The Sunday Times


Senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community were almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop Iran acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb, The Sunday Times has learnt.

Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking. “We only have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the Iranian programme,” said one source with knowledge of the meeting. “Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn’t know how to.”

The White House’s earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence analysts that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The “collateral damage” to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

“Unless you can be 100% effective and set the programme back by two decades, you’ll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a result that is better than the current one,” an intelligence analyst said.

General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a “surrogate” terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on America’s regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Iran’s ability to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Iran’s nuclear programme is beset with technical errors. “He has been saying, ‘Slow down, it’s not an immediate problem’,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on achieving a negotiated settlement with the help of the “EU3” nations of Britain, France and Germany.
“President Bush is not going to take military action against the advice of the secretary of state, US generals and the director of national intelligence,” Clawson said.

British sources confirmed that the military option was receding. “There are clear signs that the White House is keener on following a political approach,” said a senior British source. “There’s never been an appetite in the Pentagon for taking Iran on and the EU3 might get a deal that would bring the Iranians to the negotiating table in a reasonable fashion.”

Despite reports that the Iranians were willing to suspend their programme secretly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defiantly announced that Iran’s “atomic work” will not stop for a single day.

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week’s meeting that there were no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how — which it maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

“The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would cheat,” another source said.

“The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb unless there’s some miracle, such as a major accident, a major defector or an orange revolution,” the source added, referring to the people’s protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of these scenarios is considered likely.

The Ukraine is where other news that nuclear missiles were sold to Iran came from..

And their little yappers are trying like HELL to make it seem like it's Iran who has a 'forbidden' nuclear weapon.
Korea?
What's that?

And israel is bestowing so much peace upon the Islamic residents of Palestine.

They don't have any.
There is a nuclear menace in the Middle East. It isn't Iran. It isn't Syria.

....whoever posted that in your name, did it in mine as well on another thread,JS.....

And his nose is bent out of shape 'cause he can't get anyone to believe his peculiar rant about me being some freak with tattoos.
I thought and still do, that he's one of your lying, wanking crew of zionist wingnuts...
And there is still no valid evidence from any reliable source that anybody but israel has nukes in that region.

Reports of internal FRAGMENTATION wounds w/o any external entry are just as the use of White Phosphorus, another view as to the distain the I'D'F has towards any kind of limits to their use of forbidden weapons. At least forbidden to the civilized world on which the US is not a party.

Picking up the missing pieces:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=184204#184398

Israel appears sure that increasing aggression against the Palestinians will lead them to internal collapse whereas it is more certain to lead to a new national uprising, reports Khaled Amayreh

While Western and even some Arab media continue referring to the daily killing by Israel of Palestinian civilians, activists and militants as "clashes", the Israeli occupation army has intensified its brutal onslaught against Palestinian population centres both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In less than five days, the occupation forces killed as many as 29 Palestinians, the vast majority of whom innocent civilians, including eight teenagers, five members of the same family, and a mother of five children. Dozens of other civilians were badly injured, many by new and lethal secret Israeli weapons that cut through flesh right to the bone.

Palestinian and international medical authorities have now proven beyond doubt that Israel is using new deadly weapons, including in densely populated areas, resulting in the killing and maiming of scores of peoples. Medical sources in Gaza have been speaking of more than 35 amputations in less than two months. By the time of Al-Ahram Weekly going to press, a large Israeli force, backed up by tanks and armoured personnel carriers, was rampaging in the small Palestinian town of Kabatya, just south of northernmost West Bank town of Jenin. So far, four Palestinians have been reported killed, including three teenagers the Israeli army claimed were hurling stones towards Israeli troops.

As always, Israeli troops share an implicit understanding that they are free to shoot and kill Palestinians, including children, seen throwing stones on army jeeps. In the course of the Al-Aqsa Intifada hundreds of Palestinian children and teenagers were extra- judicially executed for throwing stones, and not necessarily at, or on, but even towards Israeli tanks or jeeps.

Read More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/817/re51.htm

Abusing 'Anti-Semitism' by Ran HaCohen eMail to a friend

Posted on DECEMBER-10-2005
The eve of the Jewish New Year is an excellent occasion for what Jewish tradition calls Kheshbon Nefesh, or soul-searching on so-called "anti-semitism", which has now become the single most important element of Jewish identity. Jews may believe in God or not, eat pork or not, live in Israel or not, but they are all united by their unlimited belief in anti-semitism.

When a Palestinian kills innocent Israeli civilians, it's anti-semitism. When Palestinians attack soldiers of Israel's occupation army in their own village, it's anti-semitism. When the UN General Assembly votes 133 to 4 condemning Israel's decision to murder the elected Palestinian leader, it means that except for the US, Micronesia and Marshal Islands, all other countries on the globe are anti-semitic. Even when a pregnant Palestinian woman is stopped at an Israeli check-point and gives birth in open field, the only lesson to be learnt is that Ha'aretz journalist Gideon Levy ? who reported two such cases in the past two weeks, one in which the baby died ? is an anti-semite.

Anti-semitism is an all-encompassing explanation. Anything unpleasant to anti-Palestinian ears is just another instance of anti-semitism. Jewish consciousness focused on anti-semitism has taken the shape of anti-semitic conspiracy theories, like that of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: whereas the anti-semitic classic relates every calamity to Jewish conspiracy, Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel. As we shall see, this is not the only similarity between anti-Palestinianism and anti-semitism.

It is high time to say it out loud: in the entire course of Jewish history, since the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC, there has never been an era blessed with less anti-semitism than ours. There has never been a better time for Jews to live in than our own.

Up to just two generations ago, anti-semitism was a legitimate political and cultural attitude in most of the world's leading powers. Anti-semitism was something you could express openly, even be proud of. Disliking Jews was as natural then as detesting cockroaches is today. Nowadays, anti-semitism is a taboo and a criminal offence in every developed country on earth. Even truly anti-semitic groups deny their anti-semitic character, knowing it is politically unacceptable. Unlike earlier centuries, where anti-semitism stood in direct proportion to the number of Jews in the pertinent country and thus constituted a real threat to them, the countries where anti-semitism is still thrivingtoday ? mostly poor Muslim countries ? are virtually empty of Jews, so that the actual danger to Jews there is minimal; representatives of Muslim communities in the West have to give up their anti-semitism as a precondition for entering the political system.

Just a few generations ago ? the Holocaust aside for now ? Jews were treated as second-class citizens in all major Jewish concentrations. They were denied civic and religious rights almost universally. There were limits on access of Jews to universities and many professions, to public service and to any position of power; sometimes even marrying and making children was dependent on quotas and licences. Such institutionalised discrimination and oppression is not only totally extinct today: it is utterly unimaginable. With one revealing exception (Israel, where non-orthodox religious Jews are discriminated against), Jews enjoy full religious freedom wherever they are. They have full citizenship wherever they live, with full political, civic and human rights like every other citizen. This may sound trivial, but it was not so just a few generations ago and throughout the entire first and second millennia. Repressive regimes have either collapsed, or their Jewish population has left them.

Nowadays, an orthodox Jew can run for the most powerful office on earth, the president of the United States (I personally hope he doesn't win). A Jew can be the mayor of Amsterdam in "anti-semitic" Holland, a minister in "anti-semitic" Britain, a leading intellectual in "anti-semitic" France, a president of "anti-semitic" Switzerland, editor-in-chief of a major daily in "anti-semitic" Denmark, or an industrial tycoon in "anti-semitic" Russia. None of this was imaginable a century ago. Jews have free and unlimited access to every institution in every country they live in; Ironically, a converted Jew is even mentioned as a possible successor to the Holy See. At the same time, "anti-semitic" Germany (home to the world's fastest-growing Jewish community) gives Israel three military submarines for free, "anti-semitic" France has proliferated to Israel the nuclear technology for its weapons of mass destruction, and "anti-semitic" Europe has welcomed Israel as a single non-European country to everything from football and basketball leagues to the Eurovision Song Contest, and has granted Israeli universities a special status for scientific fund-raising.

The Holocaust has been the greatest catastrophe in Jewish history and among the greatest crimes in human history ? but the very fact that these words sound so obvious is a great victory on anti-semitism. The term genocide, coined by a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust (R. Lemkin) and modelled on the genocide of the Jews, has found its way to international legislation and been affirmed as a crime by almost all the countries on earth, including eventually (with a shamefully long delay) the US. The Holocaust has (justly!) become the prototype of genocide, a synonym for Crime against Humanity. There were several other genocides in the 20th century ? enough to mention the Armenian genocide by Turks (which preceded and inspired the Holocaust) or the Tutsi genocide by Hutu in Rwanda (which was even more "efficient" than the Holocaust). However, while other genocides are still struggling even to be acknowledged, the Holocaust is the only genocide which is considered unquestionable to the extent that its denial is in some countries a criminal offence. No other genocide even comes close to the 250 memorial museums and research institutes dedicated to the Holocaust around the world, and no other genocide survivors have been financially compensated like the persecuted Jews. In such a world, whoever cries "anti-semitism" twice a day has an extremely heavy burden of proof to shoulder.

The State of Israel has always been cynically exploiting allegations of anti-semitism, condemning purported and cooperating with actual anti-semites at will. Last week, to quote just a minor example, when the world was outraged by Italy's monarch Berlusconi's claim that his fascist predecessor Mussolini "had not killed anybody but just sent people to holidays in exile" ? which comes fairly close to Holocaust denial ? the only official Israeli reaction was that of an unnamed spokesman for the 2nd Minister in the Ministry of Finance, who mumbled that "If the words have been said (!), one can not agree with them, since History speaks for itself" (Ha'aretz 14.9, p.12 bottom). The reason for this ear-deafening outcry is simple: Berlusconi, like most right-wing extremists, has taken a decisive pro-Israel stand in Europe. So let him even deny the Holocaust if he likes, Israel will show understanding. After all, Israel was a closest ally of the most racist regime in the post-WWII era, South Africa's Apartheid: moral considerations have never played any role whatsoever in Israel's politics and diplomacy.

On a state level, some may excuse it as Realpolitik. The institutionalised pro-Israel lobby has compromised its integrity to such an extent, that I won't be surprised if, say, the Anti-Defamation League, which cries anti-semitic wolf on a daily basis, now hails the fascist apologist Berlusconi as a distinguished statesman; Actually, precisely this world-record of hypocricy has taken place this very week. Much more disturbing is the intensive resorting to "anti-semitism" claims by Jewish individuals and institutions who do try to maintain a look of integrity.Such claims take many creative forms: for example, some Jews have a morally repulsive pastime of looking for worst cases of oppression ? Russian atrocities in Chechnya (whose veterans, by the way, join the Israeli army), Chinese in Tibet ? which supposedly "prove" that the media focus on Israel is anti-semitically motivated. As if it were not outrageous enough to be on the shortlist of evil-doers, as if only the gold medal in this satanic competition, but not bronze or silver, is worthy of protest. And I wonder how many of those arm-chair pro-Israel Tibet specialists ever bothered to actually do something to free Tibet, except for exploiting its suffering to distract from Israel's atrocities.

The abuse of alleged anti-semitism is morally despicable. It took hundreds of years and millions of victims to turn anti-semitism ? a specific case of racism which led historically to genocide ? into a taboo. People abusing this taboo in order to support Israel's racist and genocidal policy towards the Palestinians do nothing less than desecrate the memory of those Jewish victims, whose death, from a humanistic perspective, is meaningful only inasmuch as it serves as an eternal warning to the human kind against all kinds of discrimination, racism, and genocide.

Moreover, portraying the victimisers as victims ? a standard characteristic of anti-Palestinian propaganda ? is precisely what anti-semitism has always done: in blood-libels which portrayed defenceless Jewish victims as victimisers of Christian children, or in the ultimate accusation of Christ killing, which abused the persecution of early Christians to legitimate the persecution of Jews once the balance of power changed. Thus, evoking Jewish victims of the past to defend Jewish victimisers of the present ?remember that Israel has one of the mightiest armies on earth ? is a moral fault on a par with, and embarrassingly similar to, anti-semitism itsel

Do Palestinians Exists, or Don't They? That's The Question?
BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries

From the inception of Zionism in the late 19th century and until the present day, the Zionist leaders have insisted that the Palestinians do not exist as either a people or a nation. This blind attitude was adopted to facilitate the usurpation and suppression of Palestinian political, economic, and human rights. As it will be demonstrated from the quotes below, it was often argued by most Zionists that Palestine was an empty and destitute place until Zionists decided to "redeem" it from the desert; and they also argued that the indigenous Palestinian people were backward, primitive, and mostly nomadic who did not deserve any political rights.

Related Links

* Zionist FAQ: Isn't it true that Palestine inhabitants were mostly a nomadic people? Why should they have a country of their own?
* A scanned page from Ben-Gurion's book stating that Jews made up 12% of Palestine's population in 1914
* Zionist FAQ: Since Palestinians NEVER had a state or distinct culture or language, why should they have a state?
* Zionist FAQ: Isn't it true that Palestine was a destitute place until Israeli Jews made its desert bloom?

Famous Quotes

Michael Bar-Zohar (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) openly admitted that it was a myth that "Palestine was an empty land," and to a certain degree, he managed to explain the evolution of the myth, he wrote:

"Whatever became of the slogan: A people without a land returns to land without a people? The simple truth was that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population. In the days of the empire building, the Western powers had dismissed natives as an inconsequential factor in determining whether or not to settle a territory with immigrants. Even after the [1st] world war, the concept of self-determination . . . . was still reserved exclusively for the developed world." (Michael Bar-Zohar, p. 45-46)

In describing the following encounter, Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) briefly summarized Ben-Gurion's relations with the Palestinian Arabs, Teveth stated:

"Four days after the constituent meeting, on October 8, 1906, the ten members of the platform committee met in an Arab hostel in Ramleh. For THREE DAYS they sat on stools debating, and at night they slept on mats. An Arab boy brought them coffee in small cups. They left the hostel only to grab an occasional bite in the marketplace. On the first evening, they stole three hours to tour the marketplace of Ramleh and the ruins of the nearby fortress. Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the [Palestinian] Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine [which was mostly non-Zionist Orthodox Jews prior to 1920]. In all of Palestine there were [in 1906] 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were [Zionists] pioneers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 9-10)

This attitude of ignoring the political rights of the Palestinian people was (and still is) the rule among most Zionists. According to Ben-Gurion's biographer, it's not only that Palestinians were the majority in their homeland as early as 1906, it also should be noted that:

*

The majority of Palestine's Jews were not citizens of the country, but guests from Tsarist Russia.
*

The Jews in Palestinian were mostly Orthodox Jews who made up 7.8% of the total population.
*

At the time, the majority of Orthodox Jews were non-Zionist. Actually, the majority were anti-Zionist.
*

Zionist pioneers were almost absent in Palestine as of 1906, and constituted only 1% of the total Jewish population in Palestine.

In a similar vein, Walter Laqueur (a major historian of Zionism) gave a different dimension to the status of the early Zionist pioneers in 1914 compared to the Palestinian population. He wrote:

"The Zionist immigrants, as distinct from established Jewish community [religious orthodox], numbered no more than 35,000-40,000 in 1914, of whom only one-third lived in agricultural settlements. While Arab spokesmen protested against Jewish immigration, Jewish observers noted with concern that the annual natural increase of the [Palestinian] Arab population was about as big as the total number of Jews who had settled with so much effort and sacrifice on the land over a period of forty years." (A History of Zionism, p. 213)

In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, two of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:

". . . There are now only five hundred thousand Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)

In 1891 Ahad Ha'Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated." (Righteous Victims, p. 42)

Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality. He stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1913:

"Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . . . we are bound in each case. . . to remove the peasants who cultivate the land." (Righteous Victims, p. 61)

It is important to point out that Zionism (as early as 1908 and until the present day) always prophesized that the "Promised Land" had been empty of any people, and it had been waiting for over 2,000 years for Zionist Jews to REDEEM it, click here to read more about the subject.

In 1891Ahad Ha'Am similarly wrote of the Palestinians:

"If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)

Soon after the first Zionist Congress in 1897, Basel (Switzerland), a Zionist delegation was sent to Palestine for a fact finding mission and to explore the viability of settling Palestine with European Jewry. The delegation replied back from Palestine with a cable:

"The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." (Iron Wall, p. 3)

On March 1, 1899 Yosef Diya al-Khalidi (from the renowned Jerusalem family) wrote in a letter to Theoder Herzl explaining that Zionism in practice entails the dispossession and the displacement of the Palestinian people, he wrote:

"It is necessary, therefore, for the peace of the Jews in [the Ottoman Empire] that the Zionist Movement . . . stop. . . Good lord, the world is vast enough, there are still uninhabited countries where one could settle millions of poor Jews who may perhaps become happy there and one day constitute a nation. . . .. In the name of God, let Palestine be left in peace." Herzl responded that Zionists do not intend on dispossession and displacing the Palestinians, on the contrary, he stated the Jews will bring to Palestine ONLY material benefits? (Righteous Victims, p. 37)

Moshe Smilansky wrote in Hapoel Hatzair in the spring edition of 1908:

"Either the Land of Israel of Israel belongs in the national sense to those Arabs who settled there in recent years [before 1908], and then we have no place there and we must say explicitly: The land of our fathers is lost to us. [Or] if the land of Israel belongs to us, the the Jewish people, then our national interests come before all else. . . . it is not possible for one country to serve as the homeland of two peoples." (Righteous Victims, p. 58)

Note that even when the Zionist presence in Palestine was negligible in 1908, they still looked at the Palestinian people as " recent immigrants". Ironically, many Zionists still propagate this myth to this date.

The socialist Zionist Hahman Syrkin, the ideological founder of Socialist Zionism, proposed in a pamphlet, titled "The Jewish Question and the Socialist Jewish State" published in 1898 , that:

"Palestine is thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7)

In March 1911, 150 Palestinian notables cabled the Turkish parliament protesting land sales to Zionist Jews. The governor of Jerusalem, Azmi Bey, responded:

"We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government could open its arms to groups. . . . aiming to take Palestine from us." (Righteous Victims, p. 62)

Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

In 1905 during the Zionist Congress convention at Bessel (Switzerland) a Palestinian Jew, Yitzhak Epstein 1862-1943, delivered a lecture about the "Arab question" :

"Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs. . . . We have FORGOTTEN one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it. . . .
We are making a GREAT psychological error with regard to a great, assertive, and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land of our forefathers, we forgot that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds." (Righteous Victims, p. 57)

Ahad Ha'Am returned to the Arab problem ... in February 1914 ... and he also stated:

" '[the Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this ILLUSION will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution." (UN: The Origins And Evolution Of Palestine Problem, section II) But Ahad Ha'Am's plea went unheeded as political Zionism set about to realize its goal of a Jewish State.

As early as 1914, Ben-Gurion secretly admitted the existence of Palestinian nationalism, at least among the working masses. He explained that Palestinians hatred to Zionism was based of their fear of being dispossessed. Ben-Gurion analyzed this hatred and stated:

"this hatred originates with the [Palestinian] Arab workers in Jewish settlements. Like any worker, the [Palestinian] Arab worker detests his taskmaster and exploiter. But because this class conflict overlaps a national difference between farmers and workers, this hatred takes a national form. Indeed, the national overwhelms the class aspect of the conflict in the minds of the [Palestinian] Arab working masses, and inflames an intense hatred toward the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 18-19)

In 1914, Chaim Weizmann attempted to lay down the foundations of realizing Zionism, and begins by asserting that Palestine is empty and that its current inhabitants have no say in its fate. He stated:

"In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks] must, there for, be persuaded and conceived that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 6)

Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Chaim Weizmann wrote describing Palestinian people as:

"the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 17)

In 1913 the renowned Palestinian historian 'Aref al-'Aref wrote an article predicting the outcome of realizing Zionism:

"[land sale was enabling] the Zionists [to] gain mastery over our country, village by village, town by town; tomorrow the whole of Jerusalem will be sold and then Palestine in its entirety." (Righteous Victims, p. 64)

In 1915 Herbert Samuel (who was an influential Jewish British official who later became one of the earliest advocates of the Balfour Declaration and the first British Mandate High commissioner to Palestine in 1920) wrote :

"[A state in which 90,000 or 100,000 Jewish inhabitants [would rule over] 400,000 or 500,000 Mohammedans of Arab race. . . might vanish in a series of squalid conflicts with the [Palestinian] Arab population." (Righteous Victims, p. 72)

The actual demographics picture for Palestine in 1914 was: 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews, click here for details.

In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled "The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine," he conceded that the Palestinian Arabs have the same rights as Jews. The Palestinians had such rights, as stemming from their history since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of years". He stated in the article:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not from the past but from the future, and in 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights, and if they have any other rights, these are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people made up the majority of the population, well over 85%.

In 1918 Chaim Weizmann denied the existence of an Arab nation in Palestine and portrayed them as ignorant and naive in a letter to a colleague of his:

"The poor ignorant fellah [Arabic for peasant] does not worry about politics, but when he is told repeatedly by people in whom he has confidence that his livelihood is in danger of being taken away from him by us, he becomes our mortal enemy. . . The Arab is primitive and believes what he is told." (One Palestine Complete, p. 109)

On November 2, 1918, at the Balfour day parade in Jewish Jerusalem, Musa Kathim al-Husseini, Jerusalem's mayor at the time, handed the British governor of Palestine, Storrs, a petition from more than 100 Palestinian notables which stated:

"We have noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They [Zionist Jews] pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them." (Righteous Victims, p. 90)

In 1920, Israel Zangwill clearly acknowledged the existence of Palestinians, but not as a people since they were not exploiting Palestine's resources. He said:

"If the Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilizing its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 6)

Privately, many Zionist leaders acknowledged that Zionism was the primary motive behind the Palestinian nationalist movement, however, publicly they always stated that the movement was organized by a few who did not represent the political aims of the ordinary Palestinian. Kalvaryski, a Zionist Official, put it in May 1921:

"It is pointless to consider this [referring to the Palestinian national movement] a question only of effendis [land owners]. . . This may be fine as a tactic, but, between ourselves, we should realize that we have to reckon with an [Palestinian] Arab national movement. We ourselves---our own [movement]---are speeding the development of the [Palestinian] Arab movement." (Righteous Victims, p. 104)

In July 1922, after the Palestinian Arab commercial strike, Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national movement is evolving. He wrote in his diary:

"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the [Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 80)

Similarly in 1929, he also wrote about the Palestinian political national movement:

"It is true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the [Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it."

"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The [Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national movement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)

In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote of how Palestinians really felt about their attachment to Palestine:

"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor that Aztec looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence." (Righteous Victims, p. 36)

Similarly, Ze'ev Jabotinsky also wrote in 1923:

"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was not misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90)

In 1926 Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote of the national struggle between the two conflicting, but justified Jewish and Palestinian national movements:

"The tragedy lies in the fact that there is a collision here between two truths ..... But our justice is greater. The Arabs is culturally backward , but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it can not be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)

In the early 1930's, Ben-Gurion finally admitted the mistake of trying to bribe or buy the Palestinian national movement, rather than working with it, he stated in a Mapai forum:

"We have erred for ten years now . . . the crux is not cooperation with the English, but with the [Palestinian] Arabs." By this he meant not merely a relationship of friendship and mutual aid, but political cooperation, which he called the "cornerstone" of the "Arab-Jewish-English rule in Palestine. Let's not deceive ourselves and think that when we approach the [Palestinian] Arabs and tell them 'We'll build schools and better your economic conditions,' that we have succeeded. Let's not think that the [Palestinian] Arabs by nature are different from us." In the heat of the argument, Ben-Gurion said to one of his critics and asked: "Do you think that, by extending economic favors to the [Palestinian] Arabs, you can make them forget their political rights in Palestine?" Did Mapai believe that by aiding the Palestinian Arabs to secure decent housing and grow bumper crops they could persuade the Palestinian Arabs to regard themselves "as complete strangers in the land which is theirs?" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 114)

As the number of Palestinian Jews (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed, with Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfilment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

In a book Ben-Gurion published in 1931 (titled: We and Our Neighbors), he admitted that Palestinian Arabs had the same rights as Jews to exist in Palestine. He stated:

"The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The [Palestinian] Arabs work the land, and will remain." Ben-Gurion even held that the Palestinian Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by willingness to work." They had the same opportunity to establish that right as the Zionists did. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 5-6)

Ben-Gurion was impressed Izz al-Din al-Kassam's heroism in the mid 1930s, and he predicted Kassam's example would have a far-reaching effect on the Palestinian national movement. Ben-Gurion stated two weeks after Kassam's fateful battle with the British occupation nearby Ya'bad-Jinin:

"This is the event's importance. We would have educated our youth without Tel-Hai [an encounter with Palestinians in the Galilee in the early 1920s], because we have other important values, but the [Palestinian] Arab organizers have had less to work with. The [Palestinian] Arabs have no respect for any leader. They know that every single one is prepared to sell out the Arab people for his personal gain, and so the Arabs have no self-esteem. Now, for the first time, the [Palestinian] Arabs have seen someone offer his life for the cause. This will give the [Palestinian] Arabs the moral strength which they lack."

Ben-Gurion also stressed that

"this is not Nashashibi and not the Mufti. This is not the motivation out of career or greed. In Shaykh Qassam, we have a fanatic figure prepared to sacrifice his life in martyrdom. Now there are not one but dozens, hundreds, if not thousands like him. And the Arab people stand behind them." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

After Ben-Gurion's encounter with George Antonius in May 1936, he was willing to concede the existence of a conflict, between the Palestinian Arabs and Jewish nationalism, for the first time in public. He stated:

"There is a conflict, a great conflict." not in the economic but the political realm. "There is fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

"I now say something which contradicts the theory which I once had on this question. At one time, I thought an agreement [with Palestinians] was possible." Ben-Gurion attached some reservation to this statement. A settlement might be possible between both peoples in the widest sense, between the entire "Jewish people" and the entire Arab people. But such an agreement could be achieved "once they despair of preventing a Jewish Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171)

It should be noted that this statement signaled a shift in Ben-Gurion's mind set. Ironically, his conclusion is in a complete agreement with Ze'ev Jabotinsky's IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first came out with his famous doctrine in the early 1920s, Ben-Gurion and many other Zionists in the Labor movement branded him as a "racist". As the previous quote demonstrates, Ben-Gurion finally recognized that Zionism had to rely on the IRON WALL doctrine for it to become a reality. Unfortunately for the Palestinian people, according to Ben-Gurion that was a matter of "life or death" for Zionism and Jews.

Over no issue was the conflict so severe as the question of immigration:

"Arab leaders see no value in the economic dimension of the country's development, and while they will concede that our immigration has brought material blessings to Palestine [where exclusively Jewish labor was always the rule], they nevertheless contend---and from the [Palestinian] Arab point of view, they are right-- that they want neither the honey nor the bee sting." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

Soon after the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion stated in a meeting with his Mapai party:

" .... the [Palestinian Arabs] fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn into the homeland of the Jewish people. The [Palestinian] Arab is fighting a war that cannot be ignored. He goes out on strike, he is killed, he makes great sacrifices." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

On the other hand, he denied the Palestinian any political rights. As a justification, Ben-Gurionstated:

"There is no conflict between Jewish and Arab nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 19)

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919, Ben-Gurion saw the future Jewish and Palestinian Arabs relations as follows:

"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)

In the context of the 1929 disturbance, Ben Gurion spoke of the emerging Palestinian nationalism and the main goal of Zionism (where Palestine's population becomes a "Jewish majority") to the secretariat of the major Zionist groupings. He said:

"The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement . . . . The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to be the majority." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

Since the Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) could not become a majority as of 1948 (click here for Palestine's demographic map as of 1946), Zionists resorted to compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) to solve what they referred to by the "Arab demographic problem". To hide their basic goals and intentions, they have concocted the myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, and businesses on the orders of their leaders, click here to read our response to this argument.

In 1930 Arthur Ruppin stated that the dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian Arabs was inevitable if Zionism were to become a reality. He wrote:

"[Palestinian dispossession is inevitable because] land is the vital condition for our settlement in Palestine. But since there is hardly any land which is worth cultivating that is not already being cultivated, it is found that whatever we purchase land and settle it, by necessity its present cultivators are turned away . . . In the future it will be much more difficult to purchase land, as sparsely populated land hardly exists. What remains is densely [Palestinian Arab] populated land." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.11)

Soon after the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke of how Palestinians really felt about the continued influx of Jewish immigrants:

"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p. 136)

As the first Intifada erupted in 1936, many Zionists complained that the British Mandate was not doing enough to stop Palestinian resistance (which often was referred to by "terror"). In that regard, Ben-Gurion argued that:

"no government in the world can prevent individual terror. . . when a people is fighting for its land, it is not easy to prevent such acts." Nor did he criticize the British display of leniency: "I see why the government feels the need to show leniency towards the [Palestinian] Arabs . . . it is not easy to suppress a popular movement strictly by the use of force." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

Sporadically, Ben-Gurion EMPATHIZED with the Palestinian people. He stated in a letter to Moshe Sharett in 1937:

"Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness . . . I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do his math and understand what [Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172)

In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the BRINK of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"We cannot begin the Jewish state with a population of which the [Palestinian] Arabs living on their lands constitute almost half and where the Jews exist on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity .... and the worst is not only the [Palestinian] Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the [Palestinian] Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour ..... The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life..... therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 111-112; see also Righteous Victims, p. 143-144)

In May 1944 (during a closed deliberation) Ben-Gurion continued to express without restrain his conviction that Arab transfer was inherent in the very conception of Zionism, he said:

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

In a speech addressing the United Nations Ad Hoc committee on Palestine October 14 1947, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver (an American Zionist leader) stated:

"There has never been a politically or culturally distinct or distinguishable Arab nation in Palestine. Palestine dropped out of history after the Arab conquest [1,400 years earlier and during the Crusade period] and returned as a separate unit only after the league of nations gave international recognition to a Jewish National home in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 91)

The Rabbi's statement has lots of truth to it, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to Zionism and the attempts to bring it to reality via the British sponsored Balfour Declaration. To learn more on the subject, click here.

In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

As late as 1947, after almost half a century of tireless and relentless effort, the collective ownership of the Jewish National Fund (which constituted one-half of all Zionists and Jewish land ownership) amounted to a mere 3.5% of Palestine. Yosef Weitz was in a good position to know that:

"without taking action to TRANSFER [the Palestinian Arab] population, we will not be able to solve our question by [land] buying." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 133)

Yosef Weitz also noted on the same date that the BULK of the cultivable land in the "Jewish state", allotted by UN GA proposed Partition in December 1947, was Palestinian owned. He wrote:

"[most of the land is] not Jewish-owned or even in the category of the state domain whose ownership could be automatically assumed by a successor government. Thus, of 13,500,000 dunums (6,000,000 of which were desert and 7,500,000 dunums of cultivable land) in the Jewish state according to the Partition plan, ONLY 1,500,000 dunums were Jewish owned." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 183)

In an interview with the the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:

"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)

On 30 July 1973 Moshe Dayan said to the Time Magazine:

"There is no more Palestine. Finished . . ." (Iron Wall, p. 316

AMERICA is going to have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, US intelligence analysts have concluded at a secret meeting near Washington.

The Sunday Times


Senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community were almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop Iran acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb, The Sunday Times has learnt.

Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking. “We only have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the Iranian programme,” said one source with knowledge of the meeting. “Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn’t know how to.”

The White House’s earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence analysts that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The “collateral damage” to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

“Unless you can be 100% effective and set the programme back by two decades, you’ll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a result that is better than the current one,” an intelligence analyst said.

General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a “surrogate” terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on America’s regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Iran’s ability to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Iran’s nuclear programme is beset with technical errors. “He has been saying, ‘Slow down, it’s not an immediate problem’,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on achieving a negotiated settlement with the help of the “EU3” nations of Britain, France and Germany.
“President Bush is not going to take military action against the advice of the secretary of state, US generals and the director of national intelligence,” Clawson said.

British sources confirmed that the military option was receding. “There are clear signs that the White House is keener on following a political approach,” said a senior British source. “There’s never been an appetite in the Pentagon for taking Iran on and the EU3 might get a deal that would bring the Iranians to the negotiating table in a reasonable fashion.”

Despite reports that the Iranians were willing to suspend their programme secretly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defiantly announced that Iran’s “atomic work” will not stop for a single day.

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week’s meeting that there were no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how — which it maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

“The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would cheat,” another source said.

“The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb unless there’s some miracle, such as a major accident, a major defector or an orange revolution,” the source added, referring to the people’s protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of these scenarios is considered likely.


www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2383147.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=775072
====================================
#1
Title: similarity of values is a self fulfilling prophecy
Name: Saul Tobin
City: Boston State: MA

If I understand correctly, Ben-Tzvi is simply observing in fact the basis of the American-Israeli alliance, which makes his work brilliantly insightful. However, it seems to me that the rational he`s presented, taken as an ideology, contains much that is wrong with the alliance. American and Jewish values are only compatible so far as the two nations` purposes are. America is a secular, libertarian state. Israel is neither, and it should not be. The best things about Israel are it`s Jewish character and the kibbutzim. The American paradigm of the free market is inherently amoral. Israel is a Jewish state, and as such it must be a light to the nations. There should be NO ASPECT of Israel that is amoral. That isn`t to say Israel should be a Haredi-ocracy, but it should not be an American style corporate state either.

Incidentally, it`d probably be better for America
SUPPORT ISRAEL MATERIALLY
while letting her do her own diplomacy nowadays,
given the huge anti-American sentiment now.
======================
#2
Title: PROFESSOR BEN-TZVI`s WRITING STYLE AND IDEAS...
Name: PhiloEvraios
City: State: California, USA

I hold these academic degrees: AA, two BAs, MA, Ph.D., and 3 Technical College diplomas.Up to now I have taught 54 graduate and undergraduate courses at a number of American universities and colleges, and as a full-time professor at the Lebanese American University in Lebanon. I am a published author, have received honors,etc. But, the thing that has always annoyed me is the pompous, self-important, processional, free-flowing, professorial bullshit way of writing that tries to sweep under the rug all sorts of lies and self-deceptions.
I find NAUSEATING Professor Avraham Ben-Tzvi`s claim that the U.S.A and Israel share core cultural values, historical legacy, ethos, social composition, ideological beliefs, and vision for the future! I am a PhiloEvraios, but I have lived in the USA for 50 years and I know that unlike all American goverments the majority of ordinary Americans could not care less about Israel, and very regretably most Americans dislike Jews.
======================
#3
Title: GOD BLESS THE AMERICAN JEWISH LOBBY!
Name: Clickfool
City: Sussex State: England

"America-both socially and politically-is still overwhelmingly supportive of Israel on issues which pertain to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its resolution as well as the struggle against the regional representatives of the axis of evil."

God bless the American Jewish Lobby,
assiduously working to make Americans see events through Israeli eyes.
Don`t forget, folks, it`s never "resistance to Israeli brutality, murder and occupation", it`s always "Terror".
And God help any journalist or medium that tries to say anything different.
======================
#4
Title: WE WANT A DIVORCE from Israel
Name: Uncle Sam
City: State: USA

Would you put your own national interests above those of the United States?
No, Israel does not-so why on earth do you expect the United States to do so?

Israel is like a bullying spoiled little brother.
He goes out and starts fights,
then says
"My big brother will beat you up if you don`t back down."

Well, in case you didn`t notice, we have enough problems...and Israel could care less.
They still go out and start fights-Lebanon for instance-as well as constant oppression of their brothers the Palestinians.
And Israel tells the US to butt out or fight for us.

It was mostly women and children killed in Lebanon.
It was mostly women and children killed in Lebanon.
It was mostly women and children killed in Lebanon.
It was mostly women and children killed in Lebanon.

And on top of this, we are supposed to let Pollard off the hook
for stealing the most sensitive classified documents we ever owned.
Can we have access to whatever classified stuff you have-you know, being allies and all.

No? That`s what I thought...
=================
#7
Title: Special Relationship
Name: Scobie
City: State: US

Mr. Ben-Tzvi is gracious enough to unwittingly illustrate Wal-Mearshimer`s point, i.e., there is very little strategic value to our country`s "special relationship" with Israel. However, he has forgotten to mention that
our "common values" don`t include murdering civilians,
or do they. . . witness Iraq.
am still waiting for one of the intellectuals to explain what Israel`s borders are??

DOES ANYBODY KNOW??
=================

#8
Title: Ben-Tzvi needs to take a course in writing
Name: Clickfool
City: Sussex State: England

Ben-Tzvi writes like a typical academic and needs to use much shorter sentences.
Take this lulu...

"In other words, whereas the tendency in the recent public discourse has been to focus almost exclusively on organizations and lobbies which promote pro-Israeli measures and legislation, one should not ignore the fact that the continued success of these groups and organizations should be attributed primarily to the fact that the values which they advocate are fully compatible with the values and preferences of most Americans."

I would have rendered this as:

"Recent public discussion has focused on the people and organisations who work to steer legislation and policy for Israel's benefit. However, we should not ignore the fact that their success is mainly attributable to the compatibility of Israeli and American values and preferences."
=================
#9
Title: similarity of values discussion
Name: P. Kelcher
City: Dallas State: TX

If an American can butt in here, please don`t assume that Americans don`t like Jews, or Americans support Israel, etc. We are a great mixture of people and opinions. Don`t think for a minute that George W. Bush represents the opinion of the majority of the American people; he does not. For the most part, I think we do sympathize with Israel and believe in its right to exist.

However, I for one was quite unhappy with your use of cluster bombs in Lebanon,
leaving a million of them there to injure people, including children.
That is immoral.

No one disputes your right to defend yourself, but in the world as it is now, a nation has to exercise restraint and good judgement even in warfare. I do not think that Israel represents any sort of bulwark against the Muslim fanatics; in fact, the existence of Israel is a thorn in their side and creates a lot of their rage. Nevertheless, the U. S. will never abandon Israel, but I think that definitely we will back off a little.
=================
#23
Title: Americans don`t really like Israel
Name: Nathan
City: State:

Many Americans have Lebanonese friends.
The last war was the last straw for many Americans.
Also, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of Jewish censorship of all debate regarding Israel and Israel`s influence on American foreign policy, including the policy in Iraq.
Also, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of Jewish censorship of all debate...
Also, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of Jewish censorship of all debate...
Also, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of Jewish censorship of all debate...

The US Government supports Israel because the US arms merchants make lots of money off of Israel. Billions. The Christian evangelicals support Israel because they want a conflagration in the Middle East -- so the Jews can be converted. Jews are utterly unaware of the increasing sentiment against Jewish influence in American life.
=================
#24
Title: "special relationship"
Name: hollingsworth
City: State:

Boy, I`ll say! That we Americans should buy into these notions of a "special relationship," a "strategic partnership," and "shared democratic values" MAKES ME WANT TO PUKE! Joe Green summarizes it pretty well the reasons for it all: Because: "(1) American Jews support Israel; (2) Christian evangelicals support a mythical view of Israel; (3) the American media has successfully brainwashed many others into supporting Israel."
I would add a fourth point: (4)Numbers of Jews, highly placed in American govt. whom we basically identify as "neocons." These Jews are in my mind nothing but traitorous Fifth Columnists
==================
#25
Title: Special Relationship II
Name: Scobie
City: State: USA

The Israeli government is allowed by the US government to continually increase the illegal Israeli presence in the West Bank. The answer to this riddle illustrates the root of Israel`s security problems. What border is Israel trying to protect? IS ANYBODY ABLE TO DEFINE THE BOPRDER or is it Israel`s prerogative to move it as they see fit? How does one negotiate a border with a country that is unwilling to define it? Walt & Mearshimer have written quite coherently about AIPAC and the influence of the Israeli lobby in the London Review of Books. Perhaps a reading of these two eminent, and now highly criticized, american professors would shed light on Mr. Ben-Tzvi`s narrow view.
==================
#30
Title: Just a Few Simple Reasons
Name: Jimmy Olsen
City: State: USA

Israel serves no strategic purpose for the U.S. Israel receives more aid from the U.S. ($4 billion a year and counting) than any other country on the planet. Israel spies on her ally (Pollard).
Israel killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded 171 more in 1967 terrorist attack upon the U.S.S. Liberty.
Israel IDF terrorists killed an unarmed pacifist Rachel Corrie.
Jewish groups have successfully censored the productions of "Rachel Corrie in Her Own Words" and Jim Allen`s "Perdition."
The Jewish lobby continues to pressure Congress not to recognize the Armenian Holocaust.
Even though there has been an Irish, Chinese, Armenian, Cambodian, Holocausts, not to mention dozens of them in Africa, yet these don`t receive world recognition.
these are merely some REASONS WHY AMERICANS AN OTHERS just might be slightly FED UP with some folk and are more than ready to pull the plug on a rogue nation like Israel.
==================
#31
Title: Jimmy Olsen -- pay attention
Name: bbl
City: State:

---"Jewish groups have successfully censored the productions of "Rachel Corrie in Her Own Words""

The play opened in NY this week. It is in a for-profit theater. The not-for-profit theater has always maintained that it cancelled the production due to the concerns of it`s own membership and not due to pressure from any outside "Jewish Group".

Israel has played an important strategic role for America. For example, Israel came to Jordan`s aid in 1970 to prevent a Syrian invasion at a time when no other US ally would. Israel stayed out of the first Persioan Gulf war despite being hit by over 30 missles fired from Iraq. Israel cooperated with America in the cold war when the Arab states were under Soviet care, aid, and arms shipments.

Moreover, you should look at the Saudis sometime. They killed over 3000 US civilians and extract more than $100 billion a year in oil profits from America. They have had very direct influence over 2 of the last 3 US Presidets
==================
#34
Title: Only the Facts, Joe
Name: Jimmy Olsen
City: State: USA

Once again like blind defenders of the terrorist state of Israel, you EVADE MOST OF THE ISSUES. This is to be expected since a logical aguement would prove you false. Israel has never taken responsibility and owned up to the terrorism that the Irgun and Stern Gang commited before and immediately after Israel was created and the decades of state sponsored terrorism by the IDF. As far as Israel not needing the financial aid of the U.S. nothing could be further from the truth. Eishenhower was the only President with the chutzpah to threaten to cut off the money line when Israel illegally invaded the Suez Canal. The IDF couldn`t get their tanks and jeeps back to Israel fast enough in order to keep U.S. taxpayer money coming. If your claims were true then every U.S. Senator would have the freedom to vote down continued payments instead of having their cajones squeezed by the Israeli lobby and labeled THAT TIRED CANARD of being anti-semetic.
====================
#40
Title: Johnson most supportive of Israel
Name: hollingsworth
City: State:

"Johnson, whose basic approach toward Israel was permeated with empathy and sympathy and reflected his conviction that there existed a basic similarity between the U.S. and Israel in terms of the national ethos and history..."


To say that Johnson`s approach to Israel was "permeated with empathy and sympathy"
is almost an understatement.
So sympathetic was he that he and McNamara covered up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
Johnson called off any defense of the Liberty and is reported to have desired, in language laced with oaths,
that the Liberty be sent to the bottom of the ocean.
===================

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=775072

> nah, that was Hexagram

Re: being billder

a.) who cares (you are unwilling to identify yourself so it's a moot point)

b.) I have better things to do with my time

c.) I don't abduct any known nicks and spoof people - what's the point ? (see b)



and why was the article REposted ?


PS if any nay sayers have a problem with the subject of Iran's nukes I suggest you slug it out with the Sunday Times

I was going to post something more on this a few days ago but I've archived it and it's not worth my time or effort to pull it up

it appears either someone went on a spoofing spree or the spam script had a serious malfunction

I just saw this ;

http://la.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=184204#184398


what a mess :)

just one more reason (not so much that it *is* messed up but that it's forbidden to talk about it without the explaination it'self being hidden)

http://la.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=183573

it appears the whole system was screwed up as you will recall those posts disappeared at first plus all the spoofing appears to be too much (too many people and times) to be intentional

I remember this happening with posted pictures a few times as well - a picture would be uploaded but the actual picture that would appear would be the *last uploaded picture* and not the currently uploaded one according to the timestamp in the raw directory list