{"article":{"id":163082,"heading":"The Left and the Israel Lobby","author":"Dissident Voice","created":"2006-06-10 12:42:23","modified":"2006-06-24 12:29:48","last_modified":"Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:29:48","article":"T<\/span>here have been prominent responses to the recent debate over the influence of the Israel lobby sparked by the article, “The Israel Lobby,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which was recently published in the London Review of Books<\/i>. Some -- predictably -- condemn any attempt to raise the issue as “anti-Semitic” -- metaphorically screaming, “Israel<\/i> lobby? What<\/i> Israel lobby?” This is arguably the largest lobby based in D.C. In fact, one might somehow surmise its power by the sheer marshalling of vehemence and overwhelming forces with which its power is denied.<\/span>\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t

The very people who, on the one hand, insist that there is no proof of the Israel lobby’s power, or say that it’s too difficult to study in Washington’s overall political environment, on the other hand, typically attack anyone as “anti-Semitic” who attempts to conduct the very research and analysis whose study could provide such proof. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

One has not been allowed even to raise the very question about the Israel lobby (now finally broached in the establishment press by M & W), let alone study and investigate it, without being labeled, slurred or at least insinuated as being “anti-Semitic.” When these sharp attacks come from iconic and otherwise authoritative leftist intellectuals, I call it not only unethical and morally negligent (as one of the most significant obstacles to justice for the Palestinians), but downright anti-intellectual. Indeed, they typically refuse to debate the issue publicly, but rather merely make one-sided strawman potshots and dismissals.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

Other prominent progressives -- including (sometimes closeted) Zionist apologists on the Left (headed by Left guru Noam Chomsky) -- now employ a more sophisticated approach. Instead of denying the existence of the Israel lobby altogether or calling others “anti-Semitic” (or like Stephen Zunes’ fallback attack, saying it “parallels<\/i> anti-Semitism,” in effect attacking questioners as thinking<\/i> like anti-Semites), they admit to the existence of the Lobby, but dismiss it as inconsequential. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

(I never understood the apparent proclivity of many in the Left not to be able to hold more than one factor in their minds at the same time: it, indeed, seems to be always either-or, instead of possibly both-and.)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

“The Lobby is not the real problem,” they say; thus saying that progressives should just completely ignore it -- but after that attempt at dissuasion, if you don’t, you must be anti-Semitic. But, an analysis of these dissuaders’ arguments shows that they are rife with contradictions and, ultimately, just as unpersuasive as the cruder ravings from their colleagues on the Right. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

Unfortunately, typical of these leftist minimizers of the Lobby is Norman Finkelstein, whom this writer otherwise greatly respects, but whose recent article entitled, \"It's Not Either\/Or: The Israel Lobby,\" appeared in the May Day 2006 issue of Counterpunch<\/i>. In fact, before a private respectful e-mail debate with this writer, Finkelstein’s position, as I perceived it, was, indeed, much more like the old Chomsky line of absolute dismissal of the Lobby. But, the critical contradictions remaining in Finkelstein’s position still jump out almost immediately to examined analysis. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

For example, Finkelstein asserts, “Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby.” But in the very same paragraph, he concedes that, “the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies. . . . The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably [probably?] meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.” And later in the same article, he admits, “In terms of alienating the Arab world, [the U.S. has] had something to lose” by associating itself with Israel.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

In an attempt to resolve the inconsistency of the above (no doubt obvious even to him), Finkelstein attempts to make a distinction between U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Palestinian issue, and that relating to “elsewhere in the Middle East.” However, these issues cannot be so cleanly separated. Because of the reaction (which Finkelstein admits is one of alienation to America) of much of the Arab populace to the mistreatment of the Palestinians, U.S. foreign policy with respect to Palestine inevitably impacts its relations with all other Middle Eastern countries. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

The longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes unresolved with no justice for the Palestinians (millions held stateless and others under “Jim Crow”), and the more various regimes in the Middle East are seen as having obeisance to U.S. pressures, the greater the movement toward popular (especially Islamic-based) resistance to those regimes. U.S. policymakers must know this.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

Finkelstein essentially concedes the above when he presents his next argument for minimizing the importance of the Lobby: the U.S. relationship with Israel does affect the U.S. relationship with the remainder of the Middle East after all, but that’s what the U.S. wants. Israel, by this reasoning, is merely a proxy for the United States: it is the puppet, and the U.S. makes it dance.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

The difficulty with this argument is that puppets don’t behave the way Israel does. The Israel lobby doesn’t fall all over itself trying to demonstrate to American politicians that Israel is an obedient and useful lackey. Quite the contrary: the Lobby puts its vast resources and constituent mobilizations into bullying and threatening these very same politicians in order to get its way. And woe unto any politician who doesn't comply. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

But why would the Lobby -- if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et<\/i> al<\/i>., claim -- need to be so aggressively threatening? That would only make sense if there were actually a genuine danger that many American politicians -- absent those formidable and unignorable threats -- might conclude that, in fact, Israel is not a very useful, let alone prerequisite proxy. (After all, foreign proxies are supposed to be doing our fighting there for<\/i> us: we just supply any necessary arms, technical assistance and satellite reconnaissance.) Which in turn begs the question -- how has Israel really served, if arguably at all, rather than upset, U.S. <\/i>interests?<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

The first claim that is often made is that Israel helps the U.S. to create political instability in the Middle East, thereby enabling U.S. dominance of the region. The instability is obvious (even if its benefit to the U.S. is a matter of debate). <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

There is also the inane counterclaim to any assertions of the power of the Israel Lobby that, absent the Lobby, U.S. foreign policy in the “Third World” would still be nefariously imperialist. Well, duh-uhh…! The answer is of course<\/i> it would! The Israel lobby doesn’t oppose<\/i> the imperialist interests of the U.S. in the Middle East; rather, it changes<\/i> how the U.S. exercises those interests. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

However, there is nothing magical about Israel in this respect. When so desired, the U.S. has always seemed to be able to manage to foster domestic instability in almost every Third World country or region of the globe without first setting up or sponsoring the creation of a non-native, apartheid state like Israel. Even absent Israel, the Middle East would be no exception. There is no great love between the various regimes ruling Middle Eastern countries; any imperialist worth the name would find a way to continually exploit these differences.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

The second claim, which is a specious refinement of the above, is that while other countries could, theoretically, serve as tools of U.S. imperialism in the region, Israel is “unique and irreplaceable.” Because Israel is essentially a Western country, this argument goes, it will therefore always be loyal to the U.S.; this, in contrast to other regimes that the U.S. props up, only to see them overthrown by popular -- and anti-American -- uprisings, such as against the Shah in Iran. Israel is therefore, as Finkelstein put it, “the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region.”<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

However, Western sponsorship and a Western cultural identity do not necessarily guarantee unwavering loyalty and subservience to the U.S. Ask the British! They originally thought that Israel’s founders would never turn Zionist guns and bombs on them, or ask the surviving sailors of the USS Liberty. In fact, it is that very \"Western\" orientation of Israel -- and its accompanying colonialist outlook toward the \"inferior peoples\" of the Middle East -- that drives its own imperialist ambitions. Israel, with the help of the Israel lobby, obviously wants to dominate the region and, if that’s accomplished, that means that Israel’s regional strategic interests may then significantly diverge from those of the U.S. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

This doesn’t mean that Israel will ever be directly hostile to the U.S. For example, Europe and Japan are firmly in the Western camp, and are certainly not anti-American by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, and yet they nevertheless pursue their own economic and strategic interests. In many respects, they are rivals to U.S. imperial hegemony. Israel, should it succeed in unequivocally dominating the Middle East as it clearly wishes to do, could develop in the same direction. In the meantime, as Finkelstein points out, the Lobby significantly raises the point at which the \"until and unless\" threshold of Israel becoming a major liability is reached. Israel wasn’t eternally bound to the British empire after all: it found a new close ally. As a result, it is hardly a mere proxy (much less an irreplaceable one); rather, its relationship to the U.S. is far more complex.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

It is this complexity that the minimizers of the Israel Lobby gloss over. They persist in framing the Lobby strictly as acting on behalf of an entirely external entity, wholly foreign to the U.S. economic and political establishment, and thus attempt to persuade the Left that such a separate entity couldn’t possibly convince an imperialist power like the United States to act against its own interests. However, this is a ridiculous oversimplification, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding about how our system of government works. <\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

In reality, the Israel lobby simultaneously operates both as an external interest and as internal \"special\" interest, represented within a faction of the U.S. ruling class and establishment that wishes to see the United States pursue an unequivocally Israelocentric foreign policy in the Middle East. This faction or special interest commands enormous power due to its domestic political (especially, voter) base -- something that no other external, third-party interests possess the ability to do. As such, Israel and its American lobby represent a particular strain of American imperialism.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

However, another faction has come to fore, and the debate breaking out in the mainstream represents a clash of viewpoints<\/i> between these factions: the Israelocentric faction (currently represented by the Bush administration) and the non-unequivocally-Israelocentric faction (represented by the Mearsheimer-Walt paper and implicitly articulated by Brzezinski). As the geopolitical cost and the (in part) Israelocentric strategy failure of the war in Iraq grows greater, this domestic intra-imperialist clash of strategies<\/i> have become visible to the public. What the M-W paper is saying, is that, under the circumstances, we need to be able to debate this strategy, if not in the Congress, at least in the public and our other institutions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

Some may ask why progressives should care whether various internal factions within the ruling class are fighting with each other. Ironically, Finkelstein answered this question himself: it is because these differences have an \"impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world [and many<\/i> millions<\/i> of Palestinians alone]..., the Israeli influence making things worse.\" The Israel Lobby, as he put it, \"makes a huge and baneful difference.\" It is therefore incumbent upon all those who seek peace and justice in the Middle East to combat that baneful influence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t

\r\n\t\t

Joseph Anderson<\/b><\/span><\/span> is a resident of Berkeley, CA, an occasional contributing political essayist to various publications, a local media monitor, and a grassroots progressive political activist.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/div>\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.dissidentvoice.org\/June06\/Anderson08.htm","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"by Joseph Anderson","numcomment":126,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2006\/06\/163082.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":163121,"heading":"Joseph Anderson: Anti-semite","article":"copied from: http:\/\/www.indybay.org\/news\/2005\/02\/1724226_comment.php#1724408\r\n\r\nadd your comments\r\nYO, AVRAM!\r\nby JA Tuesday, Mar. 01, 2005 at 8:01 AM\r\n\r\nPersonally, I *EXULT* everytime I see an Israeli Jew bit the dust. And the same goes for their American cousins! EVERY SINGLE JEW EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD is a just and appropriate target for anti-colonialist liberation! We need to start targeting *EVERY* synagogue, *EVERY* Jew community center, school and everywhere else that you racist devils preach and propogate your agenda. \r\n\r\nBOUT TO MEET YO MAKER, JEWBOY? HA, HA HA!!!!!!!!!! \r\n","author":"Becky Johnson","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2006-06-10 15:40:48","modified":"2006-06-10 15:40:48","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2006\/06\/joseph_anderson_in_sf.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2006\/06\/joseph_anderson_in_sf.jpg"}},{"id":163127,"heading":""by JA"","article":"Zionists love to sign other people's names.","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 15:58:19","modified":"2006-06-10 15:58:19","fileurl":""},{"id":163132,"heading":"JA's misogynistic attack on Tia","article":"But he signed his own name to his infamous misogynistic attack on Tia. \r\n\r\n@%<","author":"gehrig","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:02:56","modified":"2006-06-10 16:02:56","fileurl":""},{"id":163135,"heading":""Zionists love to sign other people's names"","article":"Please prove someone other than JA wrote that anti-Jewish post.","author":"heard it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:15:41","modified":"2006-06-10 16:15:41","fileurl":""},{"id":163137,"heading":"Wow Becky.","article":"I've only been posting here for two days and already it has become apparent that you and your zionist cult of followers are a pretty nasty bunch of liars.\r\n\r\nWow. How can people stoop so low. I pity you all.","author":"Lunchbox","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:31:41","modified":"2006-06-10 16:31:41","fileurl":""},{"id":163138,"heading":"When all else fails, shit-throw","article":"This seems to be the most recent anti-Zionist modus operandi I've stumbled onto here. The most recent addition to the anti-Zionist squad just accuses all Zionists of being nasty liars with no back up whatsoever. "One standard for me, another for thee."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:39:56","modified":"2006-06-10 16:39:56","fileurl":""},{"id":163139,"heading":"SJ, you side has been caught, measured, and found wanting.","article":"Becky Johnson already claimed to be Mossad in another thread, where incidentally she also claimed that the ISM blew up Mike's Place in Tel Aviv.\r\n\r\nThen she claimed she never made that assertion. She can't be trusted.\r\n\r\nAs for you, all you've got is ad hominems and poor reasoning skills, and a Napoleon complex. You tried to bark orders at me and said you don't care about your credibility. That's a good thing, because you haven't a shred.\r\n\r\nUntil you start speaking truthfully and saying things of substinance, I am done corresponding with you.\r\n\r\nGood bye.","author":"Lunchbox","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:45:50","modified":"2006-06-10 16:45:50","fileurl":""},{"id":163140,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"You guys really crack me up! If Becky Johnson were actually a Mossad agent, that would be the last thing you'd ever hear about. It was pretty obvious to me that she was kidding arround. And no one claimed that the "ISM blew up Mike's Place in Tel Aviv" but rather that the ISM met with the terrorists who did it and are supportive of terrorism. ","author":"Hysterical","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:52:30","modified":"2006-06-10 16:52:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163142,"heading":"More hooey from the "impartial observer"","article":"Delusions aside, you haven't proven *all Zionists* here to be liars. \r\n\r\nIncidentally, you missed the post where Johnson clarified she was joking when claiming to be Mossad. That merely reinforces the fact you've got a selective and hypocrital approach to honesty. \r\n\r\nYou're both a hypocritical liar and a clown. That much is obvious. You've provided ample evidence to that effect over the last two days up until your latest post. This place is no sanctuary for clowning anti-Zionist liars. \r\n\r\n\r\n"I am done corresponding with you. "\r\n\r\nSee if I care.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 16:57:56","modified":"2006-06-10 16:57:56","fileurl":""},{"id":163143,"heading":"she was kidding arround","article":"We generally call that lying.\r\nAnd she said 'Mossad contacts'.\r\nClose enough to carry the smell.","author":"Factor","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 17:02:45","modified":"2006-06-10 17:02:45","fileurl":""},{"id":163144,"heading":"Let's let the readers be the judge.","article":""If Becky Johnson were actually a Mossad agent, that would be the last thing you'd ever hear about. It was pretty obvious to me that she was kidding arround. And no one claimed that the "ISM blew up Mike's Place in Tel Aviv" but rather that the ISM met with the terrorists who did it and are supportive of terrorism."\r\n\r\n"BECKY: That's not what I heard. My Mossad sources tell me that the ISM is now listed as a terrorist group by the Israeli govt. ---because of the two ISM'ers who non-violently suicide bombed Mike's Place in Tel Aviv after spending two weeks with the ISM in Gaza."","author":"Lunchbox","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 17:02:54","modified":"2006-06-10 17:02:54","fileurl":""},{"id":163154,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"Now show me PROOF that the ISM has disavowed "armed resistance" and terrorism etc. Not the ISM's say so, but actual proof. The ISM is just window dressing for Palestinian terror organizations.","author":"Now show me PROOF","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 17:50:47","modified":"2006-06-10 17:50:47","fileurl":""},{"id":163160,"heading":"Note how he misrepresents SY's post","article":"SY: "Now show me PROOF that the ISM has disavowed "armed resistance" and terrorism"\r\n\r\nWhat SY said is quite different than what the "impartial and honest" Ryan claims he said. ","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 18:17:57","modified":"2006-06-10 18:17:57","fileurl":""},{"id":163165,"heading":"So that's democracy?","article":""What SY said is quite different than what the "impartial and honest" Ryan claims he said."\r\n\r\nSo, in that "Democratic" land of Israel, anyone who hasn't formally disavowed armed resistance is a terrorist and is subject to imprisonment and departation? That's some democracy ya got there.\r\n\r\nHere in America, anyone that doesn't support armed resistence against aggressive government -- we call them traitors.","author":"Lunchbox","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 18:24:34","modified":"2006-06-10 18:24:34","fileurl":""},{"id":163166,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"Let me make it simple for you,if you openly declare yourself to be an enemy of a country, they don't have to let you in. This is true even if you know how to tune pianos.","author":"Let me make it simple for you","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 18:36:11","modified":"2006-06-10 18:36:11","fileurl":""},{"id":163178,"heading":"real time analysis","article":"Actually when a country declares you an enemy it doesn't have to let you in.\r\nDid this piano tuner declare himself an enemy of Israel?\r\nSome places love terrorists, like here in the USA.\r\nAs long as they're 'our' terrorists.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 19:17:19","modified":"2006-06-10 19:17:19","fileurl":""},{"id":163179,"heading":"Sorry kids","article":"Busy day- sorry I wasn't able to come out and play.\r\n\r\nLunchbox- welcome to the playground. \r\nAnd by the way, I'm not the "nice" one- thats a nasty rumor. Really. ","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 19:41:37","modified":"2006-06-10 19:41:37","fileurl":""},{"id":163180,"heading":"Some "peace activist", "non-violence advocate"","article":"Counter to the lies being trumpeted by the likes of Lunchbox that Larudee has only advocated and been implicated in non-violent activities, here's Larudee in his own words favoring violent action:\r\n\r\n"Although we are totally dedicated to nonviolence, we recognize not everyone in the Palestinian community is dedicated to nonviolence and under international law *we recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible* [my own asterisks] for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so."\r\n\r\nFurthermore, an eyewitness in Judea-Samaria related, " Violent attacks by the "nonviolent" ISM had already begun when we met. " (http:\/\/www.aish.com\/jewishissues\/middleeast\/Solidarity_With_Terror.asp, scroll 2\/3 down)","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 19:42:35","modified":"2006-06-10 19:42:35","fileurl":""},{"id":163183,"heading":"keyword here- resistance","article":"And in the context of resistance he makes sense.\r\n"use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so."\r\nLike the French resistance who were 'terrorists' to the Nazis.","author":"Factor","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 19:58:21","modified":"2006-06-10 19:58:21","fileurl":""},{"id":163204,"heading":"We call them patriots.","article":"In America, we call them patriots:\r\n\r\n"Although we are totally dedicated to nonviolence, we recognize not everyone in the Palestinian community is dedicated to nonviolence and under international law *we recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible* [my own asterisks] for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so."\r\n\r\nPeople who use force to resist the forceful invasion of their land, theft of their possessions, and the brutal and vital masscring of their families ~ here in the USA we call them patriots.\r\n\r\nAlthough I find it ironic that Jewed Goatscaper quotes the incarcerated piano tuner here, because he clearly comes out and says that he is dedicated to nonviolence. Jewed Goatscaper asked me earlier today where this guy said he was not in favor of terrorism, and then follows up by debunking himself with his own post.","author":"Lunchbox","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 22:46:59","modified":"2006-06-10 22:46:59","fileurl":""},{"id":163205,"heading":"Spinning his yarn","article":""Although I find it ironic that Jewed Goatscaper quotes the incarcerated piano tuner here, because he clearly comes out and says that he is dedicated to nonviolence. Jewed Goatscaper asked me earlier today where this guy said he was not in favor of terrorism, and then follows up by debunking himself with his own post."\r\n\r\nAnother insult to the intelligence of impartial readers.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-10 22:53:35","modified":"2006-06-10 22:53:35","fileurl":""},{"id":163228,"heading":"Why not deal with the issues?","article":"It should be obvious that none of the zionists who have posted here have rebutted the issues that Joseph Anderson makes in his article on The Left and the Israel Lobby, but debate has never been their strong suit. No need to do so , I suppose, when every arm of government at every level, as well as the mainstream media, is just more Israeli occupied territory.","author":"Jeff B","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 02:52:30","modified":"2006-06-11 02:52:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163238,"heading":""by heard it before Friday, Jun. 09, 2006 at 12:15 PM "","article":">Please prove someone other than JA wrote that anti-Jewish post.\r\n\r\nProve he did. ","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 07:16:16","modified":"2006-06-11 07:16:16","fileurl":""},{"id":163242,"heading":"Dawn breaks like a bull in the hall","article":"\r\n"This is arguably the largest lobby based in D.C. In fact, one might somehow surmise its power by the sheer marshalling of vehemence and overwhelming forces with which its power is denied"\r\n\r\nExcept for the National Rifle Association, which outspends AIPAC 8 to 1. Except for the American Association of retired People with a budget 26 x that of AIPAC. What about the AFL- CIO? What about the Trial Lawyers Association? \r\n\r\n\r\nYeah, Joey. "Arguably". If you ignore the facts.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 11:08:50","modified":"2006-06-11 11:08:50","fileurl":""},{"id":163245,"heading":"Yo Jeff B","article":""No need to do so , I suppose, when every arm of government at every level, as well as the mainstream media, is just more Israeli occupied territory."\r\n\r\nDon't forget the Israelis lurking under your bed, in your closet and inside your cornflakes, you headcase. BTW, someone has stepped up to the plate, poked through JA's silly propaganda and already rebutted one point he made. \r\n\r\nThe problem with your buddy JA is, he churns out so much tripe that most of us have relegated his writings to the kook den. Not that I really expect you to understand. ","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 11:28:31","modified":"2006-06-11 11:28:31","fileurl":""},{"id":163249,"heading":"JA 's a poseur","article":""The problem with your buddy JA is, he churns out so much tripe that most of us have relegated his writings to the kook den."\r\n\r\nYep. The other problem with JA is that those of us who know him, in the bay area know that he is a certifiable, mysogynistic hater. We don't take him seriously. No one should. I don't throw around the term anti-Semite lightly. Joseph Anderson is an anti-Semite.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 11:37:10","modified":"2006-06-11 11:40:05","fileurl":""},{"id":163251,"heading":"AIPAC","article":"Do we have NRA, AARP or the AFL- CIO(A) in the Administration's cabinet , or are they writing policy as the AIPAC defined foreign policy in the Remaking of America's Defenses as in the neocon ( zionist) PINAC paper? \r\nI think not.\r\n\r\n-CBS is reporting that a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst detailed to Undersecretary of Defense for Planning Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans is under FBI investigation for spying for Israel. The person passed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) confidential documents, including those detailing Bush administration policy toward Iran, and AIPAC then passed them to Israel. There are wiretaps and photographs backing up the FBI case (the FBI agents involved are extremely brave to take this on).\r\n\r\nBut this espionage case is too narrow. Consider what journalist Jim Lobe wrote about Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP) and the Pentagon Near East and South Asia (NESA) office:\r\n\r\n"[K]ey personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neoconservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003. The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively. Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); and Michael Makovsky; an expert on neocon icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud Jerusalem Post. Along with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel."\r\nhttp:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/cole\/?articleid=3467","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:01:44","modified":"2006-06-11 12:01:44","fileurl":""},{"id":163254,"heading":"Sweet as sugar pie?","article":"Remember to brush and floss regularly after reading my posts, then.\r\nCheck out Lobbywatch for some shocking stats on private lobbying in Washington. Notice how much big oil spends each year?\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/lobby\/top.aspx?act=topcompanies\r\n\r\n","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:21:06","modified":"2006-06-11 12:21:06","fileurl":""},{"id":163258,"heading":"Big O. I. L.","article":"Again, we don't need to see a financial breakdown of all the bribery involved in Wash.\r\nFunny about the 'Big Oil Interests'.\r\nThey seem to focus on the ability of Israel to supply itself with oil pipelines guarded by American military to feed the criminal state of Israel.\r\n\r\nO.I.L.\r\nOil, Israel and logistics.\r\nAll together in one package.\r\nDriven by dual citizen ( Israeli \/ American ) members of the Administration.\r\nwant my list of 'movers' again?\r\nAll ready at the touch of a keystroke.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:38:13","modified":"2006-06-11 12:38:13","fileurl":""},{"id":163259,"heading":"Pray tell, how so?","article":"Then how come the old oil pipeline to Haifa is still not operative?\r\n","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:40:59","modified":"2006-06-11 12:40:59","fileurl":""},{"id":163261,"heading":"No, you tell me....","article":"Tell me why.\r\nCome on you can do it.\r\n'Big Oil Interests'.\r\nNo, it's more like Big Interests in Oil.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:47:14","modified":"2006-06-11 12:47:14","fileurl":""},{"id":163262,"heading":"And back to you, Sheepdawg","article":""They seem to focus on the ability of Israel to supply itself with oil pipelines guarded by American military to feed the criminal state of Israel."\r\n\r\nHuh? \r\n\r\nRight. Israel is building a solar energy plant in the Negev with the capacity to provide 50 % of the nation's electricity with the next 15 years. At least Israel is weaning itself off the dependency on foreign oil. If only America followed along...\r\n\r\nYour list was useless. It was a list of Jews, with an occassional Luthern or Episcopalian thrown in (to taste? for good measure? just to confuse us?). It was gleaned from several notorious anti-Semetic websites and nothing you cited indicated most of these people were dual citizens.\r\nDefine dual citizen, anyway. Holding two passports? Voting in both countries? Living part of the year in both countries?\r\nYou know, the dual loyalty line is an old anti- Semitic canard. Are you...you know...one of those, too?","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:47:15","modified":"2006-06-11 12:47:15","fileurl":""},{"id":163265,"heading":"Nonsense","article":"The list was a collection ( still expanding) of primary Administration personnel who write policy for the chimp.\r\nOkay here you go...\r\nHere's a little on it: \r\nhttp:\/\/www.oilempire.us\/chertoff.html \r\nHere's about some members (this is a bit old--2003) many of the names are familiar and many hold dual citizenship \r\nRichard Perle \r\nOne of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nPaul Wolfowitz \r\nDeputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nDouglas Feith \r\nUnder Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nEdward Luttwak \r\nMember of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nHenry Kissinger \r\nOne of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor's mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia's Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It's like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nDov Zakheim \r\nUnder Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended attended Jew\u2019s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nKenneth Adelman \r\nOne of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11\/28\/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nI. Lewis Libby \r\nVice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. The chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nRobert Satloff \r\nU.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nElliott Abrams \r\nNational Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nMarc Grossman \r\nUnder Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nRichard Haass \r\nDirector of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nRobert Zoellick \r\nU.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nAri Fleischer \r\nOfficial White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nJames Schlesinger \r\nOne of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nDavid Frum \r\nWhite House speechwriter behind the "Axis of Evil" label. He lumps together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nJoshua Bolten \r\nWhite House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nJohn Bolton \r\nUnder-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report). \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nDavid Wurmser \r\nSpecial Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nEliot Cohen \r\nMember of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nMel Sembler \r\nPresident of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nMichael Chertoff \r\nAssistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nSteve Goldsmith \r\nSenior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also serves as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nAdam Goldman \r\nWhite House's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nJoseph Gildenhorn \r\nBush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nChristopher Gersten \r\nPrincipal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez, and reportedly very pro-Israel. Their children are being raised Jewish. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nMark Weinberger \r\nAssistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nSamuel Bodman \r\nDeputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nBonnie Cohen \r\nUnder Secretary of State for Management. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nRuth Davis \r\nDirector of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors). \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nDaniel Kurtzer \r\nAmbassador to Israel. \r\n\r\nCliff Sobel \r\nAmbassador to the Netherlands. \r\n\r\nStuart Bernstein \r\nAmbassador to Denmark. \r\n\r\nNancy Brinker \r\nAmbassador to Hungary \r\n\r\nFrank Lavin \r\nAmbassador to Singapore. \r\n\r\nRon Weiser \r\nAmbassador to Slovakia. \r\n\r\nMel Sembler \r\nAmbassador to Italy. \r\n\r\nMartin Silverstein \r\nAmbassador to Uruguay. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nLincoln Bloomfield \r\nAssistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nJay Lefkowitz \r\nDeputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nKen Melman \r\nWhite House Political Director. \r\n\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \r\n\r\nBrad Blakeman \r\nWhite House Director of Scheduling. \r\n\r\n\r\nEric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby] ?\r\nHenry Morgenstern\u2014founder, SSI\r\n\r\nDeputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz\r\n \r\nUndersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith\r\n \r\nPentagon adviser Richard Perle\r\n adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, David Wormser Iran specialist Harold Rhode\r\n","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:50:46","modified":"2013-11-11 00:40:51","fileurl":""},{"id":163266,"heading":"Shit Dog","article":"If you spout off about a topic you know zilch about and can't handle an innocuous question about your allegation other than puking on the monitor, kindly don't post. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:53:43","modified":"2006-06-11 12:53:43","fileurl":""},{"id":163268,"heading":"Spam but no answers","article":"Your respammed list doesn't really answer the questions put to you, does it. Watsamatter, can't handle some pointed queries abvout your earlier assertions?","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:56:55","modified":"2006-06-11 12:56:55","fileurl":""},{"id":163269,"heading":"where does it say they are dual citizens?","article":"That wasn't an answer.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:56:58","modified":"2006-06-11 12:56:58","fileurl":""},{"id":163270,"heading":"It's * your* puke","article":"Don't you like the data?\r\nEnd All Lobbies.\r\nThey must be criminalized to clean our national polices from undue influence.\r\n\r\nIncluding Israel.","author":"Judasgoat's imp","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 12:57:26","modified":"2006-06-11 12:57:26","fileurl":""},{"id":163271,"heading":"As for Dual Citizenship","article":"So... you're telling me that my list of dual citizens in inaccurate?\r\nBelieve me that the information I've been digging is not generally published due to its inflammatory implications. And a powerful Israeli lobby.\r\nYou tell me if I have erred. And where.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:01:25","modified":"2006-06-11 13:01:25","fileurl":""},{"id":163274,"heading":"Burden of proof is on the prosecution, dawg","article":"I went back to your original source. It claimed that only 2 were "alleged" dual citizens.\r\nSo how did you come up with your conclusion?\r\nIts a list of all Jews, isn't it? Past and Present? Dual citizenship has nothing to do with it.\r\n","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:06:34","modified":"2006-06-11 13:06:34","fileurl":""},{"id":163278,"heading":"Thanks for reaffirming you're a liar","article":"No where in the descriptions of the two leading persons on your list, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, are we told whether they posses Israli citizenship. Why should I keep reading from there if your folly has been exposed at the outset? Your excuses don't account for why their alleged possession of Israeli nationality isn't tackled. \r\n\r\n","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:11:06","modified":"2006-06-11 13:11:06","fileurl":""},{"id":163280,"heading":"Its a list of all Jews, isn't it?","article":"I'm not sure if they're Jews. \r\nBut they are dual citizens of Israel and America ( does any other country have the ability to retain dual citizenship in the US?) and many, I'm certain are Mossad assets, like the CIA has in its Project MOCKINGBIRD.\r\nNow you want me to supply proof of each of the persons I've listed?\r\nThat would be a wild ride.\r\nMe presenting evidence and 'you' quibbling about definitions on dual citizenship.\r\nThe source I've provided has a link. \r\nMy task is to make it public.\r\nDon't try to get me to start picking gnat sh*t from pepper.\r\n\r\nThe curious reader can see for themselves.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:16:20","modified":"2006-06-11 13:16:20","fileurl":""},{"id":163292,"heading":"Dual Citizenship","article":"Not as nefarious as you'd like us to believe: \r\n\r\nThe concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.\r\n\r\nA U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.\r\n\r\nIntent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.\r\n\r\nHowever, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.\r\n ","author":"from the US Immigration website","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:44:46","modified":"2006-06-11 13:44:46","fileurl":""},{"id":163293,"heading":"A clause or provision I remember","article":"A US national's citizenship may be revoked if he or she is elected to another country's parliament. Now, who on Sheepdog's list was ever elected to the Israeli Knesset?","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:55:03","modified":"2006-06-11 13:55:03","fileurl":""},{"id":163295,"heading":"Lunchbox can't read","article":"I never said I was a Mossad agent. I made a joke for Sheepdogs torment that "according to my Mossad sources..."\r\n\r\nI don't actually have any Mossad sources. Lee Kaplan does have Israeli govt. sources, but they are through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which handles the PR for Israel.\r\n\r\nI clarified that it was a joke shortly after I made the statement. Lunchbox claims that I said I WAS a Mossad agent. He has misread what I DID say.\r\n\r\nHe also says that I claimed the ISM blew up Mike's Place. I never made such a statement. I said that the suicide bombers "had connections with the ISM".\r\n\r\nHe has misread that too.\r\n\r\nLunchbox, I suggest you sign up for "Hooked on Phonics" because your reading skills are dismal.","author":"Becky Johnson","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 13:57:40","modified":"2006-06-11 13:57:40","fileurl":""},{"id":163297,"heading":"the envelope please","article":"( does any other country have the ability to retain dual citizenship in the US?)\r\n\r\nAnd the answer, for 2 points and the win is yes. 59 countries.\r\n\r\nNow will you abandon this old anti-Semitic canard?\r\nI'll give you a milk bone.....or in your case, perhaps a pig ear is more appropriate.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 14:03:56","modified":"2006-06-11 14:03:56","fileurl":""},{"id":163340,"heading":""old anti-Semitic canard"","article":"Note that she calls it a name, rather than denying its truth.","author":"typical Zionist ploy","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 18:58:09","modified":"2006-06-11 18:58:09","fileurl":""},{"id":163345,"heading":""Note that she calls it a name"","article":"Note that he calls it a name, rather than denying it's a lie.\r\n","author":"typical anti-Zionist ploy","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 19:02:45","modified":"2006-06-11 19:02:45","fileurl":""},{"id":163363,"heading":"Dual nationality","article":"So Nessie\/ Sheepdawg - is it racist fro the other 59 countries? Does it indicate divided loyalties for the other 59 countries? Why is Israel singled out?\r\n\r\nAnd Nessie, can the cliches. Give us a real answer. And "I don't dialog with racists" doesn't count.","author":"tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 21:39:49","modified":"2006-06-11 21:45:32","fileurl":""},{"id":163378,"heading":""cliches"","article":"http:\/\/onegoodmove.org\/fallacy\/style.htm\r\n\r\nStyle Over Substance\r\n\r\nDefinition:\r\n\r\n The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true. \r\n\r\nExamples:\r\n\r\n 1. Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on his forehead.\r\n 2. Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.\r\n 3. Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed young man? \r\n\r\nProof:\r\n\r\n While it is true that the manner in which an argument is presented will affect whether people believe that its conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion does not depend on the manner in which the argument is presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the truth or falsity of the conclusion. \r\n\r\n","author":"bunk logic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 22:29:30","modified":"2006-06-11 22:29:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163380,"heading":"Why is he trying to divert your attention?","article":"Obviously because he knows he'll refute his lies by answering Tia's questions. He kids himself that no one notices.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 22:34:23","modified":"2006-06-11 22:34:23","fileurl":""},{"id":163383,"heading":"What's different about Israel","article":"is that Israel is a rogue state, a racist aggressor and an apartheid society, with the American taxpayers footing the bill.","author":"death to the Zionist entity","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 22:38:33","modified":"2006-06-11 22:38:33","fileurl":""},{"id":163386,"heading":"Lies and a cop out","article":"Israel is no rogue state, "racist aggressor" nor an apartheid society. But even if it were, that wouldn't explain why you're singling it out out of other countries among the remaining 58 that possess some or all of those characteristics in varying degrees.\r\n\r\nYou're still not dealing honestly with her questions.\r\n\r\nDeath to 'nessie'. ","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 22:45:51","modified":"2006-06-11 22:45:51","fileurl":""},{"id":163395,"heading":"there they go again","article":">Israel is no rogue state, "racist aggressor" nor an apartheid society.\r\n\r\nTell that to their victims.","author":"more Zionist lies","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-11 23:00:45","modified":"2006-06-11 23:00:45","fileurl":""},{"id":163437,"heading":"brief question","article":"If you are so pro-Palestinian (instead of simply being anti- Israel) why isn't there any anti-Jordan rhetoric? More Palestinians were killed in a single week in Jordan than were killed in the entire "intifada" with Israel.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 10:33:06","modified":"2006-06-12 10:52:08","fileurl":""},{"id":163442,"heading":""you"","article":"This isn't about me. They're just trying to change the subject. They really, really, really don't want people to talk about the Lobby. It's their Achilles heel. That's why they immediately disrupt any thread it appears in. \r\n\r\nBut let's just ignore the disruptions and discuss the article itself. How about this line? Let's examine it:\r\n\r\n>But why would the Lobby -- if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et al., claim -- need to be so aggressively threatening? \r\n\r\nThis is very interesting question. We're not going to get a straight answer from the Zionist propaganda mill. We're going to have to supply it ourselves. \r\n\r\nGo for it.","author":"typical Zionist ploy","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 11:23:44","modified":"2006-06-12 11:23:44","fileurl":""},{"id":163443,"heading":"Back to the Lobby","article":"\r\n"This is arguably the largest lobby based in D.C. ..."\r\n\r\nFrom Lobbywatch: Top Lobbying Companies and Organizations, and their annual expenditures\r\n\r\nChamber of Commerce for the U.S.A. \t $204,614,680\r\nAltria Group Inc \t$101,220,000\r\nGeneral Electric Co. \t$94,130,000\r\nAmerican Medical Association \t$92,560,000\r\nNorthrop Grumman Corp. \t$83,405,691\r\nEdison Electric Institute \t$82,866,628\r\nVerizon Communications Inc. \t$81,870,000\r\nBusiness Roundtable \t$80,380,000\r\nAmerican Hospital Association & State Affiliates \t$79,205,772\r\nPharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America \t$72,720,000\r\nNational Association of Realtors \t$68,810,000\r\n\r\n\r\nDon't see AIPAC on the list. I wonder where Joseph got his info?","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 11:45:48","modified":"2006-06-12 12:13:58","fileurl":""},{"id":163445,"heading":"undecided about Lobbying in general","article":"Isn't the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund technically a lobby? Don't lobbies have the potential to give ordinary citizens access to government? Haven't labor union lobbyists been influential in promoting better working conditions for all? I am still on the fence regarding lobbies....but as of now they are legal and accepted.\r\n\r\n"i am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues...."\r\n\r\nThe lorax was a lobbyist, too.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the element that is being ignored is that AIPAC is powerful because people believe strongly in Israel. Nothing nefarious here.","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 12:00:36","modified":"2006-06-12 12:00:36","fileurl":""},{"id":163449,"heading":""This isn't about me."","article":"This isn't about nessie. He's just trying to change the subject. He really, really, really doesn't want Zionists to talk about the Lobby. It's his Achilles heel. That's why he immediately disrupts any thread it appears in. \r\n\r\nBut let's just ignore the disruptions and discuss the article itself. How about this line? Let's examine it: \r\n\r\n>But why would the Lobby -- if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et al., claim -- need to be so aggressively threatening? \r\n\r\nThis is very uninteresting question. We're not going to get a straight answer from the anti-Zionist propaganda mill. nessie is going to have to supply it himself. \r\n\r\nGo for it.","author":"typical anti-Zionist ploy","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 12:16:39","modified":"2006-06-12 12:16:39","fileurl":""},{"id":163453,"heading":"AIPAC is onl a fraction of the Israel lobby.","article":"Most of what the Lobby does is not reported on that list. The spying, for example, and the ensuing blackmail, goes unreported. \r\n\r\nAs for the other lobbies, they are off topic. Don't let the Zionists distract you. Stay focused.","author":"anti-Zionist","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 12:41:28","modified":"2006-06-12 12:41:28","fileurl":""},{"id":163454,"heading":"British academic boycott of Israel: officiall over","article":"Hey, remember all that anti-Zionist celebration a few weeks ago that the British higher education union NATFHE had voted for an academic boycott of Israel? Turns out that boycott couldn't even hang on for an entire week. NATFHE merged with AUT on June 1 -- and guess what, the boycott resolution expired when NATFHE did, which was only four days after the NATFHE meeting in which the resolution was passed.\r\n\r\nSo the big bad British boycott goes *poof* before it even has a chance to be implemented.\r\n\r\nBut nessie would never, ever, ever, ever tell you that.\r\n\r\n@%<","author":"gehrig","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 12:53:16","modified":"2006-06-12 12:53:16","fileurl":""},{"id":163460,"heading":""British academic boycott of Israel"","article":"They're still trying to divert your attention. They really, really, realy don't want you to focus on the Lobby. It's their Achilles heel.","author":"off topic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:25:58","modified":"2006-06-12 14:25:58","fileurl":""},{"id":163461,"heading":""They're still trying to divert your attention"","article":"nessie claims it's off topic becausse he can't deal with a new blow to his racist agenda. He's still trying to divert your attention. He really, really, realy doesn't want you to focus on the rebuttals to the false contentions about the Israeli Lobby. It's his Achilles heel.\r\n","author":"heard it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:41:30","modified":"2006-06-12 14:41:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163463,"heading":""by heard it before Sunday, Jun. 11, 2006 at 10:41 AM "","article":"Once again they demonstrate what fundamentally dishonest people they are:\r\n\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.sfimc.net\/news\/2002\/12\/1555696_comment.php#1692248\r\n\r\n(snip)\r\n\r\nSometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it\u2019s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.\r\n\r\n(snip)\r\n\r\n* * * * * \r\n\r\nZionists love to sign other people's names. That's the kind of people they are, fundamentally dishonest. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's.\r\n\r\nFor more about "black propaganda," see:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2002\/12\/1555696_comment.php#1711536\r\n","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:49:43","modified":"2013-11-11 00:40:52","fileurl":""},{"id":163464,"heading":""nessie claims it's off topic becausse"","article":"nessie claims it's off topic because it's not about the topic, "The Left and the Israel Lobby"","author":"off topic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:52:05","modified":"2006-06-12 14:52:05","fileurl":""},{"id":163465,"heading":""by there they go again Sunday, Jun. 11, 2006 at 10:49 AM "","article":"Once again he demonstrates what fundamentally dishonest a person he is: \r\n\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.sfimc.net\/news\/2002\/12\/1555696_comment.php#1962248 \r\n\r\n(snip) \r\n\r\nSometimes he takes something that a Zionist has written, subtly alters its meaning by changing a few words, and posts it under the name of the original author. \r\n\r\n(snip) \r\n\r\n* * * * * \r\n\r\nAnti-Zionists love to sign other people's names. That's the kind of people they are, fundamentally dishonest. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Ehud Barak's name to, or Irgun's or the Haganah's. \r\n\r\nFor more about "black propaganda," see: \r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2002\/12\/1555696_comment.php#1711539 ","author":"there he goes again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:55:16","modified":"2006-06-12 14:55:16","fileurl":""},{"id":163466,"heading":""off topic "","article":"nessie claims it's off topic because he can't deal with the implications to his racist stance. ","author":"heard it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 14:56:34","modified":"2006-06-12 14:56:34","fileurl":""},{"id":163467,"heading":"Amazing Splatter","article":"Very interesting that the Israeli Lobby thread draws so much fire.\r\nAre we again going to be treated w\/ the usual?\r\nFrom the source in the question of this article?\r\n\r\nBet on it.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 15:27:31","modified":"2006-06-12 15:27:31","fileurl":""},{"id":163468,"heading":"We hit a nerve","article":"They really, really, really don't want you to focus on the Lobby. It's their Achilles heel.","author":"bingo!","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 15:33:26","modified":"2006-06-12 15:33:26","fileurl":""},{"id":163469,"heading":""We hit a nerve"","article":"He really, really, really doesn't want you to focus on the rebuttals made to a few claims made in the article. It's his Achilles heel.\r\n","author":"bunk logic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 15:38:10","modified":"2006-06-12 15:38:10","fileurl":""},{"id":163471,"heading":"Recap","article":"RECAP:\r\n\r\n1. lead article is written by a bigot\r\n2. Lunchbox believes I am a Mossad agent\r\n3. Tia points out that AIPAC is not even on the list\r\nof the top 8 Washington lobbies, debunking the main point\r\nin the lead article\r\n4. Sheepdog spammed his "Jews" list which was initially his "dual-citizenship" list , but with at least one Lutheran and no sign anywhere of dual citzenship, he is left drooling.\r\n5. Some sweet, librarian-type posts some helpful information from the US govt. on dual citizenship which reports that 59 countries observe the practice\r\n6. Scapegoated Jew asks why only Israel is singled out to be villified for having dual-citizens\r\n7. Nessie spams his "black-op" article in the hopes that readers will think JA and Sheepdog are actually closeted Zionists posting here just to try to make anti-Zionists look stupid. And of course to attempt to bring readers BACK to SF IMC from whence he drove them away.\r\n\r\nMy super-secret, deep cover, Mossad sources report: "A fine day so far!!"\r\n\r\n","author":"Becky Johnson","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"image\/gif","created":"2006-06-12 15:46:02","modified":"2006-06-12 15:53:11","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2006\/06\/mossad_logo.gif","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2006\/06\/mossad_logo.gif"}},{"id":163474,"heading":"left- drooling heh heh-Project Mockingbecky","article":"my goodness.\r\nI published a list and you have disputed one member-\r\n" but with at least one Lutheran and no sign anywhere of dual citzenship[ sp ]"-\r\nw\/o any references to same as I provided a full public list which incidentally *hasn't been* disputed.\r\nShe calls that spam after the antics her team members were engaged in despite their fevered *denials* which don't mean sh*t.\r\nThe UNDUE influence of these dual citizenship members in OUR government have DUAL loyalties and their machinations are destructive to American interests. \r\nThe same sources of 'motivations' that bring us this basket of zionists. \r\nIt's not merely AIPAC and ADL and JDL and all the other pro-zionists perception agencies it's also the sanction from OUR government to allow foreign operations on American soil.\r\nCall it what you will. \r\n","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 16:02:14","modified":"2006-06-12 16:02:14","fileurl":""},{"id":163475,"heading":"Only one","article":"The linked source you urged me to read only claimed one of the first two Jewish neo-cons on that list was a dual-citizen. You've just added negatively to your negative credibility.\r\n\r\n","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 16:11:54","modified":"2006-06-12 16:11:54","fileurl":""},{"id":163478,"heading":"Jeffery Blankfort","article":"SF-IMC interviewed Jeffery Blankfort a couple days ago. We're not done typing it up. It's long. But here's a little preview that's relevant to current discussion. \r\n\r\n* * * * * \r\n\r\n(snip)\r\n\r\nJeffery Blankfort: It isn't just the money, however. Money is very important. But it's the way they approach politicians. AIPAC, for example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the only foreign lobby that isn't required to register as a foreign agent. They hold regional meetings around the country, at which they invite supervisors, mayors, city council people, public officials from the area, to come to these luncheons and dinners, where the speaker will be a US Senator or some very important government official, who will come into town, unknown to the media, with no notice to the media. He or she will make no speeches to the media, give no press conferences, and will leave. It will be reported in the local Jewish paper, but it will not be reported in the state where the person lives, except perhaps in the Jewish press there. And there's no interest in the media in following up why, for example, this Senator Christopher Dodd, when he comes to San Francisco, or Mario Cuomo speaks out in Danville, why does he not have a press conference and talk to the media here?\r\n\r\nIn any case, they go to this meeting, and they, these Congress people . . . I'm speaking from knowledge here because I joined AIPAC and I went to one of these luncheons . . .\r\n\r\nSF-IMC: (laughs) Good for you.\r\n\r\nJeffrey Blankfort: . . . and I saw what was going on there. And I said, my god, this is brilliant. They have all the leading figures from Northern California at the meeting, from whose ranks will come the next member of Congress, no doubt.\r\n\r\nWhat happens after AIPAC leaves, then the Jewish Federation, or some local Jewish organization, maybe it's the Koret Foundation, some local Jewish organization will then send local supervisors, city council people, mayors, and so on all expense paid trips to Israel. They meet the Prime Minister, whoever it is, the Defense Minister, and so on, both political parties, they take a trip to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum, to Massada, where Jews supposedly committed suicide in Roman times, to the West bank, where they may meet a house Arab, and they come back here knowing that they have good friends, important friends, in the Jewish community.\r\n\r\nThese people who go into politics, all of them are ambitious. So they know that if they want to run for office, it's not just a matter of money. It's a matter of personal acquaintance. And there are certain instances where I believe people are promoted to run for office by the Lobby, and so in a sense they become the Lobby's employee from the get go. Daniel Inouye, the one armed bandit from Hawaii, his first job was selling State of Israel Bonds. He doesn't list that in his official biography, but the Jewish press has written about that. And he has been one of the foremost supporters of Israel. Tom Daschle is another. They seem to have been promoted into running for office.\r\n\r\nYou also have something else called blackmail, which the Left never considers as a reason for somebody doing something. But the Anti-Defamation League is a major spying organization, the largest private spying organization in the country. They spied on me. In the Bay Area, in Northern California, they spied on twelve thousand individuals, about 600 hundred organizations. Every organization, progressive, ecological, NAACP, the Asian Law Caucus, Filipino groups, Irish Northern Aid, all of them, and Jewish groups as well, progressive Jewish groups. Why do they do this? Information is important. They don't get information just gratuitously and pay people to do that.\r\n\r\nFor example, I was spied on, but nothing compared to a politician. So, for example, when Congressman Tom Harkin of Iowa, who was on the board of directors of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, was visited one day by a member of the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, and sent his employees home, the next day Tom Harkin, soon to run for senator, is all for Israel, totally for Israel. What did they do? Did they offer him money? I doubt it. They probably found something out about Congressman Harkin. They've given Congressman Harkin reasons that he should be pro Israel and how they'll make him a US Senator, perhaps, and give him a lot of money, which they have, as contributions.\r\n\r\nI know of another case where a progressive congressman never would criticize Israel. And if I know something about that person, so would the Israel Lobby. They have people working on this 24\/7. There are many people who think that in Britain, Tony Blair is being blackmailed to support the United States. There is no good reason for the British to support the United States. They materially gain nothing. Their corporations have made nothing. And given the British public school education, photographs could be taken . . . there's a very good likelihood that Blair might be being blackmailed. People try to find all kind of political reasons and there may be no other political reasons than self survival.\r\n\r\nSo these are all these aspects, so AIPAC has this job, this role, of directing funds to various politicians to support them. Also, even if they don't give money, the threat of them giving money to an opponent is there. So in August, 1989, a pro Israel congressperson told Morton Kondracke of the New Republic that it's not out of affection for Israel that Israel gets three billion a year and that there's no debate on the floor of congress. It's the fear that if you do so, you will wake up the next morning to find that your opponent has a half a million dollar war chest to use against you. That was '89. Today, the war chest would be larger. So, there are these threats.\r\n\r\n(snip)","author":"SF-IMC","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 16:51:24","modified":"2006-06-12 16:51:24","fileurl":""},{"id":163483,"heading":"A little more Jeffery Blankfort on the subject","article":"(snip)\r\n\r\nJeffery Blankfort: The Democratic Party is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Israel Lobby. Anyone who thinks that can change by supporting an individual Democrat, other than McKinney, who gets no support from the party, is crazy.\r\n\r\nThe head of the Democratic Party Senate campaign, the one who determines where the money is going to go is Charles Schumer, an open, leading, Jewish Zionist from New York. For the House, it's Rahm Emmanuel, who when he was working for Bill Clinton as a high level staff member, took time off during the first Intifada to do volunteer work in Israel for the Israeli Defense Force. His family is Israeli. He says he's not. In any case, here you have two Jewish Zionists, one running the Democrats' House campaigns and one running the Senate campaigns, determining who is going to get the money in the 2006 election. It's flagrant. And yet, you can't discuss this on the Left, because they'll say, that sounds like anti-Semitism, or it's not important that they're Jewish, like it's not important that the Pope's Catholic. This is what we're dealing with.\r\n\r\n(snip)","author":"SF-IMC","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 17:41:40","modified":"2006-06-12 17:41:40","fileurl":""},{"id":163486,"heading":"Israel Lobby outspends them all","article":"AIPAC does not donate money to candidates. It directs pro-Israel Jewish PACs that disguise their names (e..g, Northern Californians for Good Government) and wealthy Jewish donors where and to whom to sed their money. According to the Mother Jones 400 list for the 2000 elections, 7 of the top 10, 12 of the top 20 and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jews (and I stopped counting there). r Sen. Bernnard Metzenbaum (D-OH) once told a natioal Jewish audience that as far as Congress is concerned, American Jews have only one concern, Israel, and they proved it at that meeting for by the time they finished discussing Israel, there was no time left for the rest of their agenda. The meeting was the national gathering of Jewish community relations councils. To judge from what one reads on comment logs, Metzenbaum was right. All the zionists, at least seem to care about, is defending Israel. Never has Fifth Column gone so deep into a country's society. ","author":"Jeff B","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 17:52:02","modified":"2006-06-12 17:52:02","fileurl":""},{"id":163489,"heading":"Jeff B, the newest goosestepper","article":""Israel Lobby outspends them all", insists Jeff B. And what's this headcase's proof? The following:\r\n\r\n"According to the Mother Jones 400 list for the 2000 elections, 7 of the top 10, 12 of the top 20 and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jews (and I stopped counting there)."\r\n\r\nWow... this guy must be a worst embarrassment to anti-Zionists than JA. 'nessie' might begin spamming his "Zionist black ops" post to try to convince gullable readers that Jeff B is some Zionist agent spreading black propaganda trying to give anti-Zionists a worse name than they already have.\r\n\r\n\r\n"All the zionists, at least seem to care about, is defending Israel. Never has Fifth Column gone so deep into a country's society. "\r\n\r\nAnd now, after you've complained at such length explicitly about the American Jews, you expect us to fall for your codeword "Zionists"? \r\n\r\nPlease say hi to David Duke.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:11:25","modified":"2006-06-12 18:11:25","fileurl":""},{"id":163490,"heading":"Only Israel?","article":"Jews only concerned with Israel? Nah- read the profile of Fred Eychaner. He's well up your on your list His main concern is gay rights","author":"not quite","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:14:08","modified":"2006-06-12 18:14:08","fileurl":""},{"id":163491,"heading":"FWIW, Jeffery Blankfort *is* a Jew.","article":"If a Jew cannot criticize Jews, who can? That's not a rhetorical question. Be specific. ","author":"in case you didn't know","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:14:31","modified":"2006-06-12 18:14:31","fileurl":""},{"id":163492,"heading":"The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions","article":"By Jeffrey Blankfort\r\n\r\nApril 2000\r\n\r\nIt was 1991 and Noam Chomsky had just finished a lecture in Berkeley on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was taking questions from the audience. An Arab-American asked him to explain his position regarding the influence of America\u2019s Israel lobby.\r\n\r\nChomsky replied that its reputation was generally exaggerated and like other lobbies, it only appears to be powerful when its position lines up with that of the "elites" who determine policy in Washington. Earlier in the evening, he had asserted that Israel received support from the United States as a reward for the services it provides as the US\u2019s "cop-on-the -beat" in the Middle East.\r\n\r\nChomsky\u2019s response drew a warm round of applause from members of the audience who were no doubt pleased to have American Jews absolved from any blame for Israel\u2019s oppression of the Palestinians, then in the fourth year of their first intifada.\r\n\r\nWhat is noteworthy is that Chomsky\u2019s explanation for the financial and political support that the U.S. has provided Israel over the years is shared by what is generically known as the Israel lobby, and almost no one else.\r\n\r\nWell, not quite "almost no one." Among the exceptions are the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress and the mainstream media, and what is equally noteworthy, virtually the entire American Left, both ideological and idealistic, including the organizations ostensibly in the forefront of the fight for Palestinian rights.\r\n\r\nThat there is a meeting of the minds on this issue between supporters of Israel and the Left may help explain why the Palestine support movement within the United States has been an utter failure.\r\n\r\nChomsky\u2019s position on the lobby had been established well before that Berkeley evening. In The Fateful Triangle, published in 1983, he assigned it little weight.\r\n\r\n"The \u2018special relationship\u2019 is often attributed to domestic political pressures, in particular, the effectiveness of the American Jewish community in political life and influencing opinion. While there is some truth to this\u2026it underestimates the scope of the \u2018support for Israel,\u2019 and\u2026 it overestimates the role of political pressure groups in decision making." (P.13)\r\n\r\nA year earlier, Congress had applauded Israel\u2019s devastating invasion of Lebanon, and then appropriated millions in additional aid to pay for the shells the Israeli military had expended. How much of this support was due to the legislators\u2019 "support for Israel" and how much was due to pressures from the Israel lobby? It was a question that should have been examined by the Left at the time, but wasn\u2019t. Twenty years later, Chomsky\u2019s view is still the "conventional wisdom."\r\n\r\nIn 2001, the midst of the second intifada, he went further, arguing that "it is improper\u2014particularly in the United States--to condemn \u2018Israeli atrocities,\u2019" and that the "\u2018US\/Israel-Palestine\u2019 conflict" is the more correct term, comparable with placing the proper responsibility for "Russian- backed crimes in Eastern Europe [and] US-backed crimes in Central America." And, to emphasize the point, he wrote, "IDF helicopters are US helicopters with Israeli pilots."\r\n\r\nProf. Stephen Zunes, who might be described as a Chomsky acolyte, would not only relieve Israeli Jews from any responsibility for their actions, he would have us believe they are the victims.\r\n\r\nIn "Tinderbox, his widely praised (by Chomsky and others) new book on the Middle East, Zunes faults the Arabs for "blaming Israel, Zionism, or the Jews for their problems." According to Zunes, the Israelis have been forced to assume a role similar to that assigned to members of the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe who performed services, mainly tax collection, as middlemen between the feudal lords and the serfs in earlier times In fact, writes Zunes, "US policy today corresponds with this historic anti-Semitism." Anyone comparing the relative power of the Jewish community in centuries past with what we find in the US today will find that statement absurd.\r\n\r\nJewish power has, in fact, been trumpeted by a number of Jewish writers, including one, J.J. Goldberg, editor of the Jewish weekly Forward, who wrote a book by that name in 1996. Any attempt, however, to explore the issue from a critical standpoint, inevitably leads to accusations of anti-Semitism, as Bill and Kathy Christison pointed out in their article on the role of right wing Jewish neo-cons in orchestrating US Middle East policy, in Counterpunch (1\/25\/3):\r\n\r\n"Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labelled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel," and some Leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination."\r\n\r\nPresumably, this is what Zunes would call an example of the "latent anti-Semitism which has come to the fore with wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish economic and political power." And that it "is a na?ve assumption to believe that foreign policy decision making in the US is pluralistic enough so that any one lobbying group\u2026can have so much influence."\r\n\r\nThis is hardly the first time that Jews have been in the upper echelons of power as Benjamin Ginsberg points out in "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, but there has never been a situation anything like the present. This was how Ginzberg began his book:\r\n\r\n"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade\u2019s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation\u2019s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation\u2019s largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times".\r\n\r\nThat was written in 1993, Today, ten years later, ardently pro- Israel American Jews are in positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every segment of our culture and body politic. This is no secret conspiracy. Regular readers of the New York Times business section, which reports the comings and goings of the media tycoons, are certainly aware of it. Does this mean that each and every one is a pro-Israel zealot? Not necessarily, but when one compares the US media with its European counterparts in their respective coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the extreme bias in favour of Israel on the part of the US media is immediately apparent.\r\n\r\nThis might explain Nation Columnist Eric Alterman\u2019s discovery that "Europeans and Americans\u2026 differ profoundly in their views of the Israel\/Palestine issue at both the elite and popular levels.. with Americans being far more sympathetic to Israel and the Europeans to the Palestinian cause\u2026"\r\n\r\nAn additional component of Chomsky\u2019s analysis is his insistence that it is the US, more than Israel, that is the "rejectionist state," implying that were it not for the US, Israel might long ago have abandoned the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians for a mini- state.\r\n\r\nEssential to his analysis is the notion that every US administration since that of Eisenhower has attempted to advance Israel\u2019s interests in line with America\u2019s global and regional agenda. This is a far more complex issue than Chomsky leads us believe. Knowledgeable insiders, both critical and supportive of Israel, have described in detail major conflicts that have taken place between US and Israeli administrations over the years in which Israel, thanks to the diligence of its domestic lobby, prevailed.\r\n\r\nIn particular, Chomsky ignores or misinterprets the efforts made by every US president beginning with Richard Nixon to curb Israel\u2019s expansionism, halt its settlement building and to obtain its withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.\r\n\r\n"What happened to all those nice plans?" asked Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery.\r\n\r\n"Israel\u2019s governments \u2026 mobilized the collective power of US Jewry\u2014which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree\u2014against them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents; great and small, football players and movie stars\u2014folded one after another."\r\n\r\nGerald Ford, angered that Israel had been reluctant to leave the Sinai following the 1973 war not only suspended aid for six months in 1975, but in March of that year made a speech, backed by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, that called for a "reassessment" of the US-Israel relationship. Within weeks, AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel\u2019s Washington lobby secured a letter signed by 76 senators "confirming their support for Israel, and suggesting that the White House see fit to do the same. The language was tough, the tone almost bullying." Ford backed down.\r\n\r\nWe need to only look at the current Bush presidency to see that this phenomenon is still the rule. In 1991, the same year as Chomsky\u2019s talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administration for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it would freeze settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank.\r\n\r\nAn angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loan guarantees.\r\n\r\nA letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation.\r\n\r\nOn September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." It would prove to be his epitaph.\r\n\r\nChomsky pointed to Bush\u2019s statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger "It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse," he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth.\r\n\r\nThe next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC\u2019s Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy," Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him, they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush\u2019s Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%.\r\n\r\nBush\u2019s opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal\u2019s Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters," he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel\u2019s friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then, Bush was dead meat.\r\n\r\nNow, jump ahead to last Spring when Bush Jr. forthrightly demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his troops from Jenin, saying "Enough is enough!" It made headlines all over the world, as did his backing down when Sharon refused. What happened? Harsh criticism boomed from within his own party in Congress and from his daddy\u2019s old friends in the media. Will associated Dubya with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity." The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes" and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for survival." Junior got the message and within a week, declared Sharon to be "a man of peace." Since then, as journalist Robert Fisk and others have noted, Sharon seems to be writing Bush\u2019s speeches.\r\n\r\nThere are some who believe that Bush Jr. and presidents before him made statements critical of Israel for appearances only, to convince the world, and the Arab countries, in particular, that the US can be an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it is difficult to make a case that any of them would put themselves in a position to be humiliated simply as a cover for US policy.\r\n\r\nA better explanation was provided by Stephen Green, whose "Taking Sides, America\u2019s Secret Relations with Militant Israel," was the first examination of State Department archives concerning US-Israel relations. Since the Eisenhower administration, wrote Green, in 1984, "Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have determined the broad outlines of US policy in the region. It has been left to American Presidents to implement that policy, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and to deal with the tactical issues."\r\n\r\nAn exaggeration, perhaps, but former US Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) echoed Green\u2019s words in a speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee last June:\r\n\r\n"That is the state of American politics today. The Israeli lobby has put together so much money power that we are daily witnessing US senators and representatives bowing down low to Israel and its US lobby.\r\n\r\n"Make no mistake. The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators\u2019 love for Israel. They have everything to do with the money that is fed into their campaigns by members of the Israeli lobby. My estimate is that at least $6 billion flows from the American Treasury to Israel each year. That money, plus the political support the US gives Israel at the United Nations, is what allows Israel to conduct criminal operations in Palestine with impunity."\r\n\r\nThat is a reality that has been repeated many times in many forms by ex-members of Congress, usually speaking off the record. It is the reality that Chomsky and those who accept his analysis prefer to ignore.\r\n\r\nThe problem is not so much that Chomsky has been wrong. He has, after all, been right on many other things, particularly in describing the ways in which the media manipulates the public consciousness to serve the interests of the state. However, by explaining US support for Israel simply as a component of those interests, and ignoring the influence of the Israel lobby in determining that component, he appears to have made a major error that has had measurable consequences. By accepting Chomsky\u2019s analysis, the Palestinian solidarity movement has failed to take the only political step that might have weakened the hold of Israel on Congress and the American electorate, namely, by challenging the billions of dollars in aid and tax breaks that the US provides Israel on an annual basis.\r\n\r\nThe questions that beg asking are why his argument has been so eagerly accepted by the movement and why the contrary position put forth by people of considerable stature such as Edward Said, Ed Herman, Uri Avnery, and more recently, Alexander Cockburn, has been ignored. There appear to be several reasons.\r\n\r\nThe people who make up the movement, Jews and non-Jews alike, have embraced Chomsky\u2019s position because it is the message they want to hear; not feeling obligated to "blame the Jews" is reassuring. The fear of either provoking anti--Semitism or being called an anti-Semite (or a self-hating Jew) has become so ingrained into our culture and body politic that no one, including Chomsky or Zunes, is immune. This is reinforced by constant reminders of the Jewish Holocaust that, by no accident, appear in the movies and in major news media on a regular basis. Chomsky, in particular, has been heavily criticized by the Jewish establishment for decades for his criticism of Israeli policies, even to the point of being "excommunicated," a distinction he shares with the late Hannah Arendt. It may be fair to assume that at some level this history influences Chomsky\u2019s analysis.\r\n\r\nBut the problems of the movement go beyond the fear of invoking anti-Semitism as Chomsky is aware and correctly noted in "The Fateful Triangle":\r\n\r\n[T]he American Left and pacifist groups, apart from fringe elements, have quite generally been extremely supportive of Israel (contrary to many baseless allegations), some passionately so, and have turned a blind eye to practices that they would be quick to denounce elsewhere."\r\n\r\nThe issue of US aid to Israel provides a clear example. During the Reagan era, there was a major effort launched by the anti-intervention movement to block a $15 million annual appropriation destined for the Nicaraguan contras. People across the country were urged to call their Congressional representatives and get them to vote against the measure. That effort was not only successful; it forced the administration to engage in what became known as Contragate.\r\n\r\nAt the time, Israel was receiving the equivalent of that much money on a daily basis. Now, that amount "officially" is about $10 million a day and yet no major campaign has ever been launched to stem that flow or even call the public\u2019s attention to it. When attempts were made they were stymied by the opposition of such key players (at the time) as the American Friends Service Committee which was anxious, apparently, not to alienate major Jewish contributors. (Recent efforts initiated on the internet to "suspend" military aid (but not economic!) until Israel ends the occupation have gone nowhere.)\r\n\r\nThe slogans that have been advanced by various sectors of the Palestinian solidarity movement, such as "End the Occupation," End Israeli Apartheid," "Zionism equals Racism," or "Two States for Two Peoples," while addressing key issues of the conflict, assume a level of awareness on the part of the American people for which no evidence exists. Concern for where their tax dollars are going, particularly at a time of massive cutbacks in social programs, certainly would have greater resonance. Initiating a serious campaign to halt aid would require focusing on the role of Congress and recognition of the role of the Israel lobby.\r\n\r\nChomsky\u2019s evaluation of Israel\u2019s position in the Middle East admittedly contains elements of truth, but nothing sufficient to explain what former Undersecretary of State George Ball described as America\u2019s "passionate attachment" to the Jewish state. However, his attempt to portray the US-Israel relationship as mirroring that of the Washington\u2019s relations to its client regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, has no basis in reality.\r\n\r\nUS involvement in Central America was fairly simple. Arms and training were supplied to military dictatorships in order for their armies and their death squads to suppress the desires of their own citizens for land, civil rights, and economic justice, all of which would undermine US corporate interests. This was quite transparent. Does Israel fit into that category? Obviously not. Whatever one may say about Israel, its Jewish majority, at least, enjoys democratic rights.\r\n\r\nAlso, there were no Salvadoran, Nicaraguan or Guatemalan lobbies of any consequence in Washington to lavish millions of dollars wooing or intimidating members of Congress; no one in the House or Senate from any of those client countries with possible dual-loyalties approving multi-billion dollar appropriations on an annual basis; none owning major television networks, radio stations, newspapers, or movie studios, and no trade unions or state pension funds investing billions of dollars in their respective economies. The closest thing in the category of national lobbies is that of Miami\u2019s Cuban exiles whose existence and power the Left is willing to acknowledge, even though its political clout is minuscule compared to that of Israel\u2019s supporters.\r\n\r\nWhat about Chomsky\u2019s assertion that Israel is America\u2019s cop-on- the-beat in the Middle East? There is, as yet, no record of a single Israeli soldier shedding a drop of blood in behalf of US interests, and there is little likelihood one will be asked to do so in the future. When US presidents have believed that a cop was necessary in the region, US troops were ordered to do the job.\r\n\r\nWhen President Eisenhower believed that US interests were threatened in Lebanon in 1958, he sent in the Marines. In 1991, as mentioned, President Bush not only told Israel to sit on the sidelines, he further angered its military by refusing to allow Vice-President Dick Cheney to give the Israeli air force the coordinates it demanded in order to take to the air in response to Iraq\u2019s Scud attacks. This left the Israeli pilots literally sitting in their planes, waiting for information that never came.\r\n\r\nWhat Chomsky offers as proof of Israel\u2019s role as a US gendarme was the warning that the Israel gave Syria not to intervene in King Hussein\u2019s war on the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Jordan in September 1970.\r\n\r\nClearly this was done primarily to protect Israel\u2019s interests. That it also served Washington\u2019s agenda was a secondary consideration. For Chomsky, it was "another important service" for the US. What Chomsky ignores and most historians fail to mention is another reason that Syria failed to come to the rescue of the Palestinians at the time.\r\n\r\nThe commander of the Syrian air force, Hafez Al-Assad, had shown little sympathy with the Palestinian cause and was critical of the friendly relations that the PLO enjoyed with the Syrian government under President Atassi. When King Hussein launched his attack, Assad kept his planes on the ground.\r\n\r\nThree months later, he staged a coup and installed himself as president. Among his first acts was the imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians and their Syrian supporters. He then proceeded to gut the Syrian sponsored militia, Al-Saika, and eliminate the funds that Syria had been sending to Palestinian militia groups. In the ensuing years, Assad allowed groups opposed to Yasser Arafat to maintain offices and a radio station in Damascus, but little else. A year after Israel\u2019s invasion of Lebanon, he sponsored a short, but bloody intra-Palestinian civil war in Northern Lebanon. This is history that has fallen through the cracks.\r\n\r\nHow much the presence of Israel has intimidated its weaker Arab neighbours from endangering US interests is at best a matter of conjecture. Clearly, Israel\u2019s presence has been used by these reactionary regimes, most of them US allies, as an excuse for suppressing internal opposition movements. (One might argue that the CIA\u2019s involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and Abdel Karim Kassem in Iraq in 1963, had more of an impact on crushing progress movement in the region.)\r\n\r\nWhat Israel has provided for the US to their mutual benefit have been a number of joint weapons programs, largely financed by US taxpayers and the use by the US of military equipment developed by Israeli technicians not the least of which were the "plows" that were used to bury alive fleeing Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War. Since high levels of US aid preceded these weapons programs, it is hard to argue that they form the basis of US support.\r\n\r\nAnother argument advanced by Chomsky has been Israel\u2019s willingness to serve the US by taking on tasks which past US administrations were unable or unwilling to undertake due to specific US laws or public opinion, such as selling arms to unsavoury regimes or training death squads.\r\n\r\nThat Israel did this at the request of the US is an open question. A comment by Israeli minister Yakov Meridor\u2019s comment in Ha'aretz, makes it unlikely.\r\n\r\n"We shall say to the Americans: Don\u2019t compete with us in Taiwan, "Don\u2019t compete with us in South Africa, don\u2019t compete with us in the Caribbean area, or in other areas in which we can sell weapons directly and where you can\u2019t operate in the open. Give us the opportunity to do this and trust us with the sales of ammunition and hardware."\r\n\r\nIn fact, there was no time that the US stopped training death squads in Latin America or providing arms, with the exception of Guatemala where Carter halted US assistance because of its massive human rights violations, something that presented no problem for an Israeli military already steeped in such violations. In one situation we saw the reverse situation. Israel provided more than 80% of El Salvador\u2019s weapons before the US moved in.\r\n\r\nAs for Israel\u2019s trade and joint arms projects, including the development of nuclear weaponry, with South Africa, that was a natural alliance; two societies that had usurped someone else\u2019s land and saw themselves in the same position, "a civilized people surrounded by threatening savages." The relationship became so close that South Africa\u2019s Sun City became the resort of choice for vacationing Israelis.\r\n\r\nThe reason that Israeli officials gave for selling these weapons, when questioned, was it was the only way that Israel could keep its own arms industry functioning. Israel\u2019s sales of sophisticated weaponry to China have drawn criticism from several administrations, but this has been tempered by Congressional pressure.\r\n\r\nWhat Israel did benefit from was a blanket of silence from the US anti-intervention movement and anti-apartheid movements whose leadership was more comfortable criticizing US policies than those of Israel\u2019s. Whether their behavior was due to their willingness to put Israel\u2019s interests first, or whether they were concerned about provoking anti-Semitism, the result was the same.\r\n\r\nA protest that I organized in 1985 against Israel\u2019s ties to apartheid South Africa and its role as a US surrogate in Central America, provides a clear example. When I approached board members of the Nicaraguan Information Center (NIC) in the San Francisco Bay Area and asked for the group\u2019s endorsement of the protest, I received no support.\r\n\r\nNIC was the main Nicaraguan solidarity group, and despite Israel\u2019s long and ugly history , first in aiding first Somoza, and at the time of the protest, the contras, the board voted..... well, they couldn't vote not to endorse, so they voted to make "no more endorsements," a position they reversed soon after our rally. NIC\u2019s board was almost entirely Jewish.\r\n\r\nI fared better with GNIB, the Guatemalan News and Information Bureau, but only after a considerable struggle. At the time, Israel was supplying 98% of the weaponry and all of the training to one of the most murderous regimes in modern times. One would think that an organization that claimed to be working in solidarity with the people of Guatemala would not only endorse the rally but be eager to participate.\r\n\r\nApparently, the GNIB board was deeply divided in the issue. Unwilling to accept another refusal, I harassed the board with phone calls until it voted to endorse. Oakland CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) endorsed. The San Francisco chapter declined. (A year earlier, when I had been quoted in the San Francisco Weekly criticizing the influence of the Israel lobby on the Democratic Party, officials from the chapter wrote a letter to the editor claiming that I was provoking "anti-Semitism.") The leading anti-apartheid organizations endorsed the protest, but again, after lengthy internal debate.\r\n\r\nThe protest had been organized in response to the refusal of the San Francisco-based Mobilization for Peace, Jobs and Justice, (Mobe) a coalition of movement organizations, to include any mention of the Middle East among the demands that it was issuing for a march opposing South African apartheid and US intervention in Central America.\r\n\r\nAt an organizing meeting for the event, a handful of us asked that a plank calling for "No US Intervention in the Middle East" be added to the demands that had previously been decided. The vote was overwhelmingly against it. A Jewish trade unionist told us that "we could do more for the Palestinians by not mentioning them, then by mentioning them," a strange response which mirrored what President Reagan was then saying about ending apartheid in South Africa. We were privately told that if the Middle East was mentioned, "the unions would walk," recognition of the strong support for Israel that exists among the labor bureaucracy.\r\n\r\nThe timing of the Mobe\u2019s refusal was significant. Two and a half years earlier, Israel had invaded Lebanon and its troops still remained there as we met on that evening in San Francisco. And yet, the leaders of the Mobe would not let Tina Naccache, a programmer for Berkeley\u2019s KPFA, the only Lebanese in the large union hall, speak in behalf of the demand.\r\n\r\nThree years later, the Mobe scheduled another mass march. The Palestinians were in the first full year of their intifada, and it seemed appropriate that a statement calling for an end to Israeli occupation be added to the demands. The organizers, the same ones from 1985, had already decided on what they would be behind closed doors: "No US Intervention in Central America or the Caribbean; End US Support for South African Apartheid; Freeze and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race; Jobs and Justice, Not War."\r\n\r\nThis time the Mobe took no chances and cancelled a public meeting where our demand could be debated and voted on. An Emergency Coalition for Palestinian Rights in was formed in response. A petition was drawn up circulated supporting the demand. Close to 3,000 people signed it, including hundreds of from the Palestinian community. The Mobe leadership finally agreed to one concession. On the back of its official flyer, where it would be invisible when posted on a wall or tree, was the following sentence:\r\n\r\n"Give peace a chance everywhere: The plight of the Palestinian people, as shown by the recent events in the West Bank and Gaza, remind us that we must support human rights everywhere. Let the nations of our world turn from building armies and death machines to spending their energy and resources on improving the quality of life- Peace, Jobs and Justice."\r\n\r\nThere was no mention of Israel or the atrocities its soldiers were committing. The flyer put out by the unions ignored the subject completely.\r\n\r\nFast forward to February, 2002, when a new and smaller version of the Mobe met to plan a march and rally to oppose the US war on Afghanistan. There was a different cast of characters but they produced the same result. The argument was that what was needed was a "broad" coalition and raising the issue of Palestine would prevent that from happening.\r\n\r\nThe national movement to oppose the extension of the Iraq war has been no different. As in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War, there were competing large marches, separately organized but with overlapping participants. Despite their other political differences, what the organizers of both marches agreed on was that there would be no mention of the Israel-Palestine conflict in any of the protest literature, even though its connections to the situation in Iraq were being made at virtually every other demonstration taking place throughout the world. The movement\u2019s fear of alienating American Jews still holds sway over defending the rights of Palestinians\r\n\r\nLast September, the slogan of "No War on Iraq-Justice for Palestine!" drew close to a half million protesters to Trafalgar Square. The difference was expressed by a Native American leader during the first intifada. "The problem with the movement," he told me, "is that there are too many liberal Zionists."\r\n\r\nIf there is one event that exposed their influence over of the movement, it is what occurred in the streets of New York on June 12, 1982 when 800,000 people gathered in front of the United Nations to call for a ban on nuclear weapons. Six days earlier, on June 6th, Israel had launched a devastating invasion of Lebanon. Its goal was to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization then based in that country. Eighty thousand soldiers, backed by massive bombing from the air and from the sea were creating a level of death and destruction that dwarfed what Iraq would later do in Kuwait. Within a year there would be 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese dead and tens of thousands more wounded.\r\n\r\nAnd what was the response that day in New York? In recognition of the suffering then taking place in his homeland, a Lebanese man was allowed to sit on the stage, but he would not be introduced; not allowed to say a word. Nor was the subject mentioned by any of the speakers. Israel and its lobby couldn't have asked for anything more.\r\n\r\nTwenty-one years later, Ariel Sharon, the architect of that invasion, is Israel\u2019s Prime Minister, having been elected for the second time. As I write these lines, pro-Israel zealots within the Bush administration are about to savour their greatest triumph. After all, they have been the driving force for a war which they envision as the first stage in "redrawing the map of the Middle East" with the US-Israel alliance at its fore.\r\n\r\nAnd the Left? Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace\u2019s statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue."\r\n\r\n","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:19:18","modified":"2013-11-11 00:40:52","fileurl":""},{"id":163497,"heading":"The Blankfort Files","article":"See:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.wbenjamin.org\/WB_Kiosk.html#blankfort\r\n\r\nThe Blankfort Files\r\n\r\n[Sunday, May 7, 2006]\r\n\r\n Jeff Blankfort is a veteran journalist, photographer and radio host who has covered the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine conflict for the past 35 years\r\n\r\n In This Special Issue:\r\n\r\n Springtime for AIPAC & Israel\r\n\r\n(snip)","author":"pointer","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:28:10","modified":"2006-06-12 18:28:10","fileurl":""},{"id":163498,"heading":"the poor guy, betrayed by reality again","article":""nessie claims it's off topic becausse he can't deal with a new blow to his racist agenda."\r\n\r\nThat's right. All that table-pounding stuff about how "the world is waking up" and all that, and four days later, pfffft!\r\n\r\n@%<","author":"gehrig","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:31:58","modified":"2006-06-12 18:31:58","fileurl":""},{"id":163499,"heading":"Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby - by Jeffrey Blankfort","article":"On a Saturday in mid-February a little less than a year ago, I had two experiences, one very positive and encouraging --the other negative and disturbing. The first was at the Marin Community Center in Mill Valley, across the Bay from San Francisco, where more than 200 (210 signed in) people, and not what we refer to as "the choir" or "the usual suspects," turned up to hear Palestinian legal scholar Raja Shehadeh, Palestinian professor Jess Ghannam, Stanford-based Israeli scholar Yael Ben-Zvi and myself speak on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\r\n\r\nThe event was sponsored by a relatively new organization, "If Americans Knew," initiated by Alison Weir, a Marin county resident who had been stimulated into action in behalf of the Palestinians after a visit to Israeli-occupied Gaza the year before.\r\n\r\nAll of the presentations were well received but the enthusiastic reception for mine, in particular, was significant because my subject was the pro-Israel lobby and its negative influence on the American body politic.\r\n\r\nI placed much of the blame for the escalation of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the actions of the organized American Jewish community and by individual Jews working independently who over the years have successfully stifled, intimidated, and marginalized critics of Israeli policies.\r\n\r\nI expected an uproar from the audience because, from my experience, Marin had always been another "occupied territory," but even among the many Jews there, none challenged by premise or my evidence.\r\n\r\nWhat they heard and saw was factual and visual evidence of the power of Israel's supporters over Congress and politicians at every political level and, equally damning, their effectiveness in preventing the various anti-war and anti-intervention coalitions over the years from taking any position that might touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even one as mild as, "US Out of the Middle East."\r\n\r\nAfter I spoke and after the applause, a number of people, Jews and non-Jews, and several students came up to me wanting more information.\r\n\r\nThen I went over to Berkeley to the second day of a three-day conference organized by Students for Justice in Palestine where the issue of the Israel Lobby was nowhere on the agenda.\r\n\r\nI arrived during Phyllis Bennis's presentation. Bennis, a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington-based liberal think tank, is one of the left's more well known talking heads on the Israel-Palestine conflict and can frequently be heard on KPFA-FM [Berkeley, CA] and other Pacifica Radio stations.\r\n\r\nOver the years, like most of the other "experts\u201d from the "left," with the notable exceptions of Columnist Alexander Cockburn and Professor Ed Herman [University of Pennsylvania], she has never recognized, let alone been willing to discuss, the power of the Israel Lobby over US policy in the Middle East, despite overwhelming and indisputable evidence of its existence and of its influence.\r\n\r\nWhat happened when I arrived in the auditorium was astonishing. Seeing me in the back of the auditorium where I was sitting with a friend, totally out of the blue and raising her voice, she interrupted her talk to blurt out, "Congress is not Israeli Occupied Territory!"\r\n\r\nI assumed she was referring to an article that I had written 10 years earlier that was published in the 1992 edition of the City Lights Review, entitled, "Occupied Territory: Congress, the Israel Lobby and Jewish Responsibility." In the article I had criticized the left supporters of the Palestinian movement for their failure to deal with the issue of the Israel lobby.\r\n\r\nMy response to Bennis was immediate "Yes, it is!, " I said aloud. "No it isn't!," she shot back, sharply, rather displeased, and went on to describe an effort that some members of the Congressional Black Caucus were making regarding the illegal use of US arms by the Israelis--against Palestinian civilians.\r\n\r\nIn the question period, it became obvious that she didn't want me to get the floor. While answering a question as to what actions people should take to help the Palestinian cause, she seemed to be filibustering as if she was hoping the question period would draw to a close.\r\n\r\nWhat would she have activists do? Believe it or not: write letters to the editor once a week. The system's safety valve. As far as contacting members of Congress or protesting their support for Israel, the Washington-based Bennis said nary a word.\r\n\r\nFinally, despite what was an obvious effort on her part to get the moderator--who had promised me the next question, to give it to someone else--I finally got the floor. I proceeded to describe four situations in which the Israel lobby clearly demonstrated its power over Congress and explained how "the lobby" had run those black Congressmembers who criticized Israel out of office and were trying to do the same with the main critic at that time, Atlanta's [Georgia] Cynthia McKinney.\r\n\r\nThis was, of course, several months before she and Alabama\u2019s Ear, [Congressman Earl] Hilliard, went down to defeat thanks largely to funds sent by Jews from outside of Georgia and a smear campaign within her district engineered by the Israel lobby.\r\n\r\nThen I took the anti-war movement to task. Like every other political sector of US society, I said that pro-Israel Jews within its ranks and others who are fearful that raising the issue of the pro-Israel lobby would provoke "anti-Semitism, have not only kept the lid on that issue, but have kept the Palestinian cause isolated from the movement's overall agenda.\r\n\r\nWhatever the reason, I emphasized, there are no excuses for the silence of the movement on the issue of the lobby nor for it's genuflecting to "Jewish sensibilities" regarding the overall struggle.\r\n\r\nNeither Bennis nor her co-panelist, a Jewish professor, said a word when I finished. After the program, I went down to say hello to her, and jokingly mentioned that she still had not yet understood the role of the Israel Lobby.\r\n\r\nShe was neither friendly nor amused. "The issue is dead and has been dead." End of conversation.\r\n\r\nWhat is disturbing is that her position regarding the Israel lobby is that long held by Noam Chomsky, as well, as by professors Joel Beinin of Stanford [University] and Stephen Zunes of USF [University of San Francisco]. Bennis's position is puzzling since she is based in Washington, where, for the politically aware, "the lobby's" power is a given.\r\n\r\nTo their credit, all of them, and Chomsky in particular, have, through their writing and speaking, have exposed American audiences to the history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, but their refusal to acknowledge the critical domestic aspects of the struggle are indefensible and can no longer be left unchallenged.\r\n\r\n(In 1989, Zunes wrote an excellent piece on the power of the pro-Israel lobby for The Progressive, but he soon changed his position, perhaps when he realized that "blaming the Jews" is the fastest way to get marginalized in US academia. The facts and the quotes in his article, however, did not change.\r\n\r\nIn his recent book, Tinderbox, he writes that Arabs have mistakenly blamed Israel for its problems and that Israel is actually a victim of US policies. He would have us believe that Israel is forced to play the same role for the United States that Jews played under feudalism when they were the middlepersons between the lords and the serfs.\r\n\r\nThis analysis would have us believe that Israel and its Jewish supporters today are somehow in the precarious position that European Jews found themselves in several hundred years ago. This is absurd. The first situation represented Jewish weakness. Today, Jews have more than at any time in their history.\r\n\r\nZunes ignores the fact that Jewish supporters of Israel are far and away the leading contributors to the Democratic Party and dominate every sector of the media: movies, TV, radio, and the press.\r\n\r\nSince 1978, the amount of money contributed by pro-Israel PACs alone is over $34 million, as compared to Enron whose $6 million over 10 years given to many of the same politicians is held up as an example of an abuse of the system.\r\n\r\nThat $34 million does not account for soft money and contributions from wealthy Jews such as the $1.1 million given by real estate mogul Nat Landow to Al Gore nor the $1.5 given to Joe Biden some years back by Walter Shorenstein, the biggest commercial property owner in San Francisco, the sometime-head of the state Democratic Party Central Committee and a member of the AIPAC Board of Directors.\r\n\r\nOn the Mother Jones magazine website one finds the leading individual contributors to both political parties in the 1999-2000 cycle. Eight of the top ten are Jews who contributed, with one exception, exclusively to the Democratic Party. That one exception was Chiquita Banana's Carl Lindner who contributed to the Republicans as well.\r\n\r\nOne of those top ten was Haim Saban, currently a regent of the University of California, appointed to that post by Gov. Gray Davis, in February, 2001. Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli Jew, contributed $1,250,500 in that cycle to the Democrats, which put him in fifth place. This year, his contribution to the Democrats of $7 million established a party record.\r\n\r\nSaban, who made his fortune by creating Fox TV's Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, has also built the Haim Saban Center in Washington which this summer hosted a meeting of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel's officially registered lobby with Jewish college students from around the country. Their focus: How to counteract pro-Palestinian activity on college campuses and combat the divestment campaigns that target Israel such as that initiated by the Students for Justice in Palestine.\r\n\r\nIn every other political and social struggle in this country we learn who is funding the other side and the identity of their lobbies in Washington, e.g., the oil lobby, armaments lobby, the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, the insurance and banking lobbies, the hospital and medical lobbies, the airline and transportation, etc.\r\n\r\nWhy is the Israel Lobby a taboo subject among the left and the anti-war movements?\r\n\r\nWhy was it not on the agenda of the conference in Berkeley that weekend? There were three days of meetings so its organizers had plenty of time.\r\n\r\nWhy was there no discussion on the failure of the peace and anti-war movements to integrate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the over-all anti-war movement?\r\n\r\nThese questions need to be asked and we need to get answers. Those who shine us off with the same kind of comment that Phyllis Bennis gave to me that day have to be challenged to explain themselves and be willing to debate the question of the lobby's role in determining not only policy in Washington but in the agenda of the peace movement.\r\n\r\nAs for Bennis, I was later told by an activist against sanctions in Iraq, that earlier in the day she had spoken in support of military sanctions against Iraq to prevent it from building "weapons of mass destruction."\r\n\r\n* * * * *\r\n\r\n(This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared in the Anderson Valley Advertiser in February 2002.)\r\n\r\n* * * * * \r\n\r\nJeffrey Blankfort is a journalist and Jewish-American pro-Palestinian human rights activist working out of the San Francisco Bay Area, California. He won a sizeable lawsuit against the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in February 2002 for its vast illegal spying against him, as well as other peaceful political groups (including, earlier, anti-Apartheid groups) and individuals.\r\n","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:32:02","modified":"2013-11-11 00:40:52","fileurl":""},{"id":163500,"heading":"Still trying to divert your attention.","article":">headcase's\r\n\r\nAn ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.\r\n\r\n>nessie\r\n\r\nOff topic.\r\n\r\nThey really, really, really don't want you to focus on the Lobby. It's their Achilles heel.","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:36:59","modified":"2006-06-12 18:36:59","fileurl":""},{"id":163501,"heading":"while we're at it","article":"Becky: "Recap"\r\n\r\nWell, remember, we got a perfect example of how disconnected from reality nessie is with that very Mossad logo. Nessie wants to claim that the Mossad motto says something about "deception." I posted the logo, showed him exactly where he could find the text in Proverbs, pointed him to a web site showing that exact verse in Hebrew so that he could compare it letter by letter -- in short, evidence that any sane man would acknowledge destroyed his claim.\r\n\r\nWhat did he do? Whi*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*ine about how he was going to believe what he wants to believe, evidence be damned.\r\n\r\nAnother classic example how, in nessie's mind, nessie's mind trumps reality.\r\n\r\nBut what else can you expect from a sociopathic bigot like nessie?\r\n\r\n@%<","author":"gehrig","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:37:04","modified":"2006-06-12 18:37:04","fileurl":""},{"id":163502,"heading":"Jeff Blankfort: The power of the Israeli Lobby in Washington, DC","article":"I do not have at a hand a list of all the names of those in key positions in the Executive Branch, but even the Israeli paper, Ha'aretz was impressed by the preponderance of Jewish neo-cons, for whom aggressive Zionism was and remains a major influence, in and around the Bush administration, such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Feith, Bolton, Wurmser, Grossman, Zakheim, Fleischer, Kristol, Kagan, Ledeen (those immediately come to mind). Through several think tanks in which they are interspersed they have written the script not only for the war in Iraq and the threats to Syria and Iran, but for making sure that Israel can do what it likes with the Palestinians, and now it seems anyone else, Americans and Europeans, who are in the occupied territories to prevent or document Israel's crimes. It is quite clear, as this latest episode with the British cameraman indicates, they have been given a license to kill.\r\n\r\nNow, Dubya, is mightily afraid of Israel's domestic lobby who the American public may one day view as a bag of traitors, after his dad's experience with it in 1991. This is how I described it in an article. "The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions," that has just appeared in Left Curve (http:\/\/www.leftcurve.org), one of the few publications on the left that has the courage to publish articles on this situation. The segment I have extracted begins with the presidency of another US president who challenged the lobby and lost, Gerald Ford:\r\n\r\n"Gerald Ford, angered that Israel had been reluctant to leave the Sinai following the 1973 war and backed by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, not only suspended aid for six months in 1975, but in March of that year made a speech calling for a "reassessment" of the US-Israel relationship. Within weeks, AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel's Washington lobby, secured a letter signed by 76 senators "confirming their support for Israel, and suggesting that the White House see fit to do the same. The language was tough, the tone almost bullying. "Ford backed down.[12]\r\n\r\n"We need to only look at the current Bush presidency to see that this phenomenon is still the rule. In 1991, the same year as Chomsky's talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administration for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it freezes settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank.\r\n\r\n"An angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loans guarantees. A letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation.\r\n\r\n"On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me. "It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse, "he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth.[13]\r\n\r\n"The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy. "Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%.[14]\r\n\r\n"Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters, "he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill."[15] Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat.\r\n\r\n"Now, jump ahead to last Spring, when Bush Jr. forthrightly demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his marauding troops from Jenin, saying "Enough is enough! "It made headlines all over the world, as did his backing down when Sharon refused. What happened? Harsh criticism boomed from within his own party in Congress and from his daddy's old friends in the media. George Will associated Dubya with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity."[16] The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes"and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for suvival."[17] Junior got the message and, within a week, declared Sharon to be "a man of peace."[18] Since then, as journalist Robert Fisk and others have noted, Sharon seems to be writing Bush's speeches.\r\n\r\n"There are some who believe that Bush Jr. and Presidents before him made statements critical of Israel for appearances only, to convince the world, and the Arab countries in particular, that the US can be an "honest broker"between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it is difficult to make a case that any of them would put themselves in a position to be humiliated simply as a cover for US policy."\r\n\r\nNow, Bush Jr. has received a letter signed by 87 of the 100 US senators and at least 297 members of the House telling Bush, in essence, to forget the "road map," as pathetic as that is, and stick to what he had said in a speech last July 24th. Both Sharon and Netanyahu have boasted that the Jewish lobby controls America. Regarding the Middle East, they have yet to be proved wrong. \r\n\r\n","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:40:59","modified":"2006-06-12 18:40:59","fileurl":""},{"id":163503,"heading":"THE FIFTH COLUMN ROLE OF ZIONISTS IN THE LEFT - by Jeffrey Blankfort","article":" "The Myth of the Israel Lobby" (http:\/\/www.aei.org\/ra\/rafrum021021.htm) by David Frum, is typical of those who wish to defray attention from the power of the pro-Israel lobby of which my article, "Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby" (http:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2003\/01\/1560029.php), was only the briefest sketch. Frum, a conservative columnist, former Bush, Jr., speech writer and American Enterprise Institute fellow--his wife claimed that he was the inventor of the \u201caxis of evil\u201d phrase--who is often expediently and partially posted under other names in various online discussion comment posts (like different indymedias), trots out all the standard fallacies in support of his position. A few major corrections to Frum's commentary will be supplied here.\r\n\r\nFirst, by several estimates, including the Jewish press, Jewish contributions to the Clinton campaign were 60%, not one-third as Frum claims. This is in keeping with a Congressional Research Service report from the early 1980\u2019s that reported that more than 60% of the contributions to the Democratic Party over $10,000 came from Jews.\r\n\r\nClinton's plan, if agreed to by the Palestinians would have left the major Jewish settlements in place, would have left the Palestinians with 22% of what had been Palestine, and would have cantonized the resulting Palestinian bantustans with its divisions being separated by "for Jews only roads" enforced by the IDF, as would the air space over the bantustans controlled by Israel, as well as the water beneath the ground.\r\n\r\nAs Uri Avnery has pointed out, every president from Nixon on, made an effort to get the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza and each effort was foiled by the mobilized lobby whose generous contributions, combined with blackmail and intimidation--and no visible opposition thanks to the mindset of Carter, as codified as "conventional wisdom" by Chomsky and Bennis--guarantee Congress's compliance.\r\n\r\nThose presidents who challenged the lobby in the post-Nixon years were one-termers:\r\n\r\nFord, with Kissinger's agreement, halted aid to Israel for six months in 1975 when Israel refused to disengage from the Sinai and was about to make a major speech, reassessing the U.S.-Israel relationship, but was stopped from doing that when AIPAC heard about it and drafted a warning letter to Ford signed by 75 senators.\r\n\r\nCarter became unpopular with the lobby when he pushed through Camp David, which required Israel to give up the Sinai. In order either to break the agreement or to test Egypt's willingness to be pacified, Begin invaded Lebanon in 1978 but was forced to withdraw when Carter told him to three months later. Begin responded by rapidly colonizing the West Bank. Then Carter committed another heinous sin in the eyes of Israel and the lobby by calling for a Geneva conference, which would include the USSR, to bring about a just settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Carter ended up in 1980 with the lowest Jewish vote of any Democratic candidate in modern times.\r\n\r\nBush, Sr., came into office with a record of past antagonism to Israel. As Reagan's veep, he had wanted to sanction Israel, first for bombing the Iraq reactor and second, for invading Lebanon in 1982, but he was outvoted within the administration. His defeat in 1992 was largely caused by his demand that Shamir halt Jewish settlement building in order to get $10-billion in loan guarantees that the Israeli PM turned down and instead went to Congress for help. When Bush called a press conference denouncing 1000 Jewish lobbyists who had come to Washington to lobby for the loans, his goose was cooked. Old friends in the media, like Safire and Will, went on the attack, finding everything possible wrong with the Bush administration, and his Jewish vote went from an estimated 38% in 1988 to 6% in 1992.\r\n\r\nBush, Jr., learned the lesson. When he called for Sharon to pull out of Jenin, saying "Enough is enough!," and Sharon ignored him, he could do so because there was Safire and Will again on the attack, with Will writing that Dubya had "lost his moral clarity." Dubya did a quick reality check and described Sharon as "a man of peace."\r\n\r\nBut let's leave Washington and look at the role of Zionists in the left who have kept the anti-intervention [anti-war] movement from putting the Palestine issue on its agenda, and blocking any movement to end the billions of dollars that flow to Israel each year to purchase weapons and cash. The time has arrived when the issue of the lobby will be viewed as it should be, exactly like Gore Vidal described it back in 1986, a veritable fifth column which places the interests of a foreign government over that of the inhabitants of the US. ","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 18:43:34","modified":"2013-11-11 00:40:52","fileurl":""},{"id":163504,"heading":"No, It's Not Anti-Semitic","article":"By Richard Cohen\r\nTuesday, April 25, 2006; Page A23\r\n\r\nDuring the Jim Crow era, many American communists fiercely fought racism. This is a fact. It is also a fact that segregationists and others often smeared civil rights activists by calling them communists. This technique is sometimes called guilt by association and sometimes "McCarthyism." If you think it's dead, you have not been following the controversy over a long essay about the so-called "Israel Lobby."\r\n\r\nOn April 5, for instance, The Post ran an op-ed, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," by Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a respected defense intellectual. Cohen does not much like a paper on the Israel lobby that was written by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University. He found it anti-Semitic. I did not.\r\n\r\nBut I did find Cohen's piece to be offensive. It starts by noting that the paper, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," had been endorsed by David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan. It goes on to quote Duke, who, I am sure, has nodded his head in agreement over the years with an occasional piece of mine, as saying the paper is a "modern Declaration of American Independence." If you follow Cohen's reasoning, then you would have to conclude that David Duke and the Founding Fathers have something in common. I am not, as they say, willing to go there.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, Cohen's piece is not unique. The New York Sun reported on its front page of March 24 an allegation from Alan Dershowitz that some of the quotes from the Israel lobby paper "appear on hate sites." Maybe they do, but Mearsheimer and Walt took those quotes (about press coverage of Israel) from a book written by Max Frankel, a former editor of the New York Times. To associate Mearsheimer and Walt with hate groups is rank guilt by association and does not in any way rebut the argument made in their paper on the Israel lobby.\r\n\r\nThere is hardly a stronger, more odious, accusation than anti-Semitism. It comes freighted with more than a thousand years of tragic history, culminating in the Holocaust. The mere suggestion of it is enough for any sane person to hold his tongue. Yet this did not stop the respected German newspaper editor Josef Joffe from stating in the New Republic that the lobby paper "puts 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to shame." He is referring to the most notorious anti-Semitic text of all time. My friend Joffe is in dire need of a cold compress.\r\n\r\nMy own reading of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper found it unremarkable, a bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the Arab oil lobby), but nothing that even a casual newspaper reader does not know. Its basic point -- that Israel's American supporters have immense influence over U.S. foreign policy -- is inarguable. After all, President Bush has just recently given Israel NATO-like status without so much as a murmur from Congress. "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," Bush said. This was the second or third time he's made this pledge, crossing a line that previous administrations would not -- in effect, promulgating a treaty seemingly on the spot. No other country gets this sort of treatment.\r\n\r\nIsrael's special place in U.S. foreign policy is deserved, in my view, and not entirely the product of lobbying. Israel has earned it, and isn't there something bracing about a special relationship that is not based on oil or markets or strategic location but on shared values? (A bit now like Britain.) But I can understand how foreign policy "realists" such as Mearsheimer and Walt might question its utility and not only think that a bit too much power is located in a specific lobby but that it is rarely even discussed. This may be wrong, but it is not (necessarily) anti-Semitic. In fact, after reading the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, the respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz not only failed to discern anti-Semitism but commended the paper to its readers. "The professors' article does not deserve condemnation," Haaretz stated in an editorial.\r\n\r\nAn abridged version of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper was published by the London Review of Books and is available online at http:\/\/www.lrb.co.uk\/ . Read it and decide for yourself whether it is anti-Semitic. Whatever the case, their argument is hardly rebutted by purple denunciations and smear tactics. Rather than being persuasive, Mearsheimer and Walt's more hysterical critics suggest by their extreme reactions that the duo is on to something. These tactics by Israel's friends sully Israel's good name more than Mearsheimer and Walt ever could.","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 19:02:19","modified":"2006-06-12 19:02:19","fileurl":""},{"id":163505,"heading":""an ad hominem is not a rebuttal"","article":"But why is nessie spamming? Isn't he trying to drown out the signal of Zionist refutations with the noise of anti-Zionist spam?","author":"just wondering","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 19:11:33","modified":"2006-06-12 19:11:33","fileurl":""},{"id":163506,"heading":""But why is nessie spamming?"","article":"This is begging the question. It's not spam. It's on topic and adds to the knowledge base. Unlike the Zionist gibberish, it's constructive.","author":"bunk logic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 19:23:15","modified":"2006-06-12 19:23:15","fileurl":""},{"id":163507,"heading":""Unlike the Zionist gibberish, it's constructive."","article":"It's spam whether on on topic or not. He posted those comments to divert your attention from the refutations of anti-Zionist claims in the article. There is no excuse for spamming the wire. Redeem Indymedia's honor. Through all spammers out.\r\n\r\n","author":"heard it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 19:38:55","modified":"2006-06-12 19:38:55","fileurl":""},{"id":163509,"heading":""He"","article":"An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.\r\n\r\nNo back to the topic.","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 20:10:03","modified":"2006-06-12 20:10:03","fileurl":""},{"id":163511,"heading":""No [sic] back to the topic"","article":"Indeed, we've sufficiently discussed the topic. Let the spammer remove his presence from this forum.\r\n\r\n","author":"there he goes again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 20:21:30","modified":"2006-06-12 20:21:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163517,"heading":"well, it's not spam....","article":"if you want to see a sample of the thread crippeling spam attacks look at the hidden comments section.\r\nAnd 'you' sure have a lot of nerve to call this spam.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 21:42:15","modified":"2006-06-12 21:42:15","fileurl":""},{"id":163548,"heading":"""No [sic]"","article":"A typo!!!!\r\n\r\nThat proves it. He's in league wth the devil for sure.","author":"he made a typo!","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-12 23:53:34","modified":"2006-06-12 23:53:34","fileurl":""},{"id":163552,"heading":"hey! what did Satan ever do?","article":"I mean, look at the bible.\r\nDid Satan ever kill anyone?\r\nNo.\r\nDid Satan ever have someone else killed?\r\nNo.\r\nDid Satan ever bring plagues, famine, and religious war?\r\nNo.\r\nNot that I care for all those roving Patrols he has to do...\r\n\r\nDo he have a Satan's Lobby for the interests of Hell?\r\nI think not. And if it did, I'm sure it would operate with it's books open considering the prejudice of the city council...\r\nWe need to open all books of all Lobbies to lead to their indictment.\r\nIncluding the Israeli Lobby. Bribery is bad. Blackmail is bad.\r\nExtortion is bad. Criminal conspiracy to defraud is bad.\r\n","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 00:18:35","modified":"2006-06-13 00:18:35","fileurl":""},{"id":163589,"heading":"^ One of his more innocuous comments","article":""We need to open all books of all Lobbies to lead to their indictment. \r\nIncluding the Israeli Lobby. Bribery is bad. Blackmail is bad. \r\nExtortion is bad. Criminal conspiracy to defraud is bad. "\r\n\r\nHowever misguided he appears to be about the function of lobbies as a whole, I could live with such a comment in peace if not for the fact he only names the Israeli lobby by name.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 10:39:53","modified":"2006-06-13 10:39:53","fileurl":""},{"id":163599,"heading":"The Israeli Lobby","article":"All lobbies are 'legal' mechanisms to allow undue influence above and out of reach of the majority.\r\nThis thread is about the ISRAELI LOBBY.\r\n'goated 'Jew's favorite benefactor. \r\nAs he squeals about "Big Oil Interests' which are in bed with his own interests about seizing the oil reserves of the middle east. And everywhere else.\r\n'The height of infamy is creating two lies and getting the people to argue uselessly over which one is true.' -to para phrase Ezera Pound.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 11:44:06","modified":"2006-06-13 11:44:06","fileurl":""},{"id":163600,"heading":"Ezera Pound, a role model of yours probably","article":"I haven't yet said it on this IMC, so I'll make my position clear: I much rather Israel learn to exist while forgoing US foreign aid to reach economic independence. I'm all for a gradual reduction of US aid to Israel _and_ the Arab entities. Then let Israel sink or swim. \r\nIronically (to you), it was Menahem Begin whom you love so much to revile that was the last Israeli leader to propose a move risking the cessation of US aid in any meaningful context. \r\n\r\nYour "Big Oil Interests" shtick is pure nonsense so I won't even bother with it.\r\n\r\nThe height of infamy is being a tool for Palestinian genocide and lying propaganda just as Ezra Pound, his spiritual mentor, would have done.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 11:57:45","modified":"2006-06-13 11:57:45","fileurl":""},{"id":163602,"heading":"yer telling me...(?)","article":"-""Big Oil Interests" shtick is pure nonsense"-\r\nExactly.\r\nAs is the construct of these two ( Israel and O.I.L. ) interests being in conflict.\r\nKinda like the zionists lobby with their " let's you and him fight".\r\n","author":"Judasgoat's imp","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 12:03:30","modified":"2006-06-13 12:03:30","fileurl":""},{"id":163620,"heading":""he"","article":"An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.\r\n\r\n>Ezera Pound\r\n\r\nThat's a straw man, yet another way to change the subject.\r\n\r\nWhy are they trying so hard to change this particular subject? Becasue the Lobby is their Achilles heel and they know it.","author":"off topic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 13:14:43","modified":"2006-06-13 13:14:43","fileurl":""},{"id":163622,"heading":"Now back to the topic","article":"This article can be found on the web at\r\nhttp:\/\/www.thenation.com\/doc\/20060501\/alterman\r\n\r\nThe liberal media by Eric Alterman\r\nAIPAC's Complaint\r\n\r\n[from the May 1, 2006 issue]\r\n\r\nThe University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer is among America's most admired political scientists. Stephen Walt is the academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School. Neither man has ever made any remotely racist or anti-Semitic utterance in the public sphere. And yet because they recently published an essay in The London Review of Books and (with full scholarly apparatus) on the Kennedy School website that critically and--this is key--unsentimentally examines the role of the "Israel lobby" in the making of US foreign policy, these two scholars have been subjected to a relentless barrage of vituperative insults in which the accusation "anti-Semite" is merely the beginning. Just a few of the most colorful: "Crackpot" (Martin Peretz); "Could have been written by Pat Buchanan, by David Duke, Noam Chomsky, and some of the less intelligent members of Hamas" (Alan Dershowitz); "As scholarly as...Welch and McCarthy--and just as nutty" (Max Boot); "puts The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to shame" (Josef Joffe); "resembles nothing so much as Wilhelm Marr's 1879 pamphlet The Victory of Judaism Over Germandom" (Ruth Wisse); "dishonest so-called intellectuals...entitled to their stupidity" (New York Representative Eliot Engel).\r\n\r\nOne is tempted to point out that the authors themselves predicted the likelihood of such a reception, and by provoking it they have proved their point. They note--relying on research by yours truly--that pro-Israel voices dominate punditocracy discourse and add that the lobby almost always plays the "anti-Semite" card to stifle debate about Israel's behavior in general and its own actions in particular. Machers at official Jewish organizations--accurately characterized in the paper as far more belligerent than the Jewish community generally--have suggested in circulated e-mails that Israel supporters might want to threaten the Kennedy School's funding. The school's administration has distanced itself from the controversy by removing its imprimatur from the paper and posting Dershowitz's attack on it at the same web address. If any young scholars--without the protective armor that Walt and Mearsheimer's reputations afford, to say nothing of tenured professorships--are considering research into a similar topic, well, they won't need a weatherman to know which way this (idiot) wind blows.\r\n\r\nOne is also tempted to infer that what scares the character assassins into such self-revealing fits of ferocity is the fear that the authors have revealed the unhappy truths they'd rather suppress. We have an ex-New York Times executive editor admitting that he favored Israel in the paper's coverage, and it's not even Abe Rosenthal. They quote the longtime editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal saying, "Shamir, Sharon, Bibi--whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me." They quote former AIPAC officials bragging about Jewish power and influence in Congress and the executive branch and supplement this with a variety of US officials complaining of the power of this network to get what it wants, regardless of the merits of a given argument. The authors also focus a laser beam on the lobby's take-no-prisoners attitude toward any politician who departs from the lobby's line--up to and including Howard Dean's innocuous pronouncement that the United States should play an "even-handed role" in the Middle East. Finally, they demonstrate that while it contains the word "American" in its name, AIPAC does Israel's bidding, pure and simple.\r\n\r\nStill, nothing--particularly when it comes to Jews--is that simple. For authors whose work I have long admired--I've known Walt a long time, though casually, and not long ago I was the commentator on a paper Mearsheimer offered at the Council on Foreign Relations--their paper has surprising weaknesses. Perhaps because they are relatively new to the topic, the authors treat the "pro-Israel" American Jewish community as virtually monolithic. Yet while much of its power and influence rest with AIPAC and the neocons--who together with many others did do everything they could to drag America into this catastrophic war--it also contains many passionate opponents of just these tendencies. These are Jews who identify as both Jewish and pro-Israel but do so on the basis of a fundamentally different vision from the one that animates the likes of Peretz, Podhoretz, Perle and AIPAC's armies of the right.\r\n\r\nSecond, the authors offer up the lobby as virtually the only determinant of US Middle East policy, as if the oil states, oil companies and the vast wealth they represent count for bubkes. That's just silly. The power of oil to determine the course of US foreign policy, like most things, is not what it once was. But neither is it chopped liver. And while things have probably progressed to the point where the AIPAC team can best the Saudis and their minions most of the time, it's still a fight and sometimes requires retreat and compromise. Why the authors treat this factor so dismissively is a mystery. (It may, however, have something to do with the authors' acceptance of a narrative of Middle East history in which Israel plays no useful strategic role for the United States--another mystery to this reader and Realist sympathizer.)\r\n\r\nThird, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out, and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas in reaction.\r\n\r\nDo these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not. Raising the issue purely on the basis of intellectual disagreement is shameful--and actually helpful to genuine anti-Semites, as it diminishes the accusation's potency. While much of the paper is compelling, its weaknesses will hinder the authors' attempt to pierce the wall of ignorance and intimidation erected around such policy debates by the very institutions upon which it seeks to shed light. This is a damn shame, as AIPAC and its minions are pushing for an attack, possibly nuclear, on Iran, and, God help us, it seems to be working--again. ","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 13:21:19","modified":"2006-06-13 13:21:19","fileurl":""},{"id":163623,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"Nessie, thats really stupid. Everybody and everything has a lobby. Its further stupid to believe that ONLY Aipac has any influence while ignoring Big Oil. Are you a paid shill for Arab Oil interests to deflect attention or are you just that dumb? There are no other chocies","author":"Nessie, thats really stupid","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 13:21:36","modified":"2006-06-13 13:21:36","fileurl":""},{"id":163636,"heading":""Its further stupid to believe that ONLY Aipac has any influence"","article":"That's a straw man. They're trying to divert your attention from their Achilles heel. If they *really* wanted to talk about the Big Oil lobby, they're start a dedicated thread. Instead, they use the tired canard to disrupt this thread. Why? Because they know full well that if enough attention is focused on the Israel Lobby, it's doomed, and Israel with it. \r\n\r\nNow back to the topic.","author":"bunk logic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 14:24:05","modified":"2006-06-13 14:24:05","fileurl":""},{"id":163638,"heading":"The uproar over the Israel lobby","article":"Alexander Cockburn\r\n\r\nThe uproar over the Israel lobby\r\nMay 5, 2006\r\n\r\nFor the past few weeks a sometimes comic debate has been simmering in the American press, focused on the question of whether there is an Israeli lobby and, if so, just how powerful it is.\r\n\r\nI would have thought that to ask whether there's an Israeli lobby here is a bit like asking whether there's a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor or a White House located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. The late Steve Smith, brother-in-law of Teddy Kennedy, and a powerful figure in the Democratic Party for several decades, liked to tell the story of how a group of four Jewish businessmen got together $2 million in cash and gave it to Harry Truman when he was in desperate need of money during his presidential campaign in 1948. Truman went on to become president and to express his gratitude to his Zionist backers.\r\n\r\nSince those days, the Democratic Party has long been hospitable to, and supported by, rich Zionists. In 2002, for example, Haim Saban, the Israel-American who funds the Saban Center at the Brooking Institute and is a big contributor to AIPAC, gave $12.3 million to the Democratic Party. In 2001, the magazine Mother Jones listed on its website the 400 leading contributors to the 2000 national elections. Seven of the first 10 were Jewish, as were 12 of the top 20, and 125 of the top 250. Given this, all prudent candidates have gone to amazing lengths to satisfy their demands.\r\n\r\nNone of this history is particularly controversial, and there have been plenty of well-documented accounts of the activities of the Israel Lobby down the years, from Alfred Lilienthal's 1978 study, The Zionist Connection, to former U.S. Rep. Paul Findley's 1985 book, "They Dare To Speak Out" to "Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship," written by my brother and sister-in-law, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, and published in 1991.\r\n\r\nThree years ago, Jeffrey St. Clair and I published a collection of 18 essays called The Politics of Anti-Semitism, no less than four of which were incisive discussions of the Israel lobby. Kathy and Bill Christison, former CIA analysts, reviewed the matter of dual loyalty, with particular reference to the so-called neo-cons, alternately advising an Israeli prime minister and an American president.\r\n\r\nMost vividly of all in our book, a congressional aide, writing pseudonymously under the name George Sutherland, contributed a savagely funny essay called "Our Vichy Congress." "As year chases year," Sutherland wrote, "the lobby's power to influence Congress on any issue of importance to Israel grows inexorably stronger . Israel's strategy of using its influence on the American political system to turn the U.S. national security apparatus into its own personal attack dog -- or Golem -- has alienated the United States from much of the Third World, has worsened U.S. ties to Europe amid rancorous insinuations of anti-Semitism, and makes the United States a hated bully."\r\n\r\nSo it can scarcely be said that there had been silence here about the Israel Lobby until two respectable professors, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the former from the University of Chicago and the latter from Harvard, wrote their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published in longer form by the Kennedy School at Harvard (which has since disowned it) and, after it had been rejected by the Atlantic Monthly (which originally commissioned it), in shorter form by the London Review of Books.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the significance of this essay rests entirely on the provenance of the authors, from two of the premier academic institutions of the United States. Neither of them have any tincture of radicalism. After the paper was published in shortened form in the London Review of Books, there was a slightly stunned silence, broken by the screams of America's most manic Zionist, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, who did Mearsheimer and Walt the great favor of thrusting their paper into the headlines. Dershowitz managed this by his usual volleys of hysterical invective, investing the paper with the fearsome allure of that famous anti-Semitic tract, a forgery of the Czarist police, entitled "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The Mearsheimer-Walt essay was Nazi-like, Dershowitz howled, a classic case of conspiracy-mongering, in which a small band of Zionists were accused of steering the Ship of Empire onto the rocks.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the paper by Mearsheimer and Walt is extremely dull. The long version runs to 81 pages, no less than 40 pages of which are footnotes. I settled down to read it with eager anticipation but soon found myself looking hopefully for the end. There's nothing in the paper that any moderately well-read student of the topic wouldn't have known long ago, but the paper has the merit of stating rather blandly some home truths that are somehow still regarded as too dangerous to state publicly in respectable circles in the United States.\r\n\r\nAfter Dershowitz came other vulgar outbursts, such as from Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post. These attacks basically reiterated Dershowitz's essential theme: There is no such thing as the Israel lobby, and those asserting its existence are by definition anti-Semitic.\r\n\r\nThis method of assault at least has the advantage of being funny, (a) because there obviously is a Lobby -- as noted above and (b) because Mearsheimer and Walt aren't anti-Semites any more than 99.9 percent of others identifying the Lobby and criticizing its role. Partly as a reaction to Dershowitz and Cohen, the Washington Post and New York Times have now run a few pieces politely pointing out that the Israel Lobby has indeed exercised a chilling effect on the rational discussion of U.S. foreign policy. The tide is turning slightly.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, mostly on the left, there has been an altogether different debate, over the actual weight of the Lobby in the deliberations of those running the American Empire. This debate was rather amusingly summed up by the Israeli writer Yuri Avneri, a former Knesset member:\r\n\r\n"I think that both sides are right (and hope to be right, myself, too). The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticizing the Israeli government is political suicide. . If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 U.S. senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith .\r\n\r\n"The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from them. Let's take the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail? . The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The United States uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the United States to dominate Palestine."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAlexander Cockburn is coeditor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through www.counterpunch.com. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.\r\n","author":"repost","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 14:27:22","modified":"2006-06-13 14:27:22","fileurl":""},{"id":163641,"heading":"" They're trying to divert your attention from their Achilles heel."","article":"That's a straw man. If they *really* wanted to talk fairly about the Big Oil lobby, they're address it here. Instead, they use the tired excuse that it is off topic. Why? Because they know full well that if enough attention is focused on the Big Oil Lobby, it's doomed, and anti-Israel cause with it. ","author":"heard it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 14:33:00","modified":"2006-06-13 14:33:00","fileurl":""},{"id":163646,"heading":"Schtarker Yid","article":"We are quite tired of the same old Nessie nonsense. It never changes and it never gets smarter.","author":"Tired of same old Nessie","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 14:45:37","modified":"2006-06-13 14:45:37","fileurl":""},{"id":163654,"heading":"Breaking the silence","article":"The overwrought response to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's brave paper only confirms its thesis.\r\n\r\nBy Juan Cole\r\n\r\nApril 18, 2006 | John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government have put their hands into a hornet's nest with their paper in the London Review of Books, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." As political scientists who routinely analyze U.S. foreign policy, they have gained a reputation for lucid and principled argument, but outside the halls of academia are not exactly household names. In daring to simply describe the well-known operations of the Israel lobby, however, they have made themselves targets of a massive smear campaign. Ironically, this reaction is just what their paper predicted.\r\n\r\nFair and gentlemanly to a fault, and widely respected in their discipline, the two professors are impossible to imagine as fire-breathing racial bigots, devious purveyors of blatant falsehoods or wild-eyed conspiracy theorists prone to ignore obvious evidence, but these are the sort of epithets being hurled at them by their critics.\r\n\r\nIn "The Israel Lobby," Mearsheimer and Walt argue that U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed by a powerful pro-Israel lobby, which inhibits free discussion of the issues and has made the pro-Israeli position a political sacred cow. Congress, they point out, virtually never criticizes Israel: It is an untouchable subject. And this taboo has had enormous consequences, which are themselves off limits for discussion. Because America's blank-check support for Israel arouses enormous Arab and Muslim rage, Israel is a strategic liability, not an asset.\r\n\r\nNor, Mearsheimer and Walt argue, is there any moral reason for America to act against its own interests by supporting Israel come what may. Citing distinguished Israeli historians and journalists, they demythologize Israel's history, demonstrating that the root of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the historical fact that "the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people" -- a crime that Israel's founders explicitly acknowledged, and that has never been rectified. They discuss Israel's illegal, almost 40-year-old occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, and its flawed democracy, which explicitly discriminates against Arabs.\r\n\r\nThey do not raise these points to smear Israel or single it out for special criticism -- as political realists, they are well aware that no state is perfect -- but simply to argue that it is not entitled to special treatment. America's self-interest dictates that the Jewish state should be approached like any other nation, which it manifestly is not.\r\n\r\nMearsheimer and Walt are at pains to point out that there is nothing sinister or conspiratorial about the Israel lobby: Lobbying is a legitimate political practice and Israel is entitled to be defended by interest groups as much as any other nation. What they do argue is that the Israel lobby has extraordinary power, and that some of the policies it espouses are inimical to America's national interests. Above all, they seek to end the taboo, enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism, that has prevented a full and open discussion of these issues.\r\n \r\n\r\nThe paper is not without its flaws. The authors' use of the term "Israel lobby" is at times too broad, simultaneously trying to encompass classic pressure politics and much fuzzier belief systems and taboos. Their tendency to use the term in this slightly elastic, one-size-fits-all way explains the caveats of even some outspoken critics of the Israel lobby, like the Nation's Eric Alterman. Their insistence that America's Middle East policies are centered on Israel ignores the importance of oil. Nor do they explore the history of the "special relationship" between Israel and the U.S. and the way that Israel has become a myth in the American mind, to the point where it is perceived by many as being actually part of America. The belief in the "special relationship," which is a powerful force, is not entirely the product of the Israel lobby. And on pressure politics, they could have been more specific in detailing examples of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's clout in Congress and the executive branch. (Journalist Michael Massing has documented this clout in pieces in the New York Review of Books and the Nation, among other places.) But these weaknesses are comparatively minor, and certainly do not justify the vitriol that has been directed against them.\r\n\r\nThat a powerful pro-Israel lobby exists and plays a significant role in determining America's Middle East policies may be controversial here, but everywhere else in the world, it is taken as virtually axiomatic. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft noted in a piece on the controversy over the paper in the Boston Globe, "On the eastern side of the Atlantic, it has long been recognized that there is an intimate connection between the United States and Israel, in which AIPAC clearly plays a major role. The degree to which this has affected American policy, up to and including the war in Iraq, has been discussed calmly by sane British commentators -- though also, to be sure, played up maliciously by bigots. In America, by contrast, there has been an unmistakable tendency to shy away from this subject." Wheatcroft quotes Michael Kinsley, who noted in Slate in 2002 that "the connection between the invasion of Iraq and Israeli interests had become 'the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.'"\r\n\r\nPredictably, most of paper's harshest critics have avoided engaging its key arguments. Instead, they have raised straw men, attempted to shift the debate to the question of whether it is even acceptable to raise the subject, and either hinted or outright alleged that Mearsheimer and Walt are bigots. These tactics allow critics to sidestep all the crucial questions raised by the paper, while at the same time signaling to others tempted to comment that if they stick their heads up, they will be cut off.\r\n\r\nThe logical fallacy of guilt by association characterizes many of the more strident responses. For example, the staunchly pro-Israel paper the New York Sun gleefully pounced on white supremacist David Duke's endorsement of "The Israel Lobby." But in 1989, Duke ran as a Republican for a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Would it be fair to tar the Republican Party with Duke? It isn't important with whom Duke agrees -- he is a crank. It is important who agrees with him. No one in his or her right mind would accuse Walt and Mearsheimer of doing so. \r\n\r\n Other critics have accused the authors of anti-Semitism, which is to say, of racial bigotry. Eliot A. Cohen of the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University published an emotional attack on the authors in the Washington Post, saying "yes, it's anti-Semitic." Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz also accused Mearsheimer and Walt of bigotry. The Harvard Crimson reported that "Dershowitz, who is one of Israel's most prominent defenders, vehemently disputed the article's assertions, repeatedly calling it 'one-sided' and its authors 'liars' and 'bigots.'" Dershowitz went so far as to allege that the paper paralleled texts at neo-Nazi sites. No one who actually knows either Mearsheimer or Walt, as this author does, could possibly find Dershowitz's charges plausible. Again, such arguments are red herrings, implying guilt by association. Because he cannot refute the substance of the paper, Dershowitz must compare his academic colleagues to neo-Nazis. (And he has the gall to actually deny that critics of Israel tend to be smeared as anti-Semites.)\r\n\r\nThe charge of anti-Semitism (where what is really meant is any criticism of Israeli policy and\/or the Israel lobby) is unacceptable and antidemocratic. I have suffered from it a fair amount because I have written critically about Israel, in particular its creeping colonization of the West Bank -- a U.S.-backed policy that is largely responsible, along with George W. Bush's Iraq war, for America's record-low popularity in the Arab and Muslim world.\r\n\r\nDershowitz penned a quick response, which he elbowed onto the Web page of the Kennedy School at Harvard. No other working paper has been treated this way, with instant rebuttals being posted to it. Both Dershowitz's attempt to impugn the characters of the authors and the fact that he was given privileges not granted others only confirm some of the main allegations of the original paper. (In contrast, Harvard has not rushed to put up a response from, say, a pro-Palestinian academic.)\r\n\r\nAfter clearly implying that Mearsheimer and Walt are driven by anti-Semitic motives, he attempts to impugn their scholarship. Dershowitz identifies a few minor errors, but he cannot obscure the actual history of Palestinian displacement and dispossession at the hands of Israelis.\r\n\r\nFor example, Dershowitz makes much of the fact that the authors quote Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion misleadingly, creating the impression that in the late 1930s he was advocating the violent expulsion of the Palestinians. In fact, as Dershowitz points out, in the quote Ben-Gurion was not calling for expulsion, but expressing a bizarre conviction that the small Zionist state he then envisaged would persuade the Palestinians to relinquish their claim on an independent state in the rest of Palestine. What Dershowitz does not mention is that Ben-Gurion's "plan" was so fantastic as to bring into question his sincerity in stating it as he did. Israeli historian Benny Morris noted, Ben-Gurion "always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller.'" And in fact, when push came to shove in 1947 and 1948, Ben-Gurion did explicitly order expulsions, as at Lydda and Ramla, and was implicated in others by virtue of being in command at the time. Ben-Gurion also kept the 700,000 expelled Palestinian refugees from ever returning or being given reparations: Their villages were razed, their houses bulldozed or taken over, their orchards seized.\r\n \r\n\r\nDershowitz insists that, contra Mearsheimer and Walt's assertions, the mainstream American media offers full and critical coverage of Israel. This is a laughable contention to anyone who has compared American press coverage of Israel with that offered by the rest of the world. Even some American officials have noted the extremely limited nature of U.S. coverage of Israel. In an April 9 Op-Ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled "Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby," ambassador Edward Peck wrote, "Knowing the fiercely negative reactions to accurate, detailed reporting of controversies surrounding Israel, the media fail to cover Israel's violations of every principle for which the United States -- and Israel -- loudly proclaim they stand. There is only rare, skimpy coverage of the ongoing Israeli mass punishments, house demolitions, illegal settlements, assassinations, settler brutality, curfews and beatings. On the other hand, the blind Palestinian rage generated by decades of receiving humiliating, savage suppression in their homeland is reported in lurid, bloody detail."\r\n\r\nAbove all, Dershowitz sets up the straw man that the authors claim that a central "cabal" of "Jews" tightly controls the U.S. press and the U.S. government and prevents them from criticizing Israel. Like other critics, including noted warmonger Max Boot, Dershowitz charges that Mearsheimer and Walt are conspiracy theorists who subscribe to what Dershowitz calls "a paranoid worldview" shared by the likes of David Duke and Pat Buchanan.\r\n\r\nThis charge -- with its obvious implications that Mearsheimer and Walt are anti-Semites in the Henry Ford\/Protocols of the Elders of Zion tradition -- is refuted by every word they have written. In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt are at pains to make clear that there is no "cabal," and that the pro-Israel lobby is a lobby like any other (although more powerful and sacrosanct than most.) \r\n\r\n Here's their definition: "We use 'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either 'not very' or 'not at all' emotionally attached to Israel.\r\n\r\n"Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups -- such as Jewish Voice for Peace -- strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favor giving steadfast support to Israel."\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that it was Mearsheimer and Walt's publisher who capitalized the word "Lobby." But in any case, they make numerous distinctions. They are not talking about Jews as a whole or about a unified phenomenon. They acknowledge that Christian Zionists are a key element of the lobby. They depict no conspiracy. Insofar as they talk about the lobby's "manipulation," its "influence" and its "stranglehold" over American policy -- words that Dershowitz cites as indicating their conspiratorial and unsavory bent -- well, that is what powerful lobbies do. They manipulate, influence and, in best-case scenarios, achieve a stranglehold over policy.\r\n\r\nThe storm over the authors' characterization of the lobby has shifted attention from the most unassailable part of their paper: Their contention that America's unqualified support for Israel has enraged the Arab and Muslim world, served as an important source of anti-American terrorism and hurt America's ability to pursue the war on terror.\r\n\r\nAnyone who has spent any time in the Arab or Muslim world knows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and America's support for Israel's unjust treatment of the Palestinians, are the main sources of anger at America and have been for decades. In a recent Zogby poll, one question that was asked of Arab publics was whether their dislike of the United States was because of its values or its policies. Here are the percentages that said it was because of U.S. policies in the region: Jordan, 76; Morocco, 79; Lebanon, 80; Saudi Arabia, 86; United Arab Emirates, 75; Egypt, 90. Another question was why people thought the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq. Here are the percentages for those who believed it was to "protect Israel": Jordan, 64; Morocco, 82; Lebanon, 82; Saudi Arabia, 44; Egypt, 92. That is, not only are Americans disliked for their invasion of an Arab country, but the Arab public generally attributes the assault to a desire to protect Israel. All those instances when the Americans vetoed U.N. Security Council censures of Israel for its predations against Palestinians or neighbors, all those tens of billions of dollars in aid the U.S. gave Israel, all the times it winked at atrocities such as the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and indiscriminate shelling of Beirut have added up over time.\r\n \r\n\r\nArabs and Muslims like Americans and democracy just fine in principle. What they don't like is U.S. foreign policy. Their main grievance before 2003 was of U.S. complicity in the dispossession of the Palestinians. Now they have another major objection, the U.S. occupation of Iraq -- and they clearly see the two as related. I am not arguing that the Arab public is correct, only that critics are blind if they cannot see that it is knee-jerk U.S. support for the worst Israeli policies that has soured Arabs and Muslims on the United States. To avoid accepting this conclusion, we would have to believe that they have consistently lied to pollsters for decades, and we would have to take it upon ourselves to represent the Arabs and Muslims, since they cannot represent themselves.\r\n\r\nNone of this is hard to understand. The United States is not generally hated by, say, Thais, or Paraguayans, or Cameroonians. This is because we have not done anything to them. We have, however, abetted an epochal wrong against the Palestinian people, with whom Arabs and Muslims feel a similar kinship to that felt by mid-19th century Americans with the Texans trapped at the Alamo. For obvious reasons, an open discussion of the causes and consequences of their anger against us is vital for our national security.\r\n\r\nThe outraged and dismissive reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt's paper illustrates their thesis. The United States faces severe challenges in the Middle East, including issues having to do with Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida and what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian situation now that Hamas has won the Palestinian elections. A debate about the best policies to achieve American interests is being made difficult or impossible by the tactics of intimidation deployed on both sides of the Atlantic. With a possible war against Iran being floated by the Bush administration, the stakes are far too high not to have the full and open discussion we never had before Iraq. When Ben Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, he was asked what kind of government the United States would have. "A republic, if you can keep it," he is said to have replied. If we cannot even discuss the shape of U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East without a lynch mob forming, we won't be able to keep it. ","author":"back to the topic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 15:02:14","modified":"2006-06-13 15:02:14","fileurl":""},{"id":163673,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"Just another CONSPIRACY! Just more leftists engaging in what Marx called "the socialism of fools" or what we call "anti-semitism. So what if these ivory tower leftists believe and have re-written their version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? \r\n\r\nYou still haven't responded re: everyone and everything has a lobby. so what?","author":"Just another CONSPIRACY!","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 15:40:19","modified":"2006-06-13 15:40:19","fileurl":""},{"id":163681,"heading":"If we factor in the war crimes on the Zionist entity,","article":"the activities of the Israel Lobby fits the R.I.C.O Act definition of conspiracy. ","author":"definition","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 15:53:15","modified":"2006-06-13 15:53:15","fileurl":""},{"id":163685,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"Nessie or Patrick, you aren't an attorney, you haven't read or understood RICO and its only a conspiracy in your twisted mind.","author":"Nessie or Patrick, you aren't an attorney","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 15:59:54","modified":"2006-06-13 15:59:54","fileurl":""},{"id":163730,"heading":""you haven't read or understood RICO"","article":"That's where she'd wrong. One needn't be a lawyer to understand the statute. Just read it. It's pretty straight forward in its definition of an ongoing criminal enterprise. If the courts were as willing to apply it war crimes, as they are to apply it to drugs, there would be a lot of politicians in the pokey.","author":"wrong","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-13 17:36:27","modified":"2006-06-13 17:36:27","fileurl":""},{"id":165625,"heading":"Serious charges\/ Zero documentation","article":"SHEEPDOG WRITES: "All lobbies are 'legal' mechanisms to allow undue influence above and out of reach of the majority."\r\n\r\nBECKY: A few years back, a group of welfare mothers (which I was one of at the time) went to Sacramento to lobby Bruce McPherson who was, at the time, a state senator.\r\n\r\nWe were lobbying (unsuccessfully) to have welfare mothers receive cost of living increases. \r\n \r\nSheepdog would have us believe that our little lobby of Welfare Moms was committing "undue influence" which was "out of reach of the majority."\r\n\r\nRight!!!\r\n\r\nOf course, his whole argument is NOT against lobbies, but against the Israel lobby. Since it would sound anti-semitic to single out the LEGAL Israel lobby, he has taken the tact that ALL lobbies are illegal or immoral and we should START by attacking the ISRAEL lobby.\r\n\r\nFor his further claims of bribery, blackmail, extortion, and criminal lobbying, Sheepdog has provided NO EXAMPLES and no documentation. Its just another attack on Jews.\r\n\r\nYou are as transparent as cellophane, Sheepdog.\r\n","author":"Becky Johnson","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-22 12:50:07","modified":"2006-06-22 13:46:30","fileurl":""},{"id":165636,"heading":"'Sheepdog' walked away with tail between legs","article":"He presumably left the site since he realized his laughable "Zionist attack on this website" thread was leading nowhere. He was very possessive about this website. Maybe it finally dawned on him that it really doesn't belong to him as in personal property.\r\n\r\n ","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-22 13:52:52","modified":"2006-06-22 13:52:52","fileurl":""},{"id":165835,"heading":"Speaking of changing sites....","article":"Speaking of those who leave sites.\r\nI heard a report that JA or Joseph Anderson of Berkeley,\r\nmy tormenter and cyberstalker has been banned from Indybay.org!!\r\n\r\nCan it be?\r\n\r\nAnyone else heard anything?\r\n\r\nJA? Can you confirm or deny this?","author":"Becky Johnson","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 19:14:00","modified":"2006-06-23 19:14:00","fileurl":""},{"id":165842,"heading":"A plausible reason","article":"If there's truth to this rumor, it's probably because JA was the one who set in motion the snowball -- the vicious evil screed he posted about you there -- that eventually crushed Indybay.org as we knew it and left it no choice but to morph into it's current pitiful state, entirely in line with what Bill Levinson asserted. Indybay has become almost as lifeless and sterile as SF-IMC. \r\n\r\nAs for JA constantly witchunting, I'd sue him for damages if I had sufficient grounds and could afford it. Maybe I'd hire the ACLU if they were willing to help. I certainly wouldn't want to lose every reporting job I had in leftist media because of his relentless persecution due only to my support for Israel in general.","author":"Scapegoated Jew","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 19:37:43","modified":"2006-06-23 19:37:43","fileurl":""},{"id":165848,"heading":"Fuck JA","article":"California employees are protected against discrimination, harassment and termination as a result of expressing their political views. They are protected not only by privacy laws, but by political speech statutes and laws prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in lawful activity. California has sections in the Labor Code that prohibit employers from regulating their employees' political activities and affiliations, or influencing employees' political activities by threatening to fire them. Additionally, the Fair Employment and Housing Act protects Employees against discrimination based on memberships in a variety of protected groups.\r\n\r\nWhy should Becky have any loyalty to Terry Messman, when Terry had no loyalty to her? She should sue on principle. This entire conflict never even made it into the mainstream media- a few outraged letters to the Chronicle...you never know what might happen....","author":"Sue Terry Messman et al","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 20:47:07","modified":"2006-06-23 20:47:07","fileurl":""},{"id":165851,"heading":"You Zionist NOISEMAKERS just SUE AWAY!!","article":"Sue us ALL 'till your hearts content!\r\n\r\nAre ya feelin' lucky? PUNKS.\r\n\r\nWell..., ARE ya...?","author":"Make My Day","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 21:29:02","modified":"2006-06-23 21:29:02","fileurl":""},{"id":165852,"heading":"SchtarkerYid","article":"JA, Where Are you? I've been looking for you on the streets so that you could show me what you intend to do with your "gatt".","author":"JA, Where Are you?","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 21:32:01","modified":"2006-06-23 21:32:01","fileurl":""},{"id":165864,"heading":""doomed, and anti-Israel cause with it."","article":"We are quite tired of the same old Schtarker nonsense. It never changes and it never gets smarter.","author":"there they go again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 22:50:35","modified":"2006-06-23 22:50:35","fileurl":""},{"id":165865,"heading":""by there they go again Thursday, Jun. 22, 2006 at 6:50 PM "","article":"We are quite tired of the same old nessie nonsense. It never changes and it never gets smarter.\r\n","author":"there he goes again","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 22:57:03","modified":"2006-06-23 22:57:03","fileurl":""},{"id":165866,"heading":""by there he goes again Thursday, Jun. 22, 2006 at 6:57 PM "","article":"Monty Python<\/a>","author":"herd it before","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 23:09:02","modified":"2006-06-23 23:09:02","fileurl":""},{"id":165869,"heading":""herd it before "","article":"Does this person attend to herds?","author":"just wondering","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 23:20:45","modified":"2006-06-23 23:20:45","fileurl":""},{"id":165870,"heading":"herd it before","article":"Only Megafauna tends to herds, and she hasn't been around much....","author":"Tia","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-23 23:24:50","modified":"2006-06-23 23:24:50","fileurl":""},{"id":165917,"heading":"style over substance","article":"Desperation must be setting in. They've been reduced to noting typos. How utterly pathetic. \r\n\r\nSee also:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/onegoodmove.org\/fallacy\/style.htm","author":"bunk logic","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-24 12:11:25","modified":"2006-06-24 12:11:25","fileurl":""},{"id":165921,"heading":"ah, the herds","article":"More people ought to tend to herds. They're awfully cool animals. Goats are great, very outgoing, big personalities, and ridiculously adorable.\r\n\r\nOh right, Nessie wants to get back to the article. One thing: it's a sad day when Noam Chomsky is considered a "Zionist apologist."","author":"charismatic megafauna","parent_id":163082,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-06-24 12:29:48","modified":"2006-06-24 12:29:48","fileurl":""}]}