is like the Titanic. I am trying to change its course - prevent it from crashing into the iceberg - and allow it to continue safely on its journey. But up on the Tel Aviv deck, they’re having a big party - a stock-market orgy. And when I try to warn them of the fast-approaching disaster, they tell me I’m being ridiculous or that I’m exaggerating. It is said that intellectuals are the most ignorant of all people, and it’s true, because they’re off in their art galleries and don’t know what’s really going on around them. All they see is a mirage.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 30, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Interview with Soffer (continued from below)


In our previous interview, you made many assertions about what could and should be expected to happen following the disengagement from Gaza. You claim now that everything has played out the way you said it would. 

Yes. I said, “The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill.” 

That statement caused a huge stir at the time, and it’s amazing to see how many dozens of angry, ignorant responses I continue to receive from leftists in Israel and anti-Semites abroad, who took my words out of context. I didn’t recommend that we kill Palestinians. I said we’ll have to kill them. 

I was right about mounting demographic pressures. I am also entitled to defend myself and my country. So today, I would update the headline you gave my last interview and call this one: “It’s the demography and anti-Semitism, stupid.” 

What about answering critics from the Right, who would argue that in spite of incessant Kassam attacks on Sderot and kibbutzim in the Negev, Israel has barely reacted at all, let alone by “killing, killing and killing”? 

Since before the withdrawal from Gaza, I have been saying that we have to fire missiles at anyone who fires them at us; we haven’t been doing that enough. 

During our last interview, I asked you whether - with CNN cameras pointing at the security fence - Israel would be prepared to retaliate in the event of missile fire. Your response was: “If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist.” 

We are living in a 100-year period of terrorism, and we have another 100 years of terrorism ahead of us. We will forever be forced to live by the sword. We are not wanted in the Middle East, which is why we will have to continue to fight. 

The purpose of disengagement was not to put an end to terrorism or Kassam fire. Its purpose was to stop being responsible for a million and a half Arabs who continue to multiply in conditions of poverty and madness. I am thrilled that we are out of there. The Kassams do not constitute a strategic threat, and the Palestinians will get the blow they deserve - though we do have to be cautious, because the situation is complex. 

There are many members of the Knesset, and even the government, who continue to consider us responsible for what goes on in Gaza, as the debate over the right response to the Kassams indicates. 

Our government has woken up. The only ones making noise are leftists and so-called human rights lawyers who only care about the well-being of cats, dogs and Palestinians, but never about Jews. 

It is true, however, that we are faced with a dilemma on how to respond, which is part of the delicate game we have to play. 

But, as I said then and say now, the demographic pressure is only growing in Gaza. Wisely, through disengagement, the government was trying to direct that pressure to Egypt-the- horrible, from where arms and missiles flow into Gaza. This way, Egypt would have to deal with it, not us. And that’s what we’re doing.

Report this

Page 3 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.