So telling that the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd has such a stranglehold over public discourse in the U.S. about the Middle East that this intelligent, balanced piece could not be published in a mainstream U.S. publication, and that we have to rely, once again, on the Brits, to stimulate enlightened debate about this troubled part of the world. Let's drop these taboos once and for all and talk honestly about the hideous role we have played in financing Israeli repression and dispossession of long-suffering Palestinians. Hysterical rantings about 'terror' are meaningless unless understood in this context.

Wilmers is getting a lot of airtime, and it's noteworthy that she gets the last word, here. The media loves quoting Jews - and identifying them as such - who are not sympathetic to Israel.

Jefferson, are you ever going to link to articles that go into detail about the paper - and its questionable footnotes? Plenty have been written. For instance, Noam Chomsky, who is footnoted in the paper, has been very critical of it.

Or are you going to keep ending your posts with people who support the paper by insisting it's not anti-Semitic?

And while I realize Arutz Sheva has been sympathetic to the settlers movement, it's interesting that you included that qualification. However, you didn't say, when you were quoting from the Malaysia Times in your last piece - "The Malaysia Times, an anti-Zionist paper...".

Sorry, Jefferson. Just read the full Guardian piece. It mentions the information I provided.

I stand by the rest.

Every criticism made is careful not to address the conclusions which are virtually irrefutable. Yes, Israel has a lobby in the United States. Yes, the United States' relationship with Israel is the common denominator for terrorist attacks against the United States. Yes, the United States gives more money to Israel than any country in the world. Yes, the United States continues to look the other way when Israel pursued nuclear weapons. Yes, the United States excercised its Security Council veto more for Israel than all the other permanent members combined.

That Israel had fewer tanks than Jordan in 1949 is irrelevant. That an Israeli software firm was denied purchasing access by the Bush whitehouse is irrelevant.

Love the response by Arutz Sheva. I would love to stop sending Israel 3 billion a year to free them from our oppressive foreign policy agenda. We will also free them of the weapons we send, the money, and our Security Council votes in their favor.

"That Israel had fewer tanks than Jordan in 1949 is irrelevant."

Actually, it's relevant to the credibility of the paper, since the paper claims otherwise.

"Yes, the United States' relationship with Israel is the common denominator for terrorist attacks against the United States."

How so? Please provide evidence that the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the U.S.S. Cole Bombing, both World Trade Center attacks, etc., were done in the name of Palestinian nationalism. Bin Laden didn't even mention Israel/Palestine until later, when saw it as a trump card to mobilizing Arab-Muslim support.

"Yes, the United States gives more money to Israel than any country in the world."

Actually, aid to Egypt is now about equal.

"Yes, the United States excercised its Security Council veto more for Israel than all the other permanent members combined."

Right, and the U.N. Security Council, which includes terrorist sponsering dictatorships and has been headed by Syria, has condemned Israel more than any other country in history.

"Right, and the U.N. Security Council, which includes terrorist sponsering dictatorships and has been headed by Syria..."

Gimme a break, the UNSC has the five permanent members, with veto powers, and 10 elected, temporary members chosen by regional caucus. The Presidency is a ceremonial, rotating position that switches every month. The membership shifts rapidly, and elected members have little power. That Syria reference is a red herring.

As for the resolutions, look at the General Assembly, not the UNSC. The US blocks any serious condemnation of Israel in the there.

"Aid to Egypt is about equal"
Close, in monetary terms, but far from equal overall. Egypt doesn't enjoy a security guarantee from the US. Egypt is subject to many more terms and conditions when it comes to aid. Israel also receives significant aid that is not counted in the official charts. Try again, bud.

Sparky:

“Try again, bud.”

Sorry, I don’t go that way. I’m flattered, though.

Anyway, since Israel's inception, the U.N. Security Council has passed more resolutions against it than any other country. And Israel, due to machinations in U.N. bureaucracy, has not been allowed to sit on the Council.

The U.N. General Assembly's record is no better. In 2004-2005, 19 resolutions were passed against Israel, while not a single was passed condemning Sudan's genocide in Darfur.

You are right. The U.S. is has been pretty consistent in defending Israel from these one-sided condemnations, much to the consternation of people like you who fail to see the problem with them.

Israel's right to exist is beyond question.
But it is worth noting that no other foreign country has ever been able to consistantly mobilize an army of Senators and representatives to sign leters opposing presidential policy. In addition, no other country has ever had a vehicle equivalent to the annual AIPAC conference. Nor has any other foreign country beside Israel had two embassies in Washington. Its official one and AIPAC.

These conditions distort how our Congress
operates.

The British Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
By Stephen Polka, Dean of the Nostradamus School, Harvard University, and
John Mereshameonyou, Know-Nothing Professor of Xenophobia, Patrick Henry University
Editor's Note by Barry Rubin
April 3, 2006

The following is a working paper of the Harvard University Nostradamus School.

[Editor's Note: While walking on the Harvard campus, I saw a manuscript blow out of a dumpster and fall at my feet. Curious, I picked it up and read it thoroughly. This is the remarkable text you are about to read and which no doubt will soon be published by two prestigious political scientists who are so innovative and courageous that they understand one need not know anything about a subject in order to pontificate about it. --Barry Rubin]

All analysts agree, and it is not even a matter of controversy, that a powerful lobby has seized control of U.S. foreign policy and used it for another country's interests. This manipulation has been very damaging to the United States and it is time that this cabal is exposed.
That is why it is necessary to analyze the pro-British lobby's terrible effect in damaging U.S. interests and subordinating our beloved country to an evil alien state.
In fact, the United States gets nothing from its alliance with England, a country which has repeatedly undermined American interests and defied American leaders. Moreover, U.S. support for Britain has angered such important forces as the Irish, Argentinean, and French peoples. It is time that this mistaken policy is challenged and changed.
While superficially, the United States and Britain have been allies, history shows that the British are unreliable at best. It should not be forgotten that Manchester (the proper capital of England since London was stolen from the Celts) treated its American colonies in a very oppressive way, a factor that triggered the American Revolution. Afterward, the British seized American seamen on the high seas, blocked American commerce to Europe, and burned the Capitol building and White House.
Since then, things haven't been much better. During the American Civil War, Britain encouraged the Confederacy. And then came the most disgraceful chapter of all. A conspiracy of British sympathizers working at the highest levels of U.S. government worked with Britain to drag the United States into World Wars One and Two, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and our unnecessary confrontation with such countries as Germany and Japan which did not otherwise threaten U.S. interests.
There are alternative explanations of the long and uncritical U.S. support for Britain, but these are all unsatisfactory compared with our conspiracy theory. For example, some believe that support for Britain appeals to Americans because we have similar societies. In fact, this is untrue. Unlike our system of democracy, Britain has a monarchy and a parliamentary structure. Moreover, historically, the British were a society based on blood relations. The country profited by the conquest of innocent Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Hibernians and Celts, occupying through war such lands as Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. And certainly the British Empire ruled large occupied territories and acted in a very oppressive and exploitative manner for centuries, including the trade in opium to China.
Contrary to U.S. interests, Britain absorbed huge amounts of U.S. aid, giving little in return. Rather than be grateful, the British manipulated American policy through a powerful lobby. For example, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick, a key member of the British lobby, helped ensure American support for British imperial interests in the Falklands.
As if this were not enough, Britain has subjected the United States to massive cultural subversion. With their snobbish manners and exports of illegal tea (See Boston Tea Party), the British have long made fun of the United States. Britain has also deliberately tried to destroy an independent American culture. Need we mention the factors that began the current cultural decline in America--the Beatles and the Rolling Stones?
Now we can also unmask the key figures in the British lobby, the most notorious of all being, Alistair Cooke. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher hypnotized George Bush Sr., into going to war with Iraq in 1991. Even our food is being contaminated by marmalade, English muffins, and roast beef. And what of the "queen" who, according to reliable sources (see the scholarly publications of Lyndon LaRouche) is a drug smuggler.
Many institutions as well as individuals have served the British lobby, for example the Anglican Church and the many people of English descent who have put their "second homeland" before the United States in their divided loyalties and treachery.
No examination of the British lobby can be complete, however, without a discussion of how the UK conspiracy led the United States into the Iraq war. Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing considerable political troubles at home, provoked the war in order to boost his power and to eliminate a regime that threatened British, but not American, interests. Pretending to be a friend, Blair flew to America and spoke to a joint session of Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks. In fact, though, Usama bin Ladin's assault on New York and Washington was a protest against the British oppression of Muslims, both historically by British imperialism and today through the treatment of Britain's Muslim subjects at home. Even the enmity of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini can be explained in terms of the nefarious British lobby. The real target of Iran was the writer Salman Rushdie protected by--you guessed it--the United Kingdom.
The immediate result, of course, was a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, fulfilling Britain's old interest in dominating that country which goes back to the days of the "great game" (note the cynical disregard for human life). No doubt, Blair's determination to eliminate Saddam Hussein was due to his belief that the democratically elected Iraqi president was supporting the IRA. Yet we must declare: there is no moral reason for preferring Britain to Ba'thist Iraq or to the subway bombers who were understandably protesting British policy by blowing up commuters.
It is vital for Americans to understand how much power Britain wields over America. The administration is filled with "British-Americans" and members of the Anglican Church; Congress never criticizes Britain no matter what it does. Most American presidents have been "WASPs" (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants). This includes, of course, George Bush. As for the media, the totality of British control is clear from the fact that--though it can ruin one's career to point this out--all U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations are in English! The fact that an entire section of the United States is called "New England" is only more proof of this domination, as if any other evidence is needed.
No doubt the powerful British lobby will come after us and try to destroy us or resort to their favorite trick of blaming all criticism on "anti-limieism." We will not, however, be deterred from speaking the obvious truth. America must be saved.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in September. Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 Israel
Email: gloria@idc.ac.il Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-956-8605
© 2006 All rights reserved.

To anonymous-

"Actually, it's relevant to the credibility of the paper, since the paper claims otherwise."

But not to that paper's conclusions which you, and others, have been remarkably resistent to challenge.

"How so? Please provide evidence that the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the U.S.S. Cole Bombing, both World Trade Center attacks, etc., were done in the name of Palestinian nationalism. Bin Laden didn't even mention Israel/Palestine until later, when saw it as a trump card to mobilizing Arab-Muslim support."

The point is, when people say we are allies with Israel because they are valuable in our war on terror, they get the relationship backwards. Middle Eastern anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feeds the anti-Americanism that terrorism uses for material support of its goals which are not in the best interest of our country. America's support for Israel motivates terrorists.

"Actually, aid to Egypt is now about equal."

If 2 billion dollars is about equal to 3 billion dollars, you are right.

"Right, and the U.N. Security Council, which includes terrorist sponsering dictatorships and has been headed by Syria, has condemned Israel more than any other country in history."

You assume that Israel is the victim when there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise. But at least you acknowledge that the United States uses its Security Council veto to benefit Israel.

"But it is worth noting that no other foreign country has ever been able to consistantly mobilize an army of Senators and representatives to sign leters opposing presidential policy."

Not sure what you're talking about, here. Could you please give examples of Congress clashing with the president over Israel? There must be plenty, since you claim it's a consistent phenomenon.

Thanks.

Sorry, skyfield. Signed it with your name accidentally.

Oh puhleeze, as if Islamist fascism & global terror wouldn't exist if Israel didn't.

Really.

Who are you guys fooling other than yourselves?

There is a myth that nations can have intimate relationships with other "friendly" nations. People may have friends, but Nations do not have friends. They only have their national interests. Israel along with other "friendly" nations has a long record of spying on the United States. Through the "Pollard" affair, the U. S. lost a number of agents in the former Soviet Union, when their names were leaked to Israel. Recently a Defense Department Offical was convicted of giving information to Israel through AIPAC. Some former AIPAC officals are on trial related to his activities.
Also Douglas Feith, a Neoconservative working in the Defense Department was shocked to hear from his opposite number in Israel that Israel was selling American military equipment to China. Israel is the second largest arms dealer to china. Neoconservatives are hysterically anti-communists.
The Defense Department and American intelligence are therefore keeping them at arms length.

Luckily, the US has great friends like France.

Let see if they'll be able to buy up Bell Labs, i.e. Lucent to coincide with the Islamist takeover of Eurabia/socialist street rioting. (At least the Mexicans illegal immigrants work hard and don't burn cars.)

Notice:

"But not to that paper's conclusions which you, and others, have been remarkably resistant to challenge."

I disagree. The definition of a 'conclusion' is something based on 'fact', and if the authors are presenting spurious facts, they jeopardize their conclusions. That's a fundamental rule of logic and academic scholarship. Sorry, I didn't make it up.

Some of the “facts” they footnote are from anti-Israel polemicist Chomksy, and he finds the authors’ research to be slipshod and problematic. So, whether you like it or not, they have a credibility problem.

And I haven't been "remarkably resistant to challenge" anything. I was simply responding to what you said.

"If 2 billion dollars is about equal to 3 billion dollars, you are right."

I stand corrected on aid. I had heard that Egyptian aid was about equal. Still, it's not a huge difference, and I don't hear you seething about military aid to Mubarak's kleptocracy.

"America's support for Israel motivates terrorists."

I'm sure it does. So does the insane indoctrination of Wahabi Islam, which encourages people to blow themselves up and fly airplanes into buildings. And yet, we're still driving SUVS, congress hasn't proposed serious legislation for energy independence, and Harvard’s Kennedy school hasn’t come out with a hugely publicized paper called the Saudi Lobby and U.S. Policy, encouraging energy independence and noting how every P.R. firm in Washington works for the Saudi Government. Odd. Must be AIPAC’s influence.

"You assume that Israel is the victim when there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise."

No, there isn't a "preponderance of evidence" showing that Israel deserves more condemnation than Sudan, China, Russia, or a whole plethora of totalitarian states, or that the U.N. was right to be condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while ignoring the Rwandan genocide.

The U.N. declared Zionism racism (finally rescinded it after 16 years), then hosted the Durban conference, which actually had U.N. representatives quoting from the Protocols of Zion. At the last "Palestinian Solidarity Day" at the U.N., a map of the Middle East without the state of Israel was hung prominently.

Clearly, you feel that is representative of a forum which can fairly condemn the Jewish state, and since that’s your attitude, I won't try to change it. I’ll leave you with the last word, which I’m sure will site plenty of “evidence,” given your M.O.

I might add that the only reason we're giving Egypt $2bn a year is so that they 'make nice' with Israel. Too bad we couldn't have paid Saddam to do the same thing and save us a lot of trouble.

If you want to know whats going on in U. S./Israeli relations, Ha'artz, the Israeli paper, is very good. Their reporting is fearless, and, has less bias toward Israel than the American media.

Those UNSC resolutions aren't all directed at Israel, rather at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Terrorism is explicitly condemned in most of them (I can't say all, I haven't read them). The GA is much worse than the UNSC, and yes, Israel should have an opportunity to sit on the UNSC. Of course, they'd have to be elected by their regional bloc which I don't regard as being likely in any case. I'd be interested to see you cite some of these UNSC resolutions that are one-sided condemnations. Not the GA, just the UNSC.

As for "one-sided condemnation," come on. Any condemnation of Israel is shouted down as anti-Semitism. I support Israel's right to exist, I support them defending themselves, and I deplore terrorism against them or anyone else, but that doesn't mean Israel is blameless in all things. I don't support government-sponsored assassinations. I don't support illegal settlement activity. I didn't support Israel plotting with France and Britain to seize the Suez and Sinai (and yes, the US stopped that, but only to keep from having to confront the Soviets).

Regardless of what you believe, just because I think Israel deserves condemnation at times (just like every other nation) does not mean that I'm anti-Israel or anti-Jew. Sorry about that.

saxyboy-

"I disagree. The definition of a 'conclusion' is something based on 'fact', and if the authors are presenting spurious facts, they jeopardize their conclusions. That's a fundamental rule of logic and academic scholarship. Sorry, I didn't make it up."

The conclusions are what interest me and the conclusions are undeniable. The intellectual response to this paper is to challenge minutia details about the amount of Jordinian tanks in 1949. This seems irrelevant when discussing the greater issue of whether or not Israel's interests are in my best interests, as an American. I have decided they are not.

"I stand corrected on aid. I had heard that Egyptian aid was about equal. Still, it's not a huge difference, and I don't hear you seething about military aid to Mubarak's kleptocracy."

Because this isn't an article about Egypt. I am not "seething" about anything, I am making a rational decision not to support giving Israel more aid than any other country in the world.

"I'm sure it does. So does the insane indoctrination of Wahabi Islam, which encourages people to blow themselves up and fly airplanes into buildings. And yet, we're still driving SUVS, congress hasn't proposed serious legislation for energy independence, and Harvard’s Kennedy school hasn’t come out with a hugely publicized paper called the Saudi Lobby and U.S. Policy, encouraging energy independence and noting how every P.R. firm in Washington works for the Saudi Government. Odd. Must be AIPAC’s influence."

A non sequitor that is repeated in every dissenting paper. Yes material aid to Saudi Arabia is wrong. Yet we give more to Israel and Israel does not produce oil. The question that needs asking is why do we support Israel at all? What has Israel done for the United States lately?

I would love to read a paper about the Saudi lobby in America. The subject of an imaginary paper is not the topic of this thread.

"No, there isn't a "preponderance of evidence" showing that Israel deserves more condemnation than Sudan, China, Russia..."

There is a preponderance of evidence that the global entity United Nations has condemned Israel more than Sudan, China, and Russia for its treatment of Palestinians. Specifically it has condemned, repeatedly, unlawful Israeli deportation. If the United States was dissenting merely with the likes of Syria and Iran on every issue I would be content. But we are not. We disagree with the entire UN body over and over again for no good reason. We frequently disagree with people who offer no material support for terrorists whatsoever.

Here is a perfect opportunity for you to explain to an American why I should care about Israel when our relationship with them is often mentioned by terrorists and costs the American taxpayer 3 billion a year.

I do not think Israel is the great evil or other nonsense. I do question why we should have to fight Israel's battles in the United Nations or why we should provide them significant military and economic support even though this relationship is not within our best security interests.

Sorry, I titled my last post (right before Notice's) as coming from "saxboy". It was supposed to be to him/her.

If US foreign policy is so fair to all how come there is no stand on Israel's nuclear program? We would raise red flag on other countries, but would stay mum on Israel's refusal to sign the NPT traty. DOES ANY ONE IN US ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE GUTS TO DEMAND THAT ISRAEL OPENS ITSELF UP TO INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR INSPECTION. If Palestinian terrorism is such a problem, why does side with Israel against UN peacekeepers in the region? We want peacekeepers in Darfur. Why not send peacekeepers to a place suffering from suffering from suicidal bombers.

Israel's right to exist is open to debate to the same extent as is the Palestinian's right to their national homeland in their ancestral lands. Or are the Palestinians lesser beings? Untermenschen living in Israel's lebensraum?

As for terrorism, keep in mind that the early Zionists used terrorism without hesitation and without remorse when it suited their interests. Go read "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" by Benny Morris. The early Zionists planted bombs at bus stops and crowded markets. The Palestinians merely added a guidance system. Otherwise, it's been monkey see, monkey do. Israel simply has no right to complain about Palestinian terrorism. Israel can only complain that the Palestinians can't do to Israel what Israel, in the form of the Zionists, did to the Palestinians.

Israel used terror to drive more than 700,000 innocent Palestinians from their ancestral homes in 1947-48. Palestinians have as much right to that land as do Jews. More rights, in fact, since they've been there for 2000 years since the Romans expelled the Jews. If the Jews get their land back, what about the other groups? What about Native Americans? But the US Supreme Court just ruled that 200 years made their clams stale. Yet one group gets 2000 years? Inane. Insane.

The Palestinians bear no responsibilty for the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Yet they pay the price every day. This is immoral, unethical, and against human reason. Yet this debate shows the supporters of Israel demonizing the Palestinians as untermenschen. If this was wrong in 1930s Germany, it's wrong now. Yet Israel and its supporters continue on their merry way of slandering all those who believe human rights don't vary by race, religion, or nationality. This is sick and depraved.

But the worst feature of this entire debate is the tactic of charging critics of Israel with anti-semitism. This not only dilutes the evils of true anti-semitism, but also invites real anti-semitism. We will soon come to the day when anti-semitism is perceived as mere political disagreement, and not racism. The Israel Lobby will have only itself to blame. Anti-semitism? It's just politics.

As for the AIPAC traitors to America and the US not prosecuting this crime before: As George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon said, 9/11 changed everything. If 9/11 is enough for the US to allow Israeli state terror against the Palestinians, it's enough to take out the traitors who gave classified material to a foreign power. The same foreign power that used Jonathon Pollard to execute the greatest theft of American military secrets since the Rosenbergs gave Stalin the A-bomb. The same foreign power that attacked teh USS Liberty and killed 34 American sailors by, among other means, machine-gunning the life rafts. The same foreign power that encourages the Kurds to declare independence from Iraq, even though this is against US interests and policies. Treason is treason, and the US Constitution doesn't say except when it's done for Israel.

The Meirsheimer & Walt paper is a refreshing breeze of reality in a debate poisoned by religous and racial bigotry and hatred. American needs to address it now.

UNSC castigated and criticised Israel more than any other countries like China or Sudan is because none of those countries occupied lands, killed thousands of people ( 3/4 times more than Palestinian suicide bombers killed) , did not invade Lebanon and created civil war that lasted decaded and so on. Resolutions brought against Israel in general assembly of UN usually passed with more than 100 vote margin. The whole world must be crazy!!!!!!!!

I am pretty sure majority US population unaware of the facts written in article Israeli Lobby. I bet Prof. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's study just tried to shed some light on things mainstream American media would never dare to touch.

Anyone problem with the article should dispute that with facts. Not with how Britain influences US policy or How mean and worse China , Sudan or anyone is. Failure to do so proves the point that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wanted to make is a reasonable one.

I am a billionaire. I sell a lot of porn and gambling on the internet. I dont sell it to my
kids but I sell to Americans. Most of my customers
are not in Israel. Goyim is defined in Talmud. You should read the Protocols of the learned Elders of Zion. Read the Torah. It tells us how the Ten Elders of the Twelve tribes of jews conspired to kill their younger brother Joseph, and then came home to their father and did a hollywood style drama of deception to him. To be sure, the foundations of hollywood were laid on that day, a few thousand years ago. To be sure, the foundations of hollywood were laid on that day, a few thousand years ago. when they deceived their own father. Where do other races or goyim hope to stand in this scheme of things ????? !!!!!
This is their own book, the torah. Even their own God Elohim hates them.

Only a very small minority is righteous, of the torah true jews of neturei karta. Please read the free book on the internet. Holocaust victims accuse.pdf on the internet. It will tell you the truth.

The supporters keep skirting the central issue. International relations is interest based. The US has done allot for Israel, and at great cost. What has Israel done for the US? And is it worth that cost? They are useless as military allies (no other contries will join coaltions with them), they aggresively spy against the US, they sell jointly developed military technology to China. What does the US get out of the relationship? Answer: not nearly enough to justify the cost. How else can we explain the relationship then? That is the question that Walt and Mearsheimer try to take up. The name calling of Isreali supporters and unwillingness to asses the cost/benefit aspects of the relationship confirm the paper's thesis.

Mr Morley, I'm extremely surprised that you have omitted to mention the editorial in the highly respectable and influential Financial Times of April 1. It looks at the M-W controversy and raises some serious questions about the absence of debate on the US Israel relationship and points out that there is no more important issue to America's reputation in the world.

It also talks about moral blackmail and says of M and W: "Their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned" and states "On various counts, this is a shame and a self-inflicted wound no society built on freedom should allow."

The Washington Post in what it has published to date on this issue is not looking good. But the NY Times is looking even worse! It seems not a line on the issue has appeared. However, a quick search of the NYT archives finds that a little while back "distinguished professor of political science" Mearsheimer was regularly quoted on a range of issues.

In contrast to what's being said by many posters here, it's interesting to read the support for M-W's paper in the online comment in the Boston Globe. Quick, Israel Lobby, better get over there: http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=3176&webtag=bc-news

"Ruth", you sicken me.

Sparky:

Look, BUD. You said:

“There is a preponderance of evidence that the global entity United Nations has condemned Israel more than Sudan, China, and Russia for its treatment of Palestinians.”

And I told you why that is unjustified, by citing the U.N.s history of anti-Israel bias, which has become more pronounced since the oil crisis in the 70's. And you are essentially saying, "Well, that doesn't matter. We shouldn't be protecting Israel in the U.N., anyway." Obviously, I disagree.

"The conclusions are what interest me and the conclusions are undeniable."

No they aren't. The PAPER's conclusions are just a POV that you agree with, regardless of facts. MY conclusions about the U.N. and credibility problems with the paper (note: Chomsky's issues are not with the number of tanks used in the War of Independence) have no bearing on you.

"I would love to read a paper about the Saudi lobby in America. The subject of an imaginary paper is not the topic of this thread."

Actually, the Saudi lobby IS relevant, since they have been very instrumental in influencing America's actions in the region. The Israeli lobby is only half the story (and yes, it is obviously very influential). But part of the problem with the paper's CONCLUSIONS is that the Saudi Lobby is barely mentioned, hence, the Israeli lobby's influence is overstated, making it seem as if it operates in a vacuum.

Your answer, "We're talking about Israel," is a way for you to dismiss everything I say, just as you have with the information I've given you about the U.N.

So, what's the point in trying to convince you of anything? There is none! ;-)

"I do not think Israel is the great evil or other nonsense."

O.K. Then what's your excuse?

Like I implied in my last post, I figured you would come back with something that is essentially more opinion-based and you'd be low on facts. You didn't disappoint. You are essentially saying, "Fine, but I still do not think we should support Israel."

You are entitled to your view, and as a two-state Zionist, I understand it, but disagree. That's really all I can say to you, given the nature of this exchange. I think that taking the time to figure out what will happen on the next season of The Shield, my favorite T.V. show, is probably just as pointless, but it’s definitely more gratifying.

Later.

saxboy,

I think you're confusing me with "Notice". My post was the one BEFORE Notice's. I didn't say any of the things you attribute to me.

Sorry!

Sparky:

I'm sorry. I was on the phone with some friends from AIPAC, who were telling me what to write, and I got confused.

;-)

That's OK, I screwed up the name thing 'cause I was transcribing the talking points I just got from Hamas. :)-~

saxyboy-

You addressed Sparky when you meant to address me.

"And I told you why that is unjustified, by citing the U.N.s history of anti-Israel bias, which has become more pronounced since the oil crisis in the 70's. And you are essentially saying, "Well, that doesn't matter. We shouldn't be protecting Israel in the U.N., anyway." Obviously, I disagree."

You insist that the U.N.'s history of anti-Israel bias is self-evident. It is not. The United Nation has a historical bias against countries that engage in targeted assassinations and unlawfully deportations. You would make more sense if it were but a few lunatic countries that criticize Israel when in fact it is pretty much everyone.

I am not saying that we shouldn't support Israel in the UN, I'm saying that I will not do so because no one has provided any reasonable evidence for why I should. If you showed any willingness to defend Israel (as opposed to attack its detractors) I could be convinced otherwise.

"No they aren't. The PAPER's conclusions are just a POV that you agree with, regardless of facts. MY conclusions about the U.N. and credibility problems with the paper (note: Chomsky's issues are not with the number of tanks used in the War of Independence) have no bearing on you."

A conclusion you have yet to deny. Does Israel benefit from the 3 billion we give them every year or not? Is this in the best interests of the United States or not?

"Actually, the Saudi lobby IS relevant, since they have been very instrumental in influencing America's actions in the region. The Israeli lobby is only half the story (and yes, it is obviously very influential). But part of the problem with the paper's CONCLUSIONS is that the Saudi Lobby is barely mentioned, hence, the Israeli lobby's influence is overstated, making it seem as if it operates in a vacuum."

Again, I would love to read a study about the Saudi influence and I would even support measures to eliminate our relationship with the Saudis if it were feasible. I find their human rights abuses despicable. The difference between the Saudis and Israel is that the Saudis have oil and the Israelis don't. It is in my best interests at the gas pump to aid Saudi Arabia, it is not in my best interests to do the same for Israel.

A case can at least be made for Saudi Arabia where none has yet to suffice for Israel. If you want to present one I'd be happy to evaluate it.

"O.K. Then what's your excuse?"

We do not give 3 billion in aid to Australia or to Somalia or to Laos. If a country is asking for my money the impetus is on them to prove the necessity. Our comfortable relationship with Israel costs us American lives and it is reciprocated with espionage and little utility. That Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist is not a reaon to support Israel. That Egypt gets 2 billion a year is not a reason to support Israel.

Boy!, I wish my country could get the same support as Israel, can somebody tell me how we can start our own lobby firm. We want US' full attention and limitless dollars. After all, we are also against terrorism. Thanks.

Notice:

"The United Nation has a historical bias against countries that engage in targeted assassinations and unlawfully deportations."

Notice:

Wow, you're relentless. I say something, and you just dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

I have laid out my case against the U.N. Your response is, basically, well...the typical Notice response that says: "Screw facts! They're right to slam Israel over any other country! It's OK that Israel is the only country not allowed to sit on the Security Council! Double standards are irrelevant! Targeted assassinations and deporatations are BAD!" Look, your opinion is noted. I getcha. And I still disagree.

"If you want to present one I'd be happy to evaluate it."

Notice: stop it, now. We both have better things to do.

On a final note:

I'm glad that the U.S. supports Israel, and I think Israel's existence has brought lots of benefits to the world. And I'm willing to say that without further playing this game of "Slam the Zionist".

Sorry if you don't agree with it. I know it hurts.

Illegal Alien:

You have plenty of lobbies, two of which are The Democratic Party and the New York Nightlife Association.

Nice try, though.

Sparky:

"that doesn't mean Israel is blameless in all things."

Good to know. It isn't.

My responses to Notice stand for you, my friend.

If you can sit here and defend the fact that the U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country, I'm sorry, we really have nothing to talk about. Sure, you can split hairs between the GA and UNSC, but what I've said about the bias undeniable, concerning the rate and weight of condemnation as opposed to any other country.

BTW SPARKY: When Egypt and Jordan had the Pals under occupation, there were no condemnations against those countries. Neither were their when the Pals were massacred by black September, or when they were thrown out of Kuwait.

Just some info. I got that from my AIPAC rep.

"We do not give 3 billion in aid to Australia or to Somalia or to Laos. If a country is asking for my money the impetus is on them to prove the necessity."

That 3 billion dollars is less than 5% of Israel's GDP. U.S. aid to Egypt, by contrast, is roughly 12% of that country's economy. U.S. aid to Jordan is 29% of their economy. Israel, at least, appreciates that help, whereas in Jordan and Egypt the U.S. is considered evil incarnate and its flags are routinely torched in the streets in hate-demonstrations. U.S. aid to Latin America has doubled under the current administration, and nobody there knows that, not even the leaders. The real reason only the aid to Israel is constantly challenged, is that the Arabs and their herd of followers in the West are fervently hoping that the elimination of that aid would cause Israel to collapse. Keep dreaming.

"Our comfortable relationship with Israel costs us American lives"

Evidence?

"and it is reciprocated with espionage"

Evidence?

"That Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist is not a reaon to support Israel."

We support Saudi Arabia too. And a lot of other highly questionable friends.

"That Egypt gets 2 billion a year is not a reason to support Israel."

But apparently you have no problem with that aid to Egypt.

Sparky and Noticeknowitall:

What I find funny about this conversation, is I've given you facts contesting the credibility of the REPORT, and you guys have turned this into a thing about the U.N.. You haven't even tried to counter what I've said. You both basically argue, "c'mon, don't accuse me of anti-Semitism and singling Israel out. The U.N. is right!"

At least I've acknowedged that Israel lobby is indeed influential, which is more than what you guys have done.

What's up with that? Who's being close minded, here?

Michael:

Try to get them to stick to the report, since they are always accusing us of getting Off Topic.

Good luck.

Saxyboy-

"I have laid out my case against the U.N."

Your case is that the United Nations is biased against Israel. I acknowledge that the United Nations sanctions Israel more than any other nation. The conclusion you draw from that is the United Nations is bias, and the one I draw from it is that Israel is deserving of United Nation's condemnation.

We are not disagreeing about facts. We both acknowledge that Israel is the target of more UN resolutions than anyone else.

"It's OK that Israel is the only country not allowed to sit on the Security Council! Double standards are irrelevant"

I do think it is unfair that Israel cannot sit on the Security Council. Hopefully being on the Western European and Others regional group will ultimately change that.

The reason they are not in the Asian group is because it has managed to wage wars against its Arab neighbors to the point where they bar its entry. If the United Nations granted unlimited access to leadership roles for Israel it would lose all credibility as an international body since Israel repeatedly breaks international law. Why you think this is "unfair" is beyond me. Israel has itself to blame.

"Notice: stop it, now. We both have better things to do."

You repeatedly refuse to make an actual case for Israel. I will presume this is becuase you don't actually have one that wouldn't embarass you. Oh wait, here it comes:

"I'm glad that the U.S. supports Israel, and I think Israel's existence has brought lots of benefits to the world."

How very descriptive of you. Care to qualify "lots of benefits"?

What about the Liberty ship that was attacked by Israeli air force and torpedos during the 1967 war which killed more than 30 American soldiers deliberately when they circled the boat and saw quite well the American flag and markings.
And to date no one dares to question those actions.If this comes from friends then who needs enemies??

The Financial Times on April 3 has just published a comment piece “When Vigilance Undermines Freedom Of Speech” by Columbia University history professor Mark Mazower.

On the M-W issue Mazower writes: “What is striking is less the substance of their argument than the outraged reaction: to all intents and purposes, discussing the US-Israel special relationship still remains taboo in the US media mainstream.”

He goes on to say: “If fear of being tarred as an anti-semite – and there is no more toxic charge in American politics – blocks the way, what anti-semitism actually implies in today’s America is increasingly unclear”.

And: “A striking illustration of this occurred in the run-up to the 2004 US presidential elections. At that time Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, in spite of strong objections from the State Department. The foreign service did not see why any one form of discrimination should be singled out for official US concern. It was equally troubled by the Act’s language, which asserts that “strong anti-Israel sentiment” or indeed “Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories” should count as evidence of anti-semitic attitudes. At one level, Congress was connecting with a diplomatic strategy of the Sharon government that sought to highlight anti-semitism as a way of deflecting criticism of its policies in the occupied territories. But behind the lobbying lie deeper semantic shifts in mainstream American discourse. “

And: ”Most sensible people of course recognise that opposition to Israeli policies is quite different from anti-semitism. For those who think they are linked, it has proved hard to fix the precise boundary between the two. The Global Anti-Semitism Act talks about a line separating the latter from “objective criticism” of Israel but does not spell out where this line lies. Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, castigated “profoundly anti-Israel views” for being “anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent”. Others refer to “disproportionate” criticism and vilification. But none of these terms are self-evident in their application. Because the costs of stepping over the line are high, the result is that debate is put under surveillance and inhibited. I came to appreciate that this may cause serious damage to life in the classroom and to pedagogy as a whole when I served on a faculty committee looking into such matters last year.”

And much, much more.

Mazower has emerged as another man of courage and integrity, regardless of whether you agree with all his points.

But it seems he couldn’t get the media in his home country, let alone his home city, to give him a hearing.

This is getting curioser and curiouser!

And more obvious.

"The United Nation has a historical bias against countries that engage in targeted assassinations and unlawfully deportations."

Really? The U.N. has had absolutely no problem with a long list of countries whose record of Human Rights violations dwarfs anything that happens in Israel. Within the last 10 years alone you can count Sudan, Russia, China, Indonesia, Serbia, Algeria, Morocco and others. The victims of those countries, however, have not had a lobby consisting of the entire Muslim world (That's 1.3 billion people) to yell bloody murder on their behalf and churn out resolutions of condemnation on an assembly line.

Michael-

America is a target of terrorism in large part because we provide one-sided support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This enrages the Arab world and is frequently cited as one of or the main grievance they have with the United States. The only feasible argument for why the United States should support Israel financially and militarily is because it is an ally in our war on terror. This argument ignores that we are in the war on terror in large part because of our alliance with Israel.

Here is the evidence you requested that Israel spied on the United States:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/91260.stm

"We support Saudi Arabia too. And a lot of other highly questionable friends."

And that support is not above question, nor is our support for Israel. The case can be made that Saudi Arabia is a far more necessary ally than Israel.

"But apparently you have no problem with that aid to Egypt."

What makes you think I have no problem with aid to Egypt?

www.onlinejournal.com

THE TRUTH ABOUT 911

Eliminating the impossible
By Sheila Samples
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Mar 31, 2006, 20:37

Email this article
Printer friendly page

"It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I said I'd never do it -- say what I think about that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. I've seen what happens to those who question the elaborate, tangled explanations the Bush administration offers about what happened, how it happened, who did it, and why they did it. It doesn't matter if those who dare speak truth to the lies are professors, investigative reporters, eyewitnesses, scientists -- "conspiracy theorist" is immediately tattooed on their foreheads. They are jeered at, ridiculed, spat upon and swift-boated right out of the room. They are banished to the outskirts of civilized society.

But my friend Bernie says we're way beyond asking questions about 9-11 and, since nobody listens to me anyway, I might as well get it off my chest. "Besides," Bernie said, "George Bush never shuts up about 9-11. He's obsessed with it. No matter what anybody asks him, he spouts September the 11th. Bush never says September 11; he never says 9-11," Bernie groaned, "he just keeps chanting over and over -- September the 11th, September the 11th, September the 11th, Sep--"

"I get the picture!" I interrupted, shuddering at the loathsome image of Bush cavorting around September "the" 11th, pointing to it in every public appearance with masturbatory delight, reveling in the knowledge that "history will show" they got away with it. "You know, Bernie," I sighed, "it's like he's bragging about a grand accomplishment. You'd almost think it was an inside job."

"Of course it was an inside job," Bernie snorted. "Anyone who can connect even two dots without ramming one up his nose and the other into his forehead knows that. And anyone who's ever flown a Cessna 172 is roaring with laughter at the thought of those Muslim guys Bush fingered emerging from a dusty Florida airport, climbing into the cockpit of a Boeing 757, looking at the flashing lights, bells and whistles on its control panel, and know which button to push to even talk to the passengers, let alone get that 100-ton beast in the air. HAW HAW . . .

"We know they did it," Bernie said, suddenly sober. "Every single one of us. We know it now -- and we knew it then." He rose and started toward the door, "All you gotta remember is . . . if something is something, it can't be anything else but that something. No matter how they dress it up, no matter how much lipstick they smear on it, it's still that something. It ain't never something else. Everything that's happened in the last five years, and everything that'll happen in the next five," Bernie said, "is a result of that one day Bush keeps throwing in our faces -- September the 11th."

I sat there, trying to wrap my mind around Bernie's string of "somethings," when it suddenly occurred to me. Of course! Bernie instinctively hit upon the universal law called dharma, a simple principle that brings order to chaos -- things are what they are, and a thing cannot be other than what it is. Universal laws cannot be broken, even by the genocidal warmongers running rampant within this administration, no matter how hard they try. Knowing Bernie, however, I suspect he was channeling Sherlock Holmes who skillfully used the critical dharma tool Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave him to solve crime -- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

For four and a half years, questions about 9-11 have swirled through the Internet with tornadic force, yet caused scarcely a breeze within the mainstream media. The sheer number of heroic questioners helped to keep the door of truth open just a crack in spite of a relentless effort of the Bush men, the media and the Congress to force it shut. It hasn't been easy. Americans' psyches were shattered on 9-11 when, with no warning, they suddenly came face-to-face with raw, fiendish evil. They were incapable of handling the truth.

Americans are waking up. They have been told one -- or one hundred -- too many lies. They instinctively know there are only three areas of questions about 9-11 whose answers, however improbable, reveal the truth.

One -- Who, or what, flew the four hijacked planes on 9-11? Certainly not the inexperienced, box-cutter-armed bunch of rag-tag Saudis -- most of whom are still alive -- whose photographs the FBI plastered on our TV screens and in our minds immediately after the attack. There were no Arabs in the air on the morning of 9-11, performing astonishing feats of acrobatic maneuvering -- spinning and snap-rolling and pulling 180s (scroll down to see flight paths) into the World Trade Center and Pentagon -- nor were any listed on the manifests of the four flights. The only proof of their presence is the passport of one Salem Suqami that fluttered through the chaos of explosions, a raging inferno and collapse of buildings and landed, undamaged, on the sidewalk below.

Actually, we need go no further into the 9-11 morass than the planes. What we witnessed on that ghastly morning was a carefully planned, perfectly orchestrated PSYOPS attack on a citizenry by its own government. The first victim of this brutal assault was possibly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which was juggling a minimum of five training exercises that morning and, at any one time its radar screens showed up to 22 hijacked aircraft. Much has been written about NORAD "standing down" on 9-11. I don't buy that for one minute.

But NORAD is guilty. It is guilty of assuming the mass confusion was a result of multiple war games it was playing that morning of crashing planes into buildings. It is guilty of trying to cover its ass when it realized the destruction was real-world. According to an in-depth report by retired theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin, who also wrote “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," both General Richard Myers, then acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, and Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman, reported that "no military jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon."

Griffin says when this admission started raising eyebrows, a second story appeared on Sept. 14 that "contrary to early reports, jets were scrambled while the attacks were underway, but they arrived too late to prevent them." Four days later, NORAD released a timeline so jumbled it failed to pass muster in any venue. Finally, unable to get out of the hole, both the FAA and NORAD stopped digging. The FAA destroyed the tapes of activity that morning, including conversations between the hijacked planes and air traffic control personnel, said, "oopsie, sorry about that," then just shut up and took its licks.

Two -- Nothing reveals the truth of 9-11 as clearly as the in-your-face controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's twin towers and building 7. They all fell down. According to a New York City fireman on the scene, they fell -- "just like that -- boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom" -- In 10 seconds flat. Well, that's not exactly true, because it took the 47-story No. 7 only 6.6 seconds to pancake into its own footprints. But if ever there was a classic case of "don't believe your lying eyes," it is the deliberate destruction of these three WTC buildings.

Nothing reveals the truth as clearly as the breathless, on-the-scene initial reaction by network and cable TV -- "There are explosions going off everywhere!" . . ."We just heard another huge explosion!" . . ."A huge explosion, raining debris on all of us . . . we need to get out of here!" . . ."This almost looks like a -- a controlled demolition . . ." CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McEntyre, blurted this "Breaking News" item" "There's no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon or anywhere near it and in fact, the only pieces left were small enough that you could pick them up in your hands --and no large sections -- tail sections, fuselage sections . . ."

By the next morning, the media monkeys had come to their senses and were dutifully droning administration talking points while ominously reminding Americans that questioning what happened was nothing short of criticism of the president, or how unpatriotic can we be at a time when we all need to hang together. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently agreed with McEntyre and conspiracy theorists when he told Parade Magazine on Oct. 13, "Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the WTC."

Nothing reveals the truth more clearly than the implosion of No. 7, which was not hit by a plane. WTC owner Larry Silverstein publicly acknowledged that they "pulled" No. 7 and, although he made out like a bandit on the whole 9-11 holocaust, he did not explain nor did the media ask him when the explosives needed to "pull" the 47 stories were put in place. Interestingly, the 9-11 Commission did not think it important enough to question either Silverstein or the fire department about the No. 7 collapse, nor did it even mention the building in its bogus report.

Three -- The truth is what it is. As Bernie says, it ain't never something else. A search for the truth about 9-11 is much easier if all that cannot be true is tossed out. Why waste time considering the impossible?

For example, if you're reading Michael Chertoff's massive May 2002 FEMA investigation into 9-11, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," you need go no further into its 262 pages than this conclusion -- " . . . as each aircraft impacted a building, jet fuel on board ignited. Part of this fuel immediately burned off in the large fireballs that erupted at the impact floors. Remaining fuel flowed across the floors and down elevator and utility shafts, igniting intense fires throughout upper portions of the buildings. As these fires spread, they further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse."

Toss it, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, which uses its 292 pages to "describe how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapses [sic] of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings . . ."

While you're at it, you can trash the March 2005 Popular Mechanics hit piece -- a regurgitation of FEMA's fantastical explanation, to wit --"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction."

And the Pentagon? Popular Mechanics had that all figured out too. It quotes Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University as shrugging aside the nagging conspiracy that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, " . . . one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns," Sozen said. "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass."

I could be wrong, but I doubt even the zany, fun-loving Rumsfeld would try to run THAT one by us. The Popular Mechanics piece is little more than an attack on those who question the events of that dreadful morning, and is replete with unattributed "facts." It is the work of Michael Chertoff's cousin, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who was given free reign after a shock-and-awe coup at the magazine wherein Popular Mechanics Editor-in-Chief Joe Oldham was given 90 minutes to clean out his desk. Other staff members, including the creative director, were also fired.

The 9-11 Commission Report should be discarded as well. And set afire. It differs from the above attempts to cover up a government's attack on its own people only in length and breadth. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton entered into a "contract" with the American people; they swore to get to the bottom of the tragedy; inventory its causes and put the blame where it rightfully belonged. They betrayed us. And they charged us only ten bucks a copy.

In his hard-hitting article in Harper's Magazine, Benjamin DeMott writes that the report is "a shrewdly conceived and sustained equity-of-blame argument that becomes the fulcrum of the entire document and has a single principle at its center -- any blame that might be apportioned to the behavior of the sitting administration is easily counterbalanced by the behavior of preceding authorities -- and by historical 'fact' as interpreted in accordance with current presidential and commissarial need."

Bush made clear that his "presidential need" was to not have a commission blaming him for what happened. When an investigation was forced on him, Bush undercut it, underfunded it and agreed to meet with commission members only in the Oval Office, only if Dick Cheney was there, only if he was not under oath, only if his remarks were not recorded and only if no notes were taken. DeMott tells us that the more than 600-page document was nothing more than "a weapon in a major domestic conflict: the war on incisive, sometimes rudely disruptive thought -- thought that distinguishes the democratic citizen from the idolatrous fool, the sucker, the clueless consumer, the ad person's delight."

Rather than tell the people the truth as promised about 9-11, Kean and Hamilton used their report as a PSYOPS weapon against them. Bill Clinton is to blame. With the FAA riding shotgun. Shut up and move on.

Homework Assignment

After eliminating the impossible, we are left with ghastly images of death and suffering. With brutal malice aforethought, on 9-11 this administration murdered 2,823 human beings. Only 1,102 victims have been identified, although 19,500 body parts were "collected." More than 100 Americans were pulverized in the explosions, their remains mingling with tons and tons of cement into fine dust, and just disappeared into the air, perhaps into the lungs of those working feverishly at Ground Zero to save them. Each of us with any connection to reality knows that the only explanation for 9-11 is that the entire holocaust was a deliberately planned, orchestrated, controlled demolition of our way of life.

If you want to know what happened on 9-11, watch Korey Rove, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas' critical film, "Loose Change, 2nd Edition." Surely the Truth is worth 1 hour, 21 minutes and 50 seconds of our lives..

If you want to know why 9-11 happened, read the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," which calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" to establish US military preeminence throughout the world as well as unending war to seize and control the world's resources. It's only 90 pages, and should take even less than 1 hour, 21 minutes and 50 seconds to peruse.

If you want to know the truth about the attack on this country, watch and read the above as if your life depended upon it. Because it does.

We have the crime. We have the criminals. The time has come to indict them. Try them. Convict them. Punish them. Then, and only then, can we move on.

That's what I think.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net.

Notice:

"The reason they are not in the Asian group is because it has managed to wage wars against its Arab neighbors to the point where they bar its entry. If the United Nations granted unlimited access to leadership roles for Israel it would lose all credibility as an international body since Israel repeatedly breaks international law. Why you think this is "unfair" is beyond me. Israel has itself to blame."

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Dismiss, lie, dismiss, lie.

Why do I own it to you to explain anything? It's pointless.

I stand by everything I said.

The Financial Times on April 3 has just published a comment piece “When Vigilance Undermines Freedom Of Speech” by Columbia University history professor Mark Mazower.

On the M-W issue Mazower writes: “What is striking is less the substance of their argument than the outraged reaction: to all intents and purposes, discussing the US-Israel special relationship still remains taboo in the US media mainstream.”

He goes on to say: “If fear of being tarred as an anti-semite – and there is no more toxic charge in American politics – blocks the way, what anti-semitism actually implies in today’s America is increasingly unclear”.

And: “A striking illustration of this occurred in the run-up to the 2004 US presidential elections. At that time Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, in spite of strong objections from the State Department. The foreign service did not see why any one form of discrimination should be singled out for official US concern. It was equally troubled by the Act’s language, which asserts that “strong anti-Israel sentiment” or indeed “Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories” should count as evidence of anti-semitic attitudes. At one level, Congress was connecting with a diplomatic strategy of the Sharon government that sought to highlight anti-semitism as a way of deflecting criticism of its policies in the occupied territories. But behind the lobbying lie deeper semantic shifts in mainstream American discourse. “

And: ”Most sensible people of course recognise that opposition to Israeli policies is quite different from anti-semitism. For those who think they are linked, it has proved hard to fix the precise boundary between the two. The Global Anti-Semitism Act talks about a line separating the latter from “objective criticism” of Israel but does not spell out where this line lies. Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, castigated “profoundly anti-Israel views” for being “anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent”. Others refer to “disproportionate” criticism and vilification. But none of these terms are self-evident in their application. Because the costs of stepping over the line are high, the result is that debate is put under surveillance and inhibited. I came to appreciate that this may cause serious damage to life in the classroom and to pedagogy as a whole when I served on a faculty committee looking into such matters last year.”

And much, much more.

Mazower has emerged as another man of courage and integrity, regardless of whether you agree with all his points.

But it seems he couldn’t get the media in his home country, let alone his home city, to give him a hearing.

This is getting curioser and curiouser!

And more obvious.

saxyboy-

You have yet to address the central issue. Why do you think I, as an American, should support Israel?

It's my three billion dollars. You have a perfect opportunity to make the case. Go ahead.

Notice:

Sincerely, my friend. And I say that without rancor. I appreciate the offer. But, you need to look at your other posts. Almost everything I've said, you've dismissed with contempt. And your dishonesty and hostility comes through...

Israel has themselves to blame "because it has managed to wage wars against its Arab neighbors to the point where they bar its entry. If the United Nations granted unlimited access to leadership roles for Israel it would lose all credibility as an international body since Israel repeatedly breaks international law."

Why would I want to try and 'convince' someone who cannot be convinced, who is distorting history, who views the situation in such black and white terms? If I sat here, and said, "The Palestinians deserve to be occupied, because they are always starting wars with Israel - the U.S. should not give them ANY aid. Likud is the only way to go, and we should keep giving THEM aid. Convince me I'm wrong, or be called a hypocrite." Would you really WANT TO convince me? To take your precious time? Probably not, and rightly so.

Look, call it a draw, or you can tell your friends that a Zionist said "uncle" on a message board today. It really doesn't matter to me. You have a right to your views, and I really don't have the time or desire to dispute them. It would be like banging my head against a wall. I used to do this a couple of years ago, go head to head with people in "flame wars". I'm growing out of it. It's pointless. I've got other things to do.

I could sit with you until I'm blue in the face. Every source I cite you'll say is "sympathetic to Israel." Every argument I make you'll take the opposite and deal with your absolutes, while you chastise me for dealing with my absolutes, as you've done this far. It's a game I won't play.

I'm going to go now. I've waisted enough time on this, and as I'm sure you know, it can get quite addicting. Go back to your life. Have a blast. I'm done here.

I will accept every claim you have made as fact. I will accept that the United Nations has mistreated Israel. I will accept that Israel deserves more fair treatment in the United Nations. I will accept that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is questionable, as is our relationship with Egypt.

From these facts can you convincingly argue that the United State's best interest is served by giving Israel 3 billion a year? Will you at least try?

Notice:

I have to go to class.

As far as trying to make a case, I think it's pointless. From your point of view, which is actually pretty logical, there are no solid benefits to supporting the Jewish state financially. It makes the U.S. a lot of enemies. It's a type of isolationism I don't agree with, but I definitely understand it. Many people feel the way you do.

I appreciate your making the effort, but I gotta go. Maybe some other time - check back in a few days. But I need a break for now. I've got other things I have to do.

Be well.

Hopefully another time. I look forward to it.

Name me three congressman who have not made this statement(we support our friends in israel)now name me five that have said we support the palestinian people to have an equall role in the division of the land.for any one to say that aipac is not the dominant voice in american policy must also think the aboriginal people signed the treaties with prior political knowledge of what they where giving away for these lovely spacious reserves over looking the abyss.you only have to read the rhetoric of the politicians who have visited israel,they fall all over them selves in praise of the occupation. and when does a politician not visit israel.not to do so is conciderd political suicide,why is that,but it does show the strength of the israel lobby.since when did the congress allow the ports deal to go through as sheva states,last i checked it was thrown out.untill we recognise the palestinians as people with equall rights to the land which they were born,instead of being made out to be savage indians like us(oops today we would be terrorists).if we keep putting one people on a pedestal and the others we treat like dogs,we are going to be fighting wars in the middle east untill day's end.oh ya we already are.i question any one to show the facts that aipac is not the dominant force in foreign policy.it is just the truth and why is the truth labeled anti-semetic.can the truth not be the truth.the image that is presented to me from all the right wing western media through countless articles written on the middle east,leaves me to believe that palestinians have no right to oppose the occupation,that americans will sort out the mess in a moral and just way.i just think it will be more like our gracious treaties.does any one know who X was.

Notice:

“America is a target of terrorism in large part because we provide one-sided support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

America is a target of terrorism by Al-Qaeda. May I suggest that you read Al-Qaeda’s declaration of war against the U.S. and then come back and tell us why is America being targeted by terrorism? You can find it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4342-2001Sep21

“Here is the evidence you requested that Israel spied on the United States”

Oh, that old hat. A single case going back 21 years, which hardly caused any damage to the U.S. There have been much more recent and infinitely more damaging cases of spying against the U.S. by Russia, China and other countries, and yet you never see anyone writing pseudo-academic papers suggesting that the U.S. should “re-examine its relationships” with those countries. In any event, the U.S. is spying on Israel too.

“The case can be made that Saudi Arabia is a far more necessary ally than Israel”

Except that Saudi Arabia will never be an ally of the U.S. no matter how much friendship and support we heap on it. Its sweet-talking ambassador can say what he wants, but in the meantime Saudi Arabia continues to build and finance all over the world the hatcheries for the next generation of 9/11-style attackers.

“What makes you think I have no problem with aid to Egypt?”

The fact that you complain at length about the aid to Israel but not about the aid to Egypt.

It is pointless to engage in discussion of AIPAC with rabid Israeli supporters because it is always mis-directed to esortic discussions on Israel itself which is not the point of the Israel Lobby paper...so I won't.

The point IS....in AIPAC we have a "foreign lobby" and a segment of Jews and assorted other special interest like whacko evangelicals and elected congressmen and senators that PREVERT or SEEK to prevert american policy and american best interest in favor of a foreign country no matter how it harms America. PERIOD.

They are traitors, plain and simple. And no amount of myth making,theorizing, justifying, or excusing it as 'real politic" can alter that fact. And in the end when this Israelization of the US blows up in everyone's face, that is what it will come down to.

Michael-

"America is a target of terrorism by Al-Qaeda. May I suggest that you read Al-Qaeda’s declaration of war against the U.S. and then come back and tell us why is America being targeted by terrorism? You can find it here:"

In the link they refer to the Zionist Alliance at least 3 times and the American-Israeli twice. So, if we take Al-Qaeda at their word, one of many reasons they don't like us is because of our perceived alliance with Israel.

"Oh, that old hat. A single case going back 21 years, which hardly caused any damage to the U.S. There have been much more recent and infinitely more damaging cases of spying against the U.S. by Russia, China and other countries, and yet you never see anyone writing pseudo-academic papers suggesting that the U.S. should “re-examine its relationships” with those countries. In any event, the U.S. is spying on Israel too."

Well, we don't give 3 billion in aid to those other countries. Further those are superpowers that we must deal with geopolitically whether we like what they are doing or not. Israel is not a superpower. They are also an ally and, as such, shouldn't be spying on us. This is one reason to withdraw their financial and political support.

"Except that Saudi Arabia will never be an ally of the U.S. no matter how much friendship and support we heap on it. Its sweet-talking ambassador can say what he wants, but in the meantime Saudi Arabia continues to build and finance all over the world the hatcheries for the next generation of 9/11-style attackers."

Understood, and our relationship with the Saudis is not above question. Nor is our relationship with Israel. The difference is Saudi Arabia happens to be on top of a bunch of oil that we need and Israel is not. Oil is what tempers our relationship with Saudi Arabia, what tempers our relationship with Israel?

"The fact that you complain at length about the aid to Israel but not about the aid to Egypt."

A thread concerned with a study on the Israeli-Lobby seems like an appropriate place to discuss our wasteful spending in support of Israel. I could not possibly complain about all our country's wasteful spending since we are primed to run a half a billion dollar deficit for the year. For your benefit, however, I will complain about our financial support in Egypt.

Our studies on US media coverage corroborate Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusions:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

You may wish to view this video, a small case study of this situation:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/footageerased.html

To "W":
Outstanding commentary. Probably the most direct in this column. You might also add to the list of things Americans can thank Israel for: the 241 dead Marines in Lebanon in '83. We wouldn't even have been there if the Israelis hadn't invaded then left a power vacuum. Read Fisk's "Pity the Nation". Also you might mention the "shared values" of Israel, that of being one of the only nations on earth to actively discriminate in favor of one religion in its citizenship, including actively encourages non-Jews to leave. What a fine religious state it is!!

Alison,
Nice to see your website reference. You've always been right on. Keep up the good work.

just a funny patriotic song for the american serfs fighting a war for israel's safety here goes...."ONWARD GOYIM SOLDIERS DON'T YOU HAVE NO FEAR, 35 DUAL ISRAELI CITIZENS COMMAND YOU FROM THE REAR, ONWARD GOYIM SOLDIERS SECURE THAT IRAQI BORDER ISRAEL IS GETTIN DRY AND NEEDS TO PIPE THAT OIL, ONWARD GOYIM SOLDIERS BY NOW YA KNOW THE DRILL WHEN THE JEWS PUSH YOU INTO WAR YOU KILL KILL KILL, ONWARD GOYIM SOLDIERS MESTIZOS RAPE YOUR LAND BUT THE JEWS HAVE YOU OVERSEAS READY TO ATTACK IRAN, ONWARD GOYIM SOLDIERS AIPAC WILL GIVE THE ORDER THEN YOU GRAB YOUR GUNS AND CHARGE THAT SYRIAN BORDER, WORLD WARS 1 AND 2 NOW THE MIDDLE EAST YOU GOYIM SHOULD STAY AT HOME AND SLAY THAT HOOK NOSED BEAST

Allison--

I must confess, it would be interesting to know just how many members of AIPAC are soleley U.S. citizens, and how many have dual-citizenship with Israel. Maybe dual-citizenship should be outlawed.

--N.

By now, I hope, it is very clear that being accused of being anti-semitic because of anything to do with Israel and the Israeli lobby is:
1. publically accepted as unprovable nonsense
2. probably libelous and actionable as such in court
3. more revealing of rabid Zionist pathology in the accuser's mind than anything else

So - not a matter for fear anymore!

It is publicly respectable to offer pro-US National interests opinions that some of these "less than 100% Americans" pro-Israel types will try to squelch with accusations of racism and worse along with frequent and irrelevent allusions to "historical sufferings. It's nonsense!

Be like M-W - say what's on your mind - the fate of our nation and the lives of many US soldiers in the future depend on it - NOW!

Notice:

Just read your post about Bin-Laden. Actually, he didn't start mentioning Israel/Palestine at length until the last year or two, in an attempt to mobilize support of the Arab world. His September 11th speech and other broadcasts about the U.S.S. Cole were almost solely about the U.S. Saudi Alliance.

I thought about our conversation last night, and I've decided to give you the victory, here. I just don't have the time or interest in keeping this up. You say, "I don't believe Israel is the root of all evil", yet your arguments state differently.

If I knew who you were, I'd introduce you to a friend of mine, a Yale educated Christian doctor from Lebanon, who fled that country under the hale of Syrian artillary. I'd let her tell you why she is pro-Israel and pro-Iraq war (which I'm not). Would your arrogance and instransigence allow you to hear her out? Or would you lump her in with The Lobby like your heros at Harvard would? I wonder.

But, honestly, she probably wouldn't want to feel like she has to explain herself to an armchair diplomat, since she lived the horror of life over there. So, instead, I invite you to enjoy the company of conspiracy theorists Alison and Duped American. It's always fascinating to see the loons who latch onto any hate-Israel rhetoric they can find.

The "Jew Lobby" might be over-sensitive, and Israelis might be harsh, but I'll take Thomas Friedman, Sidney Zion, and Allan Dershowitz over some morons linking to conspiracy websites and echoing Holocaust revisionist Norman Finkelstein (another source in your cherished paper's footnotes) any day.

Have a nice life.

saxyboy-

"Just read your post about Bin-Laden. Actually, he didn't start mentioning Israel/Palestine at length until the last year or two, in an attempt to mobilize support of the Arab world."

This is my entire point. That Osama Bin Ladin can galvanize support by merely mentioning the link between the United States and Israel strongly suggests that our relationship with Israel is not beneficial to us. We need not argue about why the Arab world hates Israel to determine that they do, in fact, hate Israel. That's one reason we should not support Israel.

"You say, "I don't believe Israel is the root of all evil", yet your arguments state differently."

I appreciate that, for the most part, you've maintained a civil attitude in a debate that you clearly feel strongly about. However, the above is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said. I did not claim that Israel is evil. The worst I have said about them is that they were legitimately targeted by the UN for human rights violations. I've since abandoned that point because it is, ultimately, unnecessary. I don't have to prove that Israel is a humanitarian sanctuary or that it is a den of immoral madmen; either way, there is no utility in giving them 3 billion a year or a Security Council veto in their favor. There are humanitarian sanctuaries we do not give 3 billion a year to and immoral madmen we do give money to. So if Israel wants my 3 billion they need to earn it just like everyone else by compelling reciprocated necessity to the American voters.

"If I knew who you were, I'd introduce you to a friend of mine, a Yale educated Christian doctor from Lebanon, who fled that country under the hale of Syrian artillary. I'd let her tell you why she is pro-Israel and pro-Iraq war (which I'm not). Would your arrogance and instransigence allow you to hear her out? Or would you lump her in with The Lobby like your heros at Harvard would? I wonder."

Perhaps you could do just that, introduce me to your friend's rationale for support Israel. I am an American. This is a perfect opportunity for you to convince an American why Israel is deserving of my support. Instead of speculating without knowing how I would react to your friend's position, why don't you just explain it? I'll give any idea a fair hearing. What isn't fair is for you to simply glean my response from your own preconceived notions of my anti-Israeli bias and refuse me a fair discussion.

There has been ample opportunity for you to provide intellectual support for Israel. Instead you have refused to do so under the guise of "it won't make a difference either way because you are so pigheaded/anti-semitic/loony/etc." Your reluctance to engage in a debate about positive reasons for supporting Israel is transparent; either you are incapable of defending a pro-Israeli policy, unwilling to do so, or both. Your inability or unwillingness to do so has nothing to do with my assumed anti-Israel or anti-semitism, though.

"But, honestly, she probably wouldn't want to feel like she has to explain herself to an armchair diplomat, since she lived the horror of life over there. So, instead, I invite you to enjoy the company of conspiracy theorists Alison and Duped American. It's always fascinating to see the loons who latch onto any hate-Israel rhetoric they can find."

Because a rational debate about the Why in America's Israeli-friendly foreign policy is probably the last thing you or your well educated-doctor friend would want. You don't have to make intellectual appeals if you merely lump dissenting voices into a conglomerate of "anti-Israeli" "loons". In my opinion that is intellectually lazy and disingenuous of you.

Tell me about the horrors your friend suffered and why these translated into a pro-Israeli foreign policy agenda. Tell me why that should compel me.

At some point the pro-Israeli crowd will have to explain why the American public owes a foreign country 3 billion dollars a year. By avoiding that discussion you do yourself and your colleagues a great disservice.

"The "Jew Lobby" might be over-sensitive, and Israelis might be harsh, but I'll take Thomas Friedman, Sidney Zion, and Allan Dershowitz over some morons linking to conspiracy websites and echoing Holocaust revisionist Norman Finkelstein (another source in your cherished paper's footnotes) any day."

But why?

Have a wonderful day.

No more support of Israel or giving them any more money. It's so clearly biased.

Saxyboy,
Just to get in the last word here. Alison Weir is an intelligent and thoughtful woman, whom I would never in my wildest dreams refer to as a conspiricy theorist. Everything on her website is correct and c