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such a stranglehold over public discourse in the U.S. about the Middle East that this intelligent, balanced piece could not be published in a mainstream U.S. publication, and that we have to rely, once again, on the Brits, to stimulate enlightened debate about this troubled part of the world.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 confirmed. I assume that she and people like her scare you, which is probably why you have started calling her names.

Just for purposes of education, take a look at her website, and compare it to what you "know" to be the truth. Think about the differences, and think about how powerful a group of people it would take to change the truth to "the truth."

Notice:

“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.”

The correct reference is to “Zionist-Crusader” alliance. If you think that “Zionists” bother them more than “Crusaders”, that’s only your interpretation. Bin-Laden counts 13 conflicts around the world which he blames on the U.S. Only 2 of those conflicts (Somalia and Bosnia) had actually seen some U.S. involvement, and in both cases the beneficiaries of that intervention were Muslims. There’s no question that this “declaration of war” is a rant full of contradictions and obscure references. But if you read it as a whole, instead of selectively choosing quotes to fit your argument, you’ll see that the main complaint is about the presence of U.S. troops on what Bin Laden considers to be holy soil. In any event, your argument has by now evolved from "Our comfortable relationship with Israel costs us American lives" to “America is a target of terrorism in large part because we provide one-sided support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, to “one of many reasons they don't like us is because of our perceived alliance with Israel”. If it’s one of many reasons, how come you pin the loss of American lives on that one reason and not on the many others?

“Well, we don't give 3 billion in aid to those other countries.”

3 billions is loose change compared to what we poured into Russia in the years following the collapse of the Soviet regime. As far as China is concerned, our support of them is worth a hell of a lot more than that. The Administration had fought tooth and nail to get China admitted to the WTO, promising U.S. corporations that they would stop bleeding from Chinese piracy of U.S. products once the Chinese are inside the WTO. We’re still waiting for that to happen.

“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.”

The Philippines are not a super-power either, and they are the biggest beneficiary of U.S. military aide in Southeast Asia. They are also an ally and should not be spying on us, but they are, and the case is only 6 months old, not 21 years:

http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/feb/08/nat_4-2.htm

Cut off all financial and political support to them?

“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.”

The point you seem to be missing is that this is precisely what’s driving Al-Qaeda’s terror: The perception that we support Saudi Arabia and other corrupt and “apostate” regimes in the region because they are sitting on so much oil.

I am more concerned about the Christian Fundamentalist who have aligned themselves with Israel because of their vision of the Rapture. And the fact that Israel, at least, plays along with this, even though they, themselves can't have salvation.
Those clowns are so deluded they are convinced of this crap. I believe that's why we'er in Iraq and why an Iran attack appears imminent.

Anonymous-

"In any event, your argument has by now evolved from "Our comfortable relationship with Israel costs us American lives" to “America is a target of terrorism in large part because we provide one-sided support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, to “one of many reasons they don't like us is because of our perceived alliance with Israel”. If it’s one of many reasons, how come you pin the loss of American lives on that one reason and not on the many others?"

Because the claims are materially the same. If one of the many reasons that gas prices go up at the pump is because OPEC limits production by 1 million barrels, even though other reasons are factored into the cost such as marketing costs or taxes, then both claims are true: that Taxes cause Americans to pay more at the pump (true) and also that OPEC limiting production causes Americans to pay more at the pump.

The reason I pin the loss of lives on our support for Israel and not those other factors is twofold: 1) it is the subject of the paper in question and therefore the subject of this entire thread and 2) it is the most easily remedied cause. It is of absolute no cost to this American for us to withold 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel next year, and the year after, and the year after. You have been reluctant to address why I should financially or politically support Israel.

"3 billions is loose change compared to what we poured into Russia..."

So we should give Israel 3 billion because it is "loose change" compared to what we give/gave other countries?

If we were arguing that our aid to Israel was merely frivolous then perhaps you would have a point. You'd also have to reconcile 3 billion in frivolous spending with a half a trillion dollar annual deficit in the United States, which you are unlikely to convincingly do.

But aid to Israel is not merely frivolous. It is a reason that the Arab world aggressively targets us and, as such, represents a security risk. We should not be paying Israel 3 billion even if it were merely frivolous; to do so knowing that it damages our security is just ludicrous.

"The Philippines are not a super-power either, and they are the biggest beneficiary of U.S. military aide in Southeast Asia. They are also an ally and should not be spying on us, but they are, and the case is only 6 months old, not 21 years:

http://www.inq7.net/nat/2004/feb/08/nat_4-2.htm

Cut off all financial and political support to them?"

Sure? You seem to think that an argument against aiding the Phillippines is an argument for aiding Israel. I do not advocate frivolous spending on any of our "allies".

"The point you seem to be missing is that this is precisely what’s driving Al-Qaeda’s terror: The perception that we support Saudi Arabia and other corrupt and “apostate” regimes in the region because they are sitting on so much oil."

I'm ignoring it how? Because I target Israeli spending in a thread about the Israel?

Why don't you explain the positive reasons I should support financial aid to Israel without citing Saudi Arabia or The Phillippines?

"I assume that she and people like her scare you."

Thom:

Kenny G music being played in elevators scares me.

Guns scare me.

A person linking to anti-Israel propaganda on the Internet doesn't scare me.

"Think about the differences, and think about how powerful a group of people it would take to change the truth to "the truth."

I sincerely don't know what that sentence means.

Notice:

Now, sincerely, this is going to be my last post.

I've been as civil as I can, but now I've had enough. You have dismissed everything I've said, yet again, and have labeled me as intellectually disingenuous, etc. I’ll admit, it’s very frustrating and you’ve managed to back me into a corner, just like you wanted.

This is your strategy: you say something, I come back at you, and you dismiss what I say either directly or indirectly. And that you can't understand why I wouldn't want to debate with you when you act like that - or with people who quote Holocaust revisionists or trumpet anti-Israel propaganda, or write hateful poems about Jews and AIPAC, shows what you're up to. The fact that you frown at arguments I haven't even made yet - regarding my friend - shows how "open" you really are.

You are playing a game, trying to look better than me...and you get something out of it.

With all that, you still haven't made your case for why the paper is credible. You simply insist I make a case, and whenever I say something, you knock it down. I told you, that no matter what information I give to you, it won't matter. You will seek to dismiss it in some way. Just as you have done with what I've told you about the U.N.. You tried to suck me back in with, “I’ll believe whatever you say,” line. But it’s BS. And you know it.

You don't feel the U.S. should support Israel. You've made your point to yourself very well. My friendly advice is that you should take that confidence in your position - since it's so inflated and means so much to you - and do something constructive that adds to your life, rather than trying to piss all over a stranger on a message board. Make a blog. Run for office.

I sincerely believe that America's support for Israel, in the long run is good for both parties. And yes, I have solid reasons.

But I also have my integrity, and this place has become increasingly hostile, and I don't like being manipulated, and I don't like people who consistently treat what I say with contempt. You have to earn someone’s respect – it’s how things work. And your obtuseness is a big turn off.

I don’t agree with Jefferson Morley, but I respect him. I wrote to him with my opinions and he wrote back. There wasn't a trace of one-upmanship in his responce.

I don’t feel that way about you, hence, I’m comfortable walking away.

Feel free to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself and your friends here that, "He just can't make a case, and neither can his friend."

I'm fine with that.

Now, goodbye.

"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?"

You may wish to consider this: The real reason that the relationship with Israel never comes up for discussion in Congress is not because all members of both Houses are intimidated by some dark and mysterious force that seeks to dominate the world, as Walt & Mearsheimer claim. It's because anyone who brings up the subject would immediately find himself loudly backed by the tin-foil-hat crowd, 9/11 conspiracy headcases, racists from both the Lyndon LaRouche and the Louis Farrakhan camps, assorted holocaust deniers, and those who generally believe that the Mossad is responsible for all the troubles of the world, from Tsunamis to toothache. Consider the fact the W & M have by now been shredded not only by Harvard's Marvin Kalb and Dershowitz, but also by scholars who are no friends of Israel, to put it mildly, such as Noam Chomsky, Prof. Josef Massad of Columbia and Prof. Shibley Telhami of Johns Hopkins. On the other hand, who was the first to enthusiastically endorse W & M? David Duke.

All those lawmakers may very well be scared of the fastest and most effective killer of political careers: Not some imaginary orchestrated campaign by some lobby, but the prospect of making a fool of yourself in public.

saxyboy-

I was more interested in the paper's conclusion than its credibility. We can respectfully disagree about which is of more importance.

You've insisted three times now that you have very good reasons for support Israel, but none that you are apparently willing to share.

I am not being unreasonably dismissive of your opinions either. I can appreciate your United Nations arguments just as I can appreciate points you and others make about Saudi Arabia.

However, there is a logical difference between a reason for doing something and a reason for not doing something else. The conclusion of the paper, which I am interested in, is ultimately that our attitude towards Israel is self defeating. You have not denied this conclusion. To my knowledge no one I have directly engaged has denied this conclusion. Instead you have aruged around this point by sticking it to the United Nations or concerning oneself with the amount of tanks in Jordan in 1949.

I have tried to treat you with respect and if you have taken umbrage at anything I've said then all apologies, sir/madam. It is saddening to me that we have come so far in a discussion and, as is often the case, once we've finally identified the heart of our disagreement, you prove unwilling to pursue the important matter: why do you support Israel and why should those reasons be compelling to me?

You may insist that I am putting an unnecessary burden on you. I have not. I have explained positive reasons why supporting Israel is against our best interests (it hurts our battle over the hearts and minds of much of the world) in spite of the fact that the impetus is always on the recipient of aid to provide the justification to the donor.

If you are incapable or unwilling to express your own motivations on a message board, it is unlikely that any lobby will be able to coercively make that point to the American public if/when the issue does become prescient. You do yourself and your position a disservice with your reluctance to explain what motivates you as an ally of Israel to the rest of us.

I hope you are not finished with the discussion and I am sorry if anything I said offended you. Have a good one.

Michael-

"All those lawmakers may very well be scared of the fastest and most effective killer of political careers: Not some imaginary orchestrated campaign by some lobby, but the prospect of making a fool of yourself in public."

Intellectual bullying. Am I a fool for not supporting Israel, then? Or only because by doing so I happen to align myself with racists?

The outcome is the same and never did it warrant predication on some evil lobby, even if that is W-M's focus. As you have convincingly argued, intellectual bullying is as effective at stifling debate as any man behind the curtain. That's unfortunate.

Cheers.

There goes "Jerry," claiming Alison Weir is a "howl out the moon anti-semitic crackpot." Okay, and how about the actual facts she presents? Or are those facts so compelling that smears and insults are the best you can come up with?
More of the same from the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd.
Pathetic.

read bilderberg.com, lots of pertinent information in it.

bilderberg hater

I'm a little tired of the anti-Israel right-or-wrong crowd.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact

Some excerpts from the article:

[[[aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”]]]

[[[But in December four aipac officials, including Kohr, were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia. In March, aipac’s principal lawyer, Nathan Lewin, met with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Paul McNulty, who agreed to let Lewin see some of the evidence of the Pentagon City sting. According to an aipac source, an eleven-second portion of the telephone conversation between Rosen, Weissman, and the Post’s Glenn Kessler, which the F.B.I. had recorded, was played for Lewin. In that conversation, Rosen is alleged to have told Kessler about Iranian agents in southern Iraq—information that Weissman had received from Franklin. In the part of the conversation that Lewin heard, Rosen jokes about “not getting in trouble” over the information. He also notes, “At least we have no Official Secrets Act”—the British law that makes journalists liable to prosecution if they publish classified material.]]]

[[[James Bamford, who is the author of well-received books about the National Security Agency, and an often vocal critic of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby, sees the case as a cautionary tale about one lobbying group’s disproportionate influence: “What Pollard did was espionage. This is a much different and more unique animal—this is the selling of ideology, trying to sell a viewpoint.” He continued, “Larry Franklin is not going to knock on George Bush’s door, but he can get aipac, which is a pressure group, and the Israeli government, which is an enormous pressure group, to try to get the American government to change its policy to a more aggressive policy.” Bamford, who believes that Weissman and Rosen may indeed be guilty of soliciting information and passing it to a foreign government, sees the case as a kind of brushback pitch, a way of limiting aipac’s long—and, in Bamford’s view, dangerous—reach.]]]

[[[aipac now seems acutely sensitive to the appearance of dual loyalty. The theme of this year’s aipac conference was “Israel, an American Value,” and, for the first time, “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, was not sung. The only anthem heard was “The Star-Spangled Banner.”]]]

There's the notorious neocon ideologue Eliot A. Cohen, in today's Post, repeating the smear that this balanced, well-researched paper is 'anti-Semitic.' As usual, lots of emotional rhetoric and guilt by association in that piece, but not a single genuine rebuttal to the facts laid out in the paper at issue.
How convenient to be able to label as an 'anti-Semite' anyone who dares criticize Israel and the billions of dollars of military aid it receives from the U.S. to continue its illegal annexation of Palestinian land.
Sorry, the injustice of it is just so obvious that this smear will no longer work.

"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!!!!!!!!"
..................
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!
The fact is China is engaged in the brutal suppression of Tibet, the Sudanese regime is committing genocide against black Africans, Christians and Animists. Syria in fact invaded Lebanon and occupied that country for 30 years and in some ways still does, and has caused the Christian population to flee.

You can't be naive enough to believe those 100 vote margins against Israel actually have anything to do with reality or principle; rather they are in fact the result of the world's dependence on arab oil and thus are vital to these countries economies, unlike Israel. And the simple fact that arabs far outnumber Jews. The nations of the world simply side with the ones they are dependent on and are afraid of, and oppose the side that doesn't have oil, is far smaller and easier to kick around and who they don't have to fear being the target of terrorism from.

Well said Laura.

On another topic, Israel-bashing isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, but QUITE OFTEN it is.

So whining that your unfairly being smeared as an anti-Semite when you are is a pretty hollow tactic to couch your anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism as Israel bashing.

sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

Laura-

"The nations of the world simply side with the ones they are dependent on and are afraid of, and oppose the side that doesn't have oil, is far smaller and easier to kick around and who they don't have to fear being the target of terrorism from."

Wouldn't this vindicate the article's conclusion? Why is the United States unique among rational nations in supporting the offers nothing in return?

Laura You are funny to say at least.

First lets see Did China invade a country and made generations after generation to live in refugee camps? NO? Is China involved in killing and destroying people in Tibet every day as we are speaking? Did China invaded India just cause they gave refuge to DalaiLama? Did Chinese soldiers shot at Tibetan children throwing stones at them?

Did you forget Israeli invasion of Lebanon from where they got out only in recent years? And since when Syria enslaved Lebanese population just like ISraelis did? And Syria had their fair share of resolutions for whatever they have done in Lebanon.Latest one was to force them to cooperate with Mr Hariri's murder.Only difference is nobody vetoed on behalf of them.

Hahahahaha. Dependence on Arab oil eh? I hope you do not believe what you are saying. So Russia is voting against Israel cause Russia needs Arab oil ( Russia does have one of the largest oil reserve in the World) and USA is voting for Israel cause US is not dependent on Arab oil? Wow.

People of the World simply sides with what they can see. Arab countries do not have the influence the foreign policy of 120 something countries. Anyone who believes that lives in fools paradise. If that was the case Palestinians would have had a homeland long time ago.

Lastly, Making China China, Sudan or anyone in that matter evil in the eyes of the world changes nothing. More importantly it does not change the facts writers described in Israeli Lobby.

And for your kind info:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

wow,that was intence,notice versus saxyboy.it would of been alot shorter if saxyboy actually answered notice,s question to why he should support the three billion to israel.that didnt happen but it doesnt really matter.truth is some time,s in its silence.one day i hope that all topics are open to honest conversation with out it being anti semetic or racist.but the heart of the deal is that no one can deny that aipac is the dominant voice on foreign policy.and the question that has not been answered for what ever reason, is why.and even mentioning aipac in a negative way makes you anti semetic,why?there has never been an open conversation by the political fat cats into this policy of total support for the occupation,why?why are we scared to talk about aipac,why?are we to believe that god loves jews and hates palestinians.bush makes that claim pat roberts makes that claim rabbi lieberman makes that claim as countless other right wing neo cons.they are no better then the muslim clerics who spew there religous venom.aipac are as racist in there rhetoric of iran, syria, iraq, or for any one who borders israel.there mission is to make sure israel is allowed to continue to grow in the direction set out in the torah even at the expense of world peace.how is that in the interest of america,except if your waiting for fire and brimstone,or better yet trying to influence end times.now thats a nutty thought.

To: For Fairness:

Thanks for the cite in the New Yorker!

Hmm, if you actually go to AIPACs site and review their historical initiatives, as well as those of pro-Israeli groups, the vast majority of them were in no way supported by the US, and often blocked. In fact, it is common knowledge in Israel that too many times has Israel put its national security second to American interests in the region. This is most evident today as Israel was pressured by a Bush/Blair deal to allow Hamas to participate in elections. History is full of such examples, like Israel being bombed by Saddam in the first gulf war and being blocked from defending itself because of US/Coalition interests. Further, there is quite a large movement within many political parties in Israel and among some of the strongest American supporters that the US should cut off all aid to Israel, even if aids her enemies, so to begin to sever the constant constraints put on Israeli self defense. Top war scholars argue that had Israel not been bound, there would be no Israel-Arab conflict today because Israel would have been allowed to "finish" her defensive wars rather than prolong them slowly into wars of attrition over 50 years. Can any of you name any nations who won defensive wars only to shrink in size, and give back the strategic lands used to invade and attack her over decades?

Lastly if you study opinions of Israelis vs American Jews, they vary quite a bit and are often at odds with each other. The most Hawkish Israelis resent the "naive" and dovish Americans who they deem as, how do you say, Monday night quarterbacks?

I think all of you should never stop being so disproportionably critical of Israel. Because of you Israelis have learned that they must never rely on the reason of humanity, but rather on themselves. That is why, per capita, it leads the world in the number of scientists, twice that of Germany, the US, and Japan. It is why its people have the highest ratio of academic degrees per person, highest ratio of scientific peer-reviewed publications, highest rate of patents filed, the largest number of innovative start-ups per capita - in fact, on average, 9 of 10 of you are using more than 5 Israeli-made technologies just to read this. If you're on your cell phone, 8, including the cell technology itself. My point? Keep hating, cause once you stop they'll get too comfortable and lazy. Even if it is at the cost of the African Sudanese, millions of them, who because the world’s loudest humanitarians feel the need to satisfy their bigotry over the real victims in the region.

In response to the bigotry question. Not all who are anti-Israel are anti-Semitic. But keep in mind that all who are anti-Semitic are anti-Israel. Just a thought.

"Israel-bashing isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, but QUITE OFTEN it is."

Oh, so as soon as someone marshals some very troubling facts about massive U.S. subsidies to Israeli-sponsored illegal annexation of Palestinian lands and other human-rights abuses -- subsidies that outrage the Arab world and indeed much of humanity -- one is automatically labelled an anti-Semite?

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

All the suffering of the Jews through history cannot make Israel or its actions immune from criticism. Nor can it be persuasively marshalled to justify Washington's absurdly one-sided policy in this tragic and enduring conflict.

Israel's crimes are crimes. It is sacrilege to invoke the Holocaust -- or any other form of anti-Semitism -- to justify them.

to RS so what are you saying that aipac is not the most dominant force in american foreign policy,which was the question posed.Could it be possible with all those academic degrees that it would have the political know how to form such a powerfull lobby.with all those degrees i can see now why abramoff would call us monkies and trojolites.

Robert's invoking Abramoff in this discussion is tasteless at best. This two-bit swindler who was embraced - like so many others - by the current president and the much of the Republican hierarchy, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which concerns how U.S. foreign policy is skewed in a way not consistent with genuine U.S. interests in order to satisfy the demands of zealots who have created a formidable lobby to advance the cause of the state of Israel, and who systematically turn a blind eye to - and urge the rest of us to turn a blind eye to - the numerous and well-documented crimes Israel has committed against the Palestinians whose lands it has stolen and continues to steal, and whose basic rights it regularly tramples. A U.S. foreign policy that supports Israel unconditionally, even when it commits these crimes, is not in U.S. interests. That should be obvious.

Anyone questioning the basis of Osama Bin Laden's attacks against the US can read his own explanation here, published in 2002.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

I thought it was quiet on the other blog.

Some questions...

If AIPAC serves US & Israeli interests why are they spying on the US?

Why did they change their name from the American Zionist Comittee for Public Affairs?

Why would a former AIPAC President brag - we have a dozen people in Clinton's headquarters and they're all going to get big jobs - (this was as Clinton was taking office) ?

Why does Israel pressure the US to release Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel against the US?

Why do people still refer to Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East? (Didn't the Palestinians just have an Election)..

as an aboriginal i dont find it taste less when there is more money in one week given to israel than invested in reserves.maybe you find it tasteless to question aipac and concidering abramof was associated with people in aipac i find it relavant..rs made comments about us being thankfull for being able to use a cell phone.should we give mexico 10 billion a year because they supply most of the farm laboir or is that a different argument.what should we give india for the clothes on our back.or is it the wrong kind of contribution to man kind.if he wants to boast about contibutions,it takes more than academic degrees to make the world work.i find his boast tasteless.when i hear a politician talk about the aboriginal people in the same breath as israel i will be surprised.why is it politically correct to always offer support for israel but not look after your own back yard,does it have to do with a strong lobby.yes it does.that is what this post is about.does it effect forein policy you bet.how has it effected america,who knows. to have an open conversation about it ends in it being squashed with the phrase anti semetic.i would be more than elated to have a debate in congress on how the cree effect policy.

as an aboriginal i dont find it taste less when there is more money in one week given to israel than invested in reserves.maybe you find it tasteless to question aipac and concidering abramof was associated with people in aipac i find it relavant..rs made comments about us being thankfull for being able to use a cell phone.should we give mexico 10 billion a year because they supply most of the farm laboir or is that a different argument.what should we give india for the clothes on our back.or is it the wrong kind of contribution to man kind.if he wants to boast about contibutions,it takes more than academic degrees to make the world work.i find his boast tasteless.when i hear a politician talk about the aboriginal people in the same breath as israel i will be surprised.why is it politically correct to always offer support for israel but not look after your own back yard,does it have to do with a strong lobby.yes it does.that is what this post is about.does it effect forein policy you bet.how has it effected america,who knows. to have an open conversation about it ends in it being squashed with the phrase anti semetic.i would be more than elated to have a debate in congress on how the cree effect policy.

How exactly does one finish a defensive war - kill all the Palestinians perhaps?
Does RS know what per capita means? Is she implying that Israelis are smarter and more hardworking than citizens of other countries? Is this greatness genetic?

Who decides who is a fair critic of Israel and who is not?

Is there a set of metrics that we must adhere to before we are allowed the privilege of being critics of Israel?

If so I would love to see them.

As for me I do not consider myself an anti-semite - as I have said before that I absolutely believe that Israel has a right to exist; and with peace and security for its citizens. I think that anyone who dispatches another human being to blow themselves up killing innocent people is a worthless POS.

But I also believe that Palestinians (and everyone else) should have the same rights. I know many Palestinians in the US who are hard working, extremely decent citizens who want what everyone else does. Live in safety, raise a family, get them educated and see their kids lives improve over their own. I suspect that if the majority of the people in the West Bank and Gaza had the same opportunities - freedom sans interference from Israel in a few years extremists would be a tiny minority. I already know the arguments that are coming back, we offered them this, we offered them that - they have the choice, they will use that time to arm themselves and attack us - let's be honest - with the kind of firepower the IDF has it is virtually impossible for that to happen. Same with disarm the militants then we'll talk - how was the PA supposed to achieve that - a Police force armed with rifles? It seems to me that every time I watched the news 3 or 4 years ago anytime a PA policemen made the mistake of popping his head up during conflict it was blown off by the IDF.

Anyway that's history - i think someone said earlier here or maybe somewhere else if everyone keeps looking back nothing will ever be solved - arguing over the parsing of sentences and splitting hairs about who started it are pointless.

The thing that I think is the biggest shame is that in reading the M & W paper again today, in my opinion, they had pre-answered most of the arguments here - it seems to me that what they are asking for the most is a foreign policy not created by foreigners - even if you don't give a crap about the Arab lives in Iraq (although most American I talk to seem to) that stills means that 2000 plus American boys died in a War that POSSIBLY was the encouraged by powerful foreign lobbyists - if there were Senate/Congressional hearings etc when POTUS (soon to be FLOTUS) stained Monica Lewinsky's dress - surely this is worth taking a look at!! Wouldn't the lobby welcome a Congressional investigation to clear their name.

Anyway I guess there are some people who will consider me and other israel critics an anti-semite no matter what - to be honest I dont really care - that particular label has been fired out so many times its diluted.

The boy who cried wolf.

RS Devolves into Parity:

Actually, RS is right.

Here are some figures:

US-Israel two-way trade exceeded $18 billion in 2000.

» Israel is one of the most highly educated countries in the world with the highest number of engineers, scientists and Ph.D's per capita (135 per 10,000).

» Israel has the largest number of startup companies, in absolute terms, than any other country in the world, save the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

» Israel is the only country in the world to have simultaneous free trade agreements with the US, Mexico and Canada; European Union and European Free Trade Association.

» More Israeli companies are on the US stock exchanges (123) after the US and Canada, with market capitalization of over $33 billion, with two companies included in the S&P 500.

» Israel is ranked #2 in the world for VC funds right behind the US. There is over $4 billion available for investments.

» The per capita income in 2000 is over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

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

» Israel is one of the most secure countries in the world with which to do business. English is the official business language.

» The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola-Israel. Motorola built its largest development center worldwide in Israel.

» Windows NT software was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

» The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

» Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

» The first PC anti-virus was developed in Israel in 1979 by the same company that developed the Melissa anti-virus program.

» The world's most predominant company in internet firewall safety systems is Check Point, an Israeli company that controls 40% of the world's market.

» AOL's instant message program was designed by an Israeli software company.

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

» Foreign entities invested more than $3 billion in the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, over 5% of the total market value of stocks traded on the TASE.

» The credit rating assigned by Moody's for 2000 is A, and its short-term credit rating is P1, their highest rating available for short-term credit.

Source: Ohio Israel Chamber of Commerce

And this, from ABC News:

DAYTON, Ohio Feb 24, 2006 (AP)— Farmers in Israel raise crops in conditions that couldn't be more foreign to their Ohio counterparts. But the arid soils, limited water and cramped spaces have turned Israeli farmers into experts at making crops bloom in the desert.

A group of Ohio farmers hopes to use that expertise to improve productivity. A 29-person delegation is leaving Sunday for a 10-day trip to Israel to learn everything from water management to milk processing to handling urban expansion.

"I'm extremely intrigued by the ability of them to grow enough crops for 7 million people in the desert," said Daniel Corcoran, 42, who raises soybeans, wheat and alfalfa on his 4,000-acre family farm near Waverly in southern Ohio. "Hopefully, there are things we can bring back here."

"Is she implying that Israelis are smarter and more hardworking than citizens of other countries?"

"Smarter and more hardworking than citizens of other countries"? I don't know.

"Smarter and more hardworking than you and your crackpot friends?"

Definitely.

So, what's your comeback? That AIPAC runs ABC news and the Ohio chamber of commerce? Or that you don't use anti-Virus software on your computer? C'mon...think of something nasty and stupid to say, to fight the fact that Israeli and Jewish ingenuity has touched your life in some way.

Idiot.

RS is right-

"C'mon...think of something nasty and stupid to say, to fight the fact that Israeli and Jewish ingenuity has touched your life in some way."

And what's your point? Saudi oil touches my life every day. And Japanese vehicles. And Indian accountants. And...

In a global economy my life is touched daily by all kinds of countries. None of these daily contributions is above question nor is our relationship with the countries of origin above question.

RS and your claim is that Israel produces a lot of goods for their own financial benefit, just like every other country in the world. We understand your claim, what is your point?

This is from The Sun in Britain (A rupert murdoch paper)

FULL NEWS INDEX




By CORINNE ABRAMS
Sun Online

A BRITISH film maker James Miller was murdered by an Israeli soldier in the Gaza strip, an inquest jury found today.

Award-winning cameraman James, 34, was shot by a soldier from the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) while making a film about Palestinian children in the Rafah refugee camp in May 2003.

He was trying to ask the soldiers if it was safe to leave the area when he was fatally shot in the neck.

A Metropolitan police officer today told the inquest at St Pancras Coroner's Court in London that Israel had been "uncooperative" in the investigation into the death of film maker James Miller.

Israel denied several requests for access to witnesses as they tried to investigate the shooting of the British cameraman in the Upper Gaza Strip, Detective Inspector Robert Anderson told an inquest.

Det Insp Anderson told the hearing that several requests to interview witnesses had been denied by Israel.

He told the inquest he had asked to visit Israel to interview soldiers concerned and other witnesses.

But, he said: "Israel has been uncooperative with the Metropolitan Police in that they haven’t allowed us access to interview soldiers and witnesses."

Mr Anderson said his investigation, based on the available evidence, had found there was no evidence either that the dead man had posed a threat to the IDF at the time of the shooting, or that there had been any Palestinian fire directed at the soldiers’ position.

He told the court: "This matter has obviously been challenging to
investigate. The usual avenues of retrieving evidence have been blocked, and an early investigation in which to secure vital evidence was never initiated.

"This whole matter has had a devastating effect on the deceased’s family, who have ever only wanted to find out the truth surrounding his death."

Coroner Dr Andrew Reid told the jury the only possible verdict they could return was that of unlawful killing.

But he told them they had to decide in the context of the case whether he had been murdered or was a victim of manslaughter.

After around an hour of deliberation, the 10-strong jury decided that Mr Miller had been deliberately gunned down at around 11pm on May 2 2003.

To the sound of sobs from members of Mr Miller’s family, the jury spokeswoman told the hushed courtroom: “We, the jury, unanimously agree this was an unlawful shooting with the intention of killing Mr James Miller.

“Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered.”

She added: “It is a fact that from day one of this inquest the Israeli
authorities have not been forthcoming in the investigation into the
circumstances surrounding Mr Miller’s death.”

Dr Reid concluded the hearing by offering his thanks to the family’s legal representative and the family, as he offered his condolences.

He added that he intended to write to the Attorney General and others with a Rule 43 report to seek to prevent similar deaths occurring.

Any Comments?

Notice:

“Because the claims are materially the same. If one of the many reasons that gas prices go up at the pump is because OPEC limits production by 1 million barrels, even though other reasons are factored into the cost such as marketing costs or taxes, then both claims are true: that Taxes cause Americans to pay more at the pump (true) and also that OPEC limiting production causes Americans to pay more at the pump.”

True. So eliminating one cause out of many would solve nothing as long as you do not address the others.

“The reason I pin the loss of lives on our support for Israel and not those other factors is twofold: 1) it is the subject of the paper in question and therefore the subject of this entire thread”

How does being the subject of the thread make it the source of the problem? This is quite the logical pretzel you’re making here.

“and 2) it is the most easily remedied cause.

You seem to be the type of person who would look for the lost wallet under the street lamp instead of where you dropped it. The question is not what’s the easiest solution but what would work. And the first step to find that out is to learn who is the enemy you are facing. Can you show me where did Al-Qaeda propose (assuming their proposals are worth anything) to stop their war against the U.S. if it cuts off the $3 billion?

“It is of absolute no cost to this American for us to withold 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel next year, and the year after, and the year after. You have been reluctant to address why I should financially or politically support Israel.”

I have not. We maintain good political relationships and support financially plenty of countries in the world, many of whom take that support for granted, even though their population and their leaders are hostile to us to one degree or another. If support and good relationships are the default option, the correct question to ask is “why should we NOT support a specific country”. W & M try to answer that question. I happen to think their argument is standing on feet of clay. Plenty of other people feel the same way, for a variety of reasons.

“So we should give Israel 3 billion because it is "loose change" compared to what we give/gave other countries?”

No. Please try to follow this discussion. You said we should yank Israel’s support because of one ancient-history case of spying. I brought Russia as an example of a country who spied on us multiple times, much more recently, and each one of those instances was far more severe than the Israeli case (a quick reminder: Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, the Walker family, need I say more?). You then claimed we did not support Russia financially. I said yes we did. Now let’s keep going.

“If we were arguing that our aid to Israel was merely frivolous then perhaps you would have a point. You'd also have to reconcile 3 billion in frivolous spending with a half a trillion dollar annual deficit in the United States, which you are unlikely to convincingly do.

But aid to Israel is not merely frivolous. It is a reason that the Arab world aggressively targets us and, as such, represents a security risk. We should not be paying Israel 3 billion even if it were merely frivolous; to do so knowing that it damages our security is just ludicrous.”

You appear to have some weird fixation on that $3 billion as if it was some magic wand which, upon being waved, could make Israel wither on the vine, the Arabs love you, and all your troubles disappear. If you are just hanging on to this $3 billion as a last straw of an argument, in lack of better ones, I can understand that. But if you truly believe it, then let me assure you, you are seriously deluded. Those in the Arab world who complain about the U.S. support of Israel are not the ones who attacked us on 9/11, in Kenya and Tanzania, in the Khobar Towers, in the Cole, and in all the other instances which were luckily foiled. Those who did attack us have a very different agenda.

“Sure? You seem to think that an argument against aiding the Phillippines is an argument for aiding Israel.”

No, I’m just trying to understand your rationale.

“I do not advocate frivolous spending on any of our "allies".

I think I’m beginning to understand your rationale: Appease the big and guys, be they friends, semi-friends or outright enemies, at the expense of smaller guys who seem expendable. Of course you are not the first one to hit on that brilliant idea. It’s been tried before in history, for instance by both Stalin and Neville Chamberlain in 1938-39. You are welcome to check your history books to find out how did those little experiments turn out.

“I'm ignoring it how? Because I target Israeli spending in a thread about the Israel? Why don't you explain the positive reasons I should support financial aid to Israel without citing Saudi Arabia or The Phillippines?”

See my answers above.

Michael-

"True. So eliminating one cause out of many would solve nothing as long as you do not address the others."

We agree.

"How does being the subject of the thread make it the source of the problem? This is quite the logical pretzel you’re making here."

I did not say it was the only source of the problem, I said "the reason I pin the loss of lives on our support for Israel and not those other factors is twofold". That Israel is the subject of this thread is not why it is a source of the problem, nor did I assert that. I focused on it as one of the sources of the problem in this thread because this thread is about Israel.

"Can you show me where did Al-Qaeda propose (assuming their proposals are worth anything) to stop their war against the U.S. if it cuts off the $3 billion?"

In general response, it is by circumstance that the Arab world has come to believe that the United States supports Israel. These circumstances include our aid to them on any given year and our voice on the security council. It also includes our blind eye turned to their nuclear ambitions. The fact is: The United States supports Israel in many ways, one of which is more financial support per year than any other country.

As to whether Al Quada has offered us any deal that they will cease activity if we cease funding Israel? I'm sure they have not. That isn't the point. I do not support appeasement of Al Quada and, irregardless of their grievences with us, we should hunt them down and destroy them.

But Al Quada functions because it recruits large numbers of disenfranchised young islamic men and women who hate America. One of the reasons the Arab world, not just Al Quada, hates America is because of the reasonable perception that we support Israel more than any country in the world. One way to stem, to a degree, the tide of ever increasing terrorists ranks is to change that perception.

I do not view the war on terror as merely a war of guns and bombs, though it is. I view it as a war for hearts and minds, and we lose that battle every time we reinforce the Arab world's perception of us as Pro-Israel and anti-Arab.

Israel offers us nothing in return for our aid. So why do we help them when it hurts us in the war on terror? Worse, if it was one of the causes of the global war on terror?

"I have not. We maintain good political relationships and support financially plenty of countries in the world, many of whom take that support for granted, even though their population and their leaders are hostile to us to one degree or another. If support and good relationships are the default option, the correct question to ask is “why should we NOT support a specific country”. W & M try to answer that question. I happen to think their argument is standing on feet of clay. Plenty of other people feel the same way, for a variety of reasons."

Why do you support Israel? Is it because the United States supports a lot of countries so it might as well support Israel also? Is that your official rational?

Frankly, when a country is spending 500 billion a year more than it is generating in revenue, I think the people of that country have a right to ask more serious questions than "Why should we not help a particular country?" It's time to tighten our belts. Why should I help Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Phillippines, etc.?

I have argued that our alliance with Israel makes us less safe therefore our investment in them is frivolous and self defeating. Do you disagree? If so, what positive reasons do you counter with?

"You said we should yank Israel’s support because of one ancient-history case of spying."

Ancient-history if 21 years is ancient. Either way it is a present issue for Israel. They are still very much interested in his release and periodically lobby for it publicly. That Israel wants us to release a traitor suggests a disrespect for our allegiance and sovereignty.

"But if you truly believe it, then let me assure you, you are seriously deluded. Those in the Arab world who complain about the U.S. support of Israel are not the ones who attacked us on 9/11, in Kenya and Tanzania, in the Khobar Towers, in the Cole, and in all the other instances which were luckily foiled. Those who did attack us have a very different agenda."

It is not merely the 3 billion. The United States has supported them politically in teh United Nations. The United States ignored Israel as they slowly accumulted nuclear weapons. The United States is an ally of Israel moreso than any country in a number of ways.

The United States should release its material support for Israel immediately. Substantively one of the ways we do this is to stop giving them any foreign aid. Not 2 billion, not 1 billion; zero.

"No, I’m just trying to understand your rationale."

My rationale is that I pay taxes and I have a ballot voice in how those taxes get spent. The impetus is on Israeli allies to justify foreign aid to Israel. So far you are unwilling to do so. Not a single substantive reason for supporting Israel has been offered by you or anyone else. So far the best you can muster is "Why not?" Because 500 billion deficits require belt tightening. Because our material support for Israel has demonized us to the Arab and Islamic world. To what end do we support Israel?

"I think I’m beginning to understand your rationale: Appease the big and guys, be they friends, semi-friends or outright enemies, at the expense of smaller guys who seem expendable. Of course you are not the first one to hit on that brilliant idea. It’s been tried before in history, for instance by both Stalin and Neville Chamberlain in 1938-39. You are welcome to check your history books to find out how did those little experiments turn out."

This is not appeasement. I am not suggesting that we let a country invade Israel, or that we refuse to acknowledge Israel's sovereign right to exist. That doesn't mean we must give them financial or political support.

You would do yourself and this thread a great service if you explained why you support Israel. You have no problem presuming what makes me tick; tell us what makes you.

Thought I would make that clear, Michael. Looking forward to your response, cheers.

the question not yet answered is aipac the most dominant lobby in foreign affairs.and does it effect how we do bussiness in the middle east.and why is israel getting 10 billion dollsrs in aid and nno payback loans.which are alwys forgiven.and when you do the numbers of how much money is given to each person living in israel,the numbers far exceed any other aid per person given out to any other country.why is the question,why is it anti semetic to find the reasons for this gift to a country that is as you say, doing better than any other in the middle east.just read cohen when he says its anti semetic and any other jewish academic paper.why can aipac not be questioned.the press was quick to jump on the ports deal to dig into arab lobbies.but i just get tired of secrecy,what is the truth.tell me why they deserve the most aid.i have yet to read one answer that was not spun.you can not have the most powerful lobby(sharon once bragged that america answered to him)with out it being critical to decisions made on the middle east.and yes i view the palestinians an equall partner.and i believe that they have been duped every step of the way by congress.and it does get the arabs fighting mad.and then they strike at the heart,which is america, which they view as so one sided in favor of israel that they know that jeruselem and the west bank will be devided as the zionists see it.and aipac is at the front.it is there sole purpose,just read there speaches they give in israel on their yearly visits.their are a bunch of americans that are allowed to go serve in the IDF,how many other races can go fight for another country during this war on terror with out it being treason.aipac is zionism,zionism is aipac.i just dont see how it helps america.

that last post was to RS,Michael,Saxyboy. i was just reading the heading Controvercy grows,ya right the major news papers have already laid it to rest.go figure.that was the storm.it was labeled anti semetic the words that bring certain death to any topic.All that proves is aipac is powerfull,and that they are untouchable,for political reasons.can any one answer why aipac should not be investigated to see how and why the aid money is given. oh ya they are the only democracy in the middle east.palestinians are democratic,but they are not taking being occupied very well.like i said today american indians would be called terrorist and sitting bull would be a cold blooded killer.so i dont buy the rhetoric that flies from the medias mouth.i look at both sides, not just the zionist plan which dominates our polotics.

If AIPAC shares the best interests with the US why are they spying on the US?

Why did they change their name from the American Zionist Comittee for Public Affairs?

Why would a former AIPAC President brag - we have a dozen people in Clinton's headquarters and they're all going to get big jobs - (this was as Clinton was taking office) ?

Why does Israel pressure the US to release Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel against the US?

Why do people still refer to Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East? (Didn't the Palestinians just have an Election)..

http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch_archives/100697.htm

Will somebody please tell me what the United States is getting from its military and financial support of South Korea? By supporting South Korea, we only serve to enrage North Korea, a country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the continental United States. What could possibly explain this very one-sided relationship?

I am proud of the fact that the London Review of Books' and its Jewish editor were not cowed by the power of the Israeli lobby and its determination to silence anyone who dares to criticize current Israeli policy or the extraordinary influence of all these organizations on US foreign policy. All, it should be added, to the detriment of policies that would be in the real interest of Israel, namely to live in peace with the Palestinians and its neighbours.

Why was this piece not published in the US? If all is good and normal in the debate of Israeli policy in America, why was this article rejected by the American press? Can anyone seriously claim that a similar piece on the excessive influence of the Saudi lobby (or the British lobby) would be treated in the same way? Can anyone really pretend that people would be labelled racists if they criticized an excessive influence of King Abdullah or Queen Elisabeth II in Washington?

In fact, if you bother to read the M-W piece it is mostly based on statements boasting their influence by organizations of the Israeli lobby like AIPAC, or on articles by mainstream Israeli newspapers like Haaretz, as well as perfectly documented factual descriptions of (frequently hilarious) near-unanimous decisions by the US Congress of absolute support for whatever the Israeli government decides to do.

The kind of hysterical reaction caused by the article is a perfect illustration of the kind of witch-hunting inquisitorial persecution of dissenting voices that the authors analyse.

Professor Dershowitz as far as I know is a lawyer, yet he seems to believe that he is qualified to say that two of the most prestigious professors of International Relations in the US have discredited themselves as academics. The logical conclusion is that they should be fired from their jobs. If this is not persecution of dissenting voices what is?

Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic but some is? Waw what brilliant piece of logic!! So better not risk any criticism at all, right?! Well you just gave one more sample of one of the central arguments of the M-W piece: everyone is so afraid of being labelled a racist that they just do not dare to criticize Israel or its influence in US politics.

As far as I am concerned, please no accusations of anti-Semitism, I prefer self-hating Jew.

A very strategic land base in Asia!!!

Last one was to Dhimmi by me - my mistake

Well said Londoner!!

Also Mr Dershowitz was quick to call M & W "liars" and "bigots" and after that said he was assembling a research team to check every footnote of the paper. Why would he not wait for his researchers to finish before firing off his verbal attacks.

Interesting how this great humanitarian is willing to endorse torture within certain circumstances.

By the way just saw the post from the "1st SS panzer division" you are an As*hole - go elsewhere and pollute someone elses space - you're not welcome....

When will the South Korean controlled media in the U.S. tell the truth about the huge risks that Americans face from its support of South Korea? We live under the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea for no other reason than our military and diplomatic support of South Korea. Are we getting anything from South Korea that could possibly justify this threat to our very existence?

And while we are at it, when will the Taiwanese controlled media in the U.S. tell us the truth about the risks Americans face due to our support of Taiwan? I'm scared of China! They can have Taiwan! I suppose that if the U.S. was getting some return from its support of Taiwan's existence, it might be worth the nuclear threat we pay as a price of our support. What are we getting from Taiwan?

I sure hope M & W will address these issues. If they don't, their criticism of U.S. support of Israel might look like a double standard...

Some "free press" you have in the United States.

The gutless Washington Post is only willing to blog online about this brilliant landmark study, and to publish a column by a committed pro-Israel neocon denouncing it as "anti-Semitic."

But of course, that brave "pluralist" Washington Post wouldn't actually **run** -- or even excerpt -- such this brilliant piece of commentary, would it?

Nor, of course, would any other mainstream news organization in the United States.

And you Americans say you have a free press?

What a pathetic joke.

Angus -

Stop pretending you're so disgusted with SS. He's saying the same things you guys are saying, he's just wording it differently.

Dhimmi -

If you think NK is threat to us you need to read more on the history of warfare past and present.

America has a presence in mainland Asia because it's a strategic imperitive. With all due respect read some history books.

Taiwan unfortunately may become the "Czechoslavakia" of modern times but I suspect that their economic ties with the mainland (once the angry old men die off) may preclude any necessity for conflict - at least I hope so.

Your arguments are at specious at best and to be honest somewhat silly.

xxx

Angus says:

"Your arguments are at specious at best and to be honest somewhat silly."

Yeah, at specious!

People:

Stop soiling your diapers and spending all your time here, writing silly tirades that noone outside of this little blog space cares about. You're a bunch of whiners. And why? Because Jewish success and power has helped us earned us 3 billion bucks a year to defend our brothers in the desert.

We've survived The Protocols of Zion, we'll survive your stupid "Lobby" paper. Don't you gentiles ever learn? Or must you always live up to the "dumb goy" label?

Israel's here to stay, and American support for Israel is rock solid.

Boo hoo for you. We'll throw a little pity party for ya over the AIPAC seder table.

Shalom, dorks.

"Professor Dershowitz as far as I know is a lawyer"

Well, you don't know much, Einstein. He's an academic, as well - been teaching at Harvard Law school for over 20 years. Has got more brains than you'll ever have.

Saxman - thank you for reading my mind and explaining to me how I think. It is most refreshing.

You seem to be implying that perhaps I am a "dyed in the wool nazi" to personalize this I'll tell you my Grandad (long deceased but my most favorite person I've ever met on this planet) fought with the BEF during WW2 and beyond - I don't like Nazis and I don't like what they believe - apropos of nothing if I go to an event and someone hands me anything with a swastika on it there is going to be a commotion and someones ass is gonna get kicked.

So believe what you want - I think what I have said through all these blogs stands up.

I've just developed a mantra...

Two State(s) ...stop the hate ..it's not too late

Angus:

Why don't you go with your friend, SS? We Jews don't want you on our side.

PATHETIC!

Angus:

Come off it. I could give a damn if your stupid grandaddy was in the Haganah.

And what does you stuff "Stand up" to? The scrutiny of some morons on a message board?

Man, you sound sad.

Where should I go?

stuff?

Angus:

To Gaza, of course! Or better, the West Bank. Maybe some evil Israeli soldiers will kill you, and then your mommy can bring a court case in London and wonder why Israelis don't show up to be tried in London or something! Then you'll be a martyr and you'll get famous on a website and other Angus Wolfs will link to you in flamewars on blogs!

Wouldn't you like that, Angus Wolf Boy who Cries Wolf?

HA HA HA!

Angus:

I looked on the other blog before this. Wow, you spend lots of time here...

Do you have a job?
A life?
A girlfriend?
A boyfriend?
A dog?

SOMETHING? Or do you just like to come on websites and rant about Israel all day?

Keep posting .SFB... your intellect is amazing....have an excellent morning wherever you are .......I am off for a nice 3 day break ...no cellphones ..no email....but as long as people like you are around I guess I will stick around to maybe take the other side...talk to you on Sunday SFB....

...........

Sorry I had to howl at the moon one last time...

Angus,

A land base in Asia?

Isn't that what Israel is? And one more strategically located to boot?

Are you planning a land invasion of North Korea, China, or Russia anytime soon? Our forces in South Korea are a tripwire and nothing more. Land base...har de har har.

""To Gaza, of course! Or better, the West Bank. Maybe some evil Israeli soldiers will kill you, and then your mommy can bring a court case in London and wonder why Israelis don't show up to be tried in London or something! Then you'll be a martyr and you'll get famous on a website and other Angus Wolfs will link to you in flamewars on blogs!
Wouldn't you like that, Angus Wolf Boy who Cries Wolf?
HA HA HA!""

After all those attempts to paint legitimate criticism of Israel as "anti Semitism", I do believe saxboy has finally lost it.

Zain:

I didn't use the word anti-Semitism once in my rebuttals, dork. I simply made some cases about the paper's lack of credibility as stated by Noam Chomsky, one of the paper's primary sources, and the history of one-sided condemnations from the U.N.

No wonder you think "The Lobby" paper holds water: you have no reading comprehension.

You can read, can't you zain? I suspect you never even read what I said, you just tried to label me.

Lame.

It's good to know that a genious like yourself is in Mershmoron's and Walt's camp. You do a "service to your collegues" with such insightful commentaries.

What "legitimate criticisms" of Israel do you have? Please, enlighten us. And sorry, links to websites run by the ISM and Palestinian interest groups don't count.

Give to us!

proud zionist. do you feel that if you mention the word ss that every one is to feel shame and then not discuss whether are not aipac has a front row seat at the foreign policy table.do you feel that you have certian key words in your vocabulary that you can use to supress debate.because i dont know any one else but you who mentioned ss.

"because i dont know any one else but you who mentioned ss."

you don't? Then, I guess you can't read, either. Because two other people did, little boy.

Oh, and Robert..."supress debate"?

Huh?

If I wanted to "supress debate", I'd hire a hacker to take control of this blog and cancel out your lame non-arguments, or I'd have my friends in the Mossad come to your house and cart you away.

But, if I wanted to "stifle debate", I'd befriend Saudi Prince Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, and get him to give the most influential Ivy League school in the world - whose reputation has been on the wane for years because 90% of its grads leave the institution with "honors" - a 20 million dollar donation. Then, to show my appreciation for the donation, I'd pay two professors of said institution to write a paper saying that "The Zionist Lobby Controls America and anyone who disagress with me is part of the Zionist Lobby".

Sound like a plan, Mr. Roberts?

proud zionist,please disregard my last statement.i had not fully read your other posts,which led me to believe you are a minor.id prefer not to talk are respond to children.(gentiles,dummies)wow keep that up and you will need the man with the foeked tounge, dershowitz.

proud zionist i just want to know does it make you feel tough to spew out threats over the internet.its sad man that you have to resort to internet bully.but hey if it keeps your teeth in place and still allows you to be tough,go for it, just leave me out of it tough guy.i dont shadow box.

"i had not fully read your other posts,which led me to believe you are a minor.id prefer not to talk are respond to children.(gentiles,dummies)wow keep that up and you will need the man with the foeked tounge, dershowitz."

OK, you're obviously a foreigner or an illiterate.

FORKED tongue.
OR respond.
I'D rather.
Robert:

Care to comment on why professor Joseph Mossad of Columbia University, and Noam Chomsky, find fault with the paper?

Or does the Zionist Lobby have them paid off to "suppress debate"?

C'mon, ROBERT...let's hear what you have to say!

illiterate,define illiterate.foreigner, define aboriginal as a foreigner.some goof calls gentiles a bunch of dummies and i get some guy who has dodged the same question about aipac a dozen times putting labels on me.tell you what saxyboy.you have already done a great job of putting words in peoples mouths,we will make your word the gospel that way i dont have to read you run from the basic question asked of you.hows that.

Awww, Robert.

You and your friends can dish out the generalizations and name calling, but you can't take it.

Poor Baby.

Let me explain something to you, since you obviously don't understand what it means to live in a "democracy", and your "debates" are undemocratic, since all that you and your friends here do is try and shut down anyone who disgarees with your childish assessments.

In the United States, which is the largest democracy in the world, many different ethnic groups with international interests, use organizations to promote those interests. Such organizations are called Lobbies.

The premiere Zionist lobby is AIPAC. Its goal is to help assure the security of Israel while maintaining the best interests of the United States. AIPAC consists of leftists, rightests, and everyone in between. They are fiercely committed to maintaining the U.S. Israel relationship.

The Saudi Wahhabi Lobby has many such groups, which keeps the U.S. dependent on Foreign Oil. Part of the strategies the Saudis use include contributions to retirement benefits of state department employees. This is documented in the book Sleeping with the Devil, by former CIA agent Robert Baer, who is also anti-Isreal, and was inspiration for the movie Syriana. Harvard was the recent recipient of 20 million in Saudi Largess.

The Cuban Lobby has successfully blocked the U.S. from doing any business with Cuba.

African American lobbies are now becoming much more active in pressuring the U.S. government to commit troops to stop the genocide in Sudan.

So, all ethnic groups, especially minority ones, have lobbies. Zionist Jews have theirs. It's how our democracy works.

Businesses have lobbies, also.

If you don't like it that AIPAC has some influence, and it really upsets you so, you can:

1. Go work for the Saudi Lobby. CAIR is always looking for people.

2. Write your congressman and/or the president.

3. Rant on this message board.

4. Go fly a kite.

I for one, don't care what you do. Jews have contributed vastly to this country, and Israel has contributed to the world with technological and scientific innovation, as well as being at the forefront of the fight against militant Islam.

They deserve their lobby in this country, like everyone else.

Robert:

Threats? When did I threaten you?

Why can't you answer MY questions? You and your friends area always DEMANDING and CLAIMING that we skirt the issues...you have been bullying on this stupid thread for days.

Don't like having everything you say being answered with a stupid, arrogant response?

Here is some of the garbage you've written:

"rabbi lieberman"
RABBI lieberman? You mean SENATOR Lieberman, who is not a rabbi.

"they are no better then the muslim clerics who spew there religous venom."

When has SENATOR Lieberman said that all non-jews are infidels?

"aipac are as racist in there rhetoric of iran, syria, iraq, or for any one who borders israel.there mission is to make sure israel is allowed to continue to grow in the direction set out in the torah even at the expense of world peace."

Yeah? Prove it, Robert. When has an AIPAC official said that they are committed to expanding Israel at all costs?

You people are missing the essence of what this paper says. No one argues that AIPAC doesn't have the right to lobby as it does. What is argued is that taking up AIPAC's demands so one-sidedly -- siding consistently and unconditionally with Israel and against the Palestinians -- the U.S. has worsened that conflict and harmed its own interests. Hard to argue with that.

Let me put this in simple terms.
As a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, I want My $140 Billion (plus) dollars back. With interest. I want "paid for in the USA" taken off of the homes of West bank settlers whose actions and beliefs make the KKK look like the NAACP in comparison.
I want those settlers removed from the West bank and at least half of Jerusalem and for the security wall to be torn down on those places that it extends over the Green Line. Finally, as a Republican, I want my party, The party of Lincoln, the party that abolished slavery, taken back from those that use religious and racial prejudice as a platform to justify crimes of unimaginable brutality against the Palestinians. Taken back from people who want to turn a blind eye to 40 plus years of vicious occupation, the objective of which has been aimed at fostering and protecting the settler movement (400,000 and growing!)
and the results of which have been numerous, costly and avoidable wars and ultimately 9/11 and the "war on terrorism", which will cost us far more than all those wars combined. This is not sound Republican fiscal policy. This is the worst investment in American history!
Beyond those points, I support Israel and as an ally would fight to protect it if it was legitimately threatened or attacked.
Furthermore, as an avid reader, I know that my views are soundly backed in large part by a great many Israelis.

Joe

Posted this earlier, but it went missing! Whats Up?

like i said saxyboy and proud zionist.today american indian,s would be called terorists just as the palestinians are.so dont sell me your bag of goods.when aipacs mission is to occupy a peoples home with out there consent than there is something wrong with this picture.those are my views,so me not being a zionist i can see how that doesnt fit for you.so thats that.reserve your name calling for some one else.

The plain truth about the US' blind support of Israel is that any US administration is beholden to American pro-Israel pressure groups and their financial muscle. Beyond that, Israel in and of itself is of infinitesimal strategic or economic value to the US genuine interests.And the damage to the US is all but clear: the country is ever more detested and resisted in vast parts of the globe for its perceived pro-Israeli bias.

The real question, thus, is what is the practical purpose of many American Jews in keeping the US foreign policy agenda hijacked by a foreign power's interests. Or is it foreign to them? Or is the US actually foreign and viewed as a temporary stepping stone to the aspired global dominance of a tiny Near East statelet? The latter megali idea would be a truly hazardous delusion to entertain, but would be the only explanation to offer of these suicidal efforts. For if and when the US is destroyed as a major global power, Israel will be extinguished.

No American Jew will benefit, I am afraid, nor will the rest of the sane part of the globe.

The 2 billions that Egypt gets is part of the Israeli bill that US taxpayers have to pay.

Egypt was given the aid in order to maintain its "peace" deal with Israel which consisted of having Israel withdraw from the occupied Egyptian territory (Sinai) that they already started colonizing with Israeli civilians (Yamit settlements).

Besides, Egypt which is a poor country with 60 million people gets 2 billion.

Israel which is not a poor country with merely 6 million people gets 3 billion.

Egypt while poor can still survive like many other developing countries that receive no billion dollars from the US.

All that money could have been spent in Africa where children are still dying out of HUNGER and lack of water.

Instead billions are wasted on a state that has done everything in its capacity to re-claim (by all means) illegaly and by force what it perceives as its God-given land ownership.

Some posters in this thread argued that Israel never had any expansion plans. That is not true. While Israel does not wish to take over the entire middle east (that is anti-Jewish conspiracy), Israel does wish to re-claim its "biblical lands". Some Israeli politicians don't even hide this, including Sharon himself.

Is that supposed be OK? Something to reward Israel for?

Are we to excuse Israel because it only wanted to take over the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights (all of which is almost twice its size), not to mention the vast territory of Egyptian Sinai?

We should remember that Israel is not only maintaining Military bases in those occupied territories.

It has built CIVILIAN communities, with kinder garden schools, playgrounds, local government offices, roads, shops, and the necessary infrastructure for PERMANENT presence.

This is state sponsored colonialism, and imperialism (even though limited) which America has been financing and supporting for decades under the condemnation of the world community.

Karim:

Take your Edward Sa'id inspired post-colonial whining to the European Union, which I'm sure will be more than happy to send you to Gaza to be a lecturer on the Europen welfare dime, under your beloved Hamas.

Palestinians are the biggest recipients of welfare in the world. Look at the figures on the UNRWA's website. It's pathetic. You guys say you want to govern yourselves, yet you can't even ban together and build a decent economy. What has Hamas done in Gaza since the Jews have left? Nothing. Destroy greenhouses that Jews built, ushering in more poverty, warfare, and Islam - while crying about the money spigit being turned off.

Maybe if you guys learned to actually build a society, like the Jews have, you wouldn't been in the sorry state you are now.

saxyboy,

As usual any criticism of Israel turns its supporters to Arab bashing and racist derogatory commentary.

So what if we Arabs are still "underdeveloped" and not as "modern" as Israel is?

Is that a crime in your eyes?

I will make no apologies for our shortcomings because we don't OW anything either to YOU or to your colonialist Israel.

Israel might seem modern and developed but it is MORALLY corrupt and is a systematic human right violator of millions of Palestinian living under its forceful rule. Note that Israel only has about 5 million non-Arab Israeli citizens who are responsible for the collective suffering of 3.5 million Palestinians.

It is a matter of conscience for many of us: modernity, development, and strong economies are not necessary signs of righteousness, respect of human rights and civility.

Perhaps you could remember how modern and developed was Nazi Germany, the land of Beethoven and of industrial ingenuity and strength.

Palestinians will do much better if the state of Israel stops chocking them, stops controlling their daily movement and ends its military occupation.

Their neighbors next door in Lebanon are doing OK, and the same goes for many other Arabs and other developing nations in the world.

The state sponsored modern efficient greenhouses in Gaza were destroyed because they represented the oppression of the Israeli state.

When Israel frees the 3.5 million Palestinians from its grip, then they can focus better on building an even stronger Israeli economy.

What do we care? How does that affect us?

Does it make Israeli feel proud of their achievements after having no country for 2000 years while we held into our own homelands for that long? I am sure it does.

That's good for them, let them celebrate. I don't envy them. You can go around chant to people how Israeli are the best people and that Arabs are the worst people.

You could even claim it is fulfilled prophecy! God just cursed us Arabs for eternity!

For the record,

Edward Said that the above poster mentioned (and tried to insult me with) is a well-known Columbia University Professor and a Palestinian activist who has been intimidated all along his career (death threats, his office was once burned) because of his principles.

Said was a real nightmare for radical AIPAC and their supporters because he didn't fit the "Arab profile" that they usually easily demonize and dismiss in America.

He was an Arab, but he was not a religious fundamentalist, and not even Muslim. He was a Palestinian Christian who dedicated most of his academic life to defend his people rights.

saxyboy,

I missed one of your posts.

You wrote:

"Jews have contributed vastly to this country, and Israel has contributed to the world with technological and scientific innovation,"

This is not about Jews. Who says Israel represented all Jews in the world?

It doesn't.

You use Jews instead of Israeli or whatever nationality people have the same way German Nazis singled out Jews among their own citizens and ultimately drove them to death camps.

Once Israel stops performing and stops "inventing" as you wrote, what will say then?

That the Jews are among the worst useless people? Isn't that what anti-semites used to say for centuries?

Your posts can actually be categorized as racist and white supremacist-minded slogans.

Please, is it not obvious that the whole "lobby" discussion is based around the money and support we give Israel and the way it is used to further the settler movement? What would all of this be about if not for the settlements. The occupation would have ended long ago if not for the settlements. Few other countries in the world would have any substantial beef with Israel if not for the settlements (and the occupation that allows them to remain and grow). The settlements are illegal. the settlements are immoral. We (the united states) have gone to war with other countries for these types of crimes. No president of the U.S. has ever publicly suggested that the settlements were acceptable, yet we continue to pay for them and the occupation that supports them.

The whole conversation here, Folks, is about cutting off the MONEY. (aside from the costs of protecting the settlements, Israel does NOT NEED IT). Its about cutting off the Vetos at the U.N. It's about putting financial and diplomatic pressure on Israel to evacuate all the settlements and moving the wall behind the green line (that is to say not one inch over it). Lets talk about the very things that have not been disscussed here. If you don't believe the lobby exists, then talk these issues up here and everywhere else. If you support the settler movement, the money that we give Israel every year, the way that we have gone up against vitually every other country in the world in the U.N. on these issues, then PLEASE! give me some rationale for how any of these things actually benefit America. Frankly, I don't think any serious rationale exists!

Joe

Karim:

You are SO predictable. It's PATHETIC. I KNEW you'd call me a racist, or a Nazi, after I pointed out the indisputable fact that Palestinians are the biggest receivers of welfare in the world.

And yes, I know the Lebanese are doing OK. One of my best friends is Christian Lebanese, and boy, you think I'M hard on you guys? You should hear what she has to say about the Palestinians.

Is she a "white supremist" as well?

And I know all about Edward Said, and his, vain, intellectual bullying of anyone who didn't agree with him. I also know that his seminal work, Orientalism, is filled with errors, and outside of his sycophants in academia, has been lampooned by serious historians. Your assertion that he was a nightmare for AIPAC is complete fantasy.

I ALSO know he was Egyptian, NOT Palestinian. As he ADMITTED in the controversy about his lying about his past before he died.

I also KNOW that the combined GDP of the Arab world is LESS than that of SPAIN, Europe's poorest country. So, no, the Arab World is not really doing that great.

But let's stay on topic-

I have a question for you: What are you going to do, now that your aid has been cut off? Have another martyr's telethon with Saudi Arabia? Modernization doesn't seem likely, now that Islamic fundamentalists are running the show. And the Arab governments give the Palestinians virtually nothing.

When are Palestinians, and their enaiblers, going to stop blaming Israel, colonialism, and the Jews for all their problems?

When are you going to take some responsibility? Where has all the hundreds and millions of dollars in aid gone, that Europe and the U.S. throws at you guys every year?

Saxboy:
"When are Palestinians, and their enaiblers, going to stop blaming Israel, colonialism, and the Jews for all their problems?"

When Israel stops occupying their lands, terrorizing their people, and gives them an opportunity to exist as a free independent sovereign nation would be a good time.... don’t you think?
On that note, would you care to remind me of the great deeds the Jews were able to accomplish when being persecuted by the Nazis in concentration camps? Would you apply the same rationale to explaining their plight during the Nazi era?
I think Karim had a good point when he summed up your mindset:
"Your posts can actually be categorized as racist and white supremacist-minded slogans."

But this is digressing from the subject of this MB. I cannot articulate support of the conclusions of Professor Mearsheimer and Walt's paper better than has already been done by Notice, Joe and others. I have followed your responses with interest and they have been nothing but circular arguments going nowhere. Quite honestly you yourself display the intransigence you accuse Notice of.

saxyboy,

I didn't call you a racist or Nazi. I only tried to tell you that what you wrote can be considered racist (didn't say Nazi) so you could perhaps revise your thoughts and the way you approach this subject.

Again, please remind me what crime do people commit when they are underdeveloped or not as modern as you want them to be.

Where I come from (Morocco), we still have a good number of the population who live in mountain areas with no electricity or access to modern utilities.

You are somehow telling us that these people should feel ashamed of themselves or inferior because they are not as modern as the Israeli or other people from modern nations.

You somehow hold people, other human beings who haven't done anything to you, in contempt because they ride "donkeys" instead of SUVs or trains..people who are happily living where they always lived for centuries in total harmony with nature.

Is this the essence of your message?

Karim and Humanity:

One thing you and your crew have done on here is simply to make statements like, "What is your point?" and "You are making circular arguments going nowhere." You seem convinced that your declarations that my arguments are "circular" and "irrelevant" are enough to give you the upper hand, yet you haven't cited a single fact in your arguments. That is why I stopped talking to "Notice".

Now, here are some facts:

The Lobby paper you stand by has been dismissed by Joseph Massad and Noam Chomsky - as without merit.

The paper also uses the research of ideologues like Norman Finkelstein in its footnotes, and therefore the substance of it is specious, as are its conclusions.

The Israeli Lobby is very influential, but ultimately, the most powerful lobby in the middle east game is the Arab oil Lobby. Yasser Arafat got a hearing at the U.N. after the OPEC oil crises in the early 70's. Last year, the Palestinians got 1 billion in world welfare aid combined. They are now crying poverty and on the edge of despair, despite the fact that there are no more Jews in Gaza.

You can't keep blaming everything on Israel and Western "colonialism" and the Jewish Lobby. Sooner or later, as the world finds alternative energy sources, and loses patience with Islamic riots, the Arab-Islamic world will either modernize and grow up, or be destroyed or crumble.

That's how I see it. Sorry if you disagree with it.

No, OT, if you are truly bothered by the influence of the Jewish Lobby and AIPAC, I suggest you write to your senator or attend an ISM OR ANSWER rally. Obviously, you are not secure enough in your views, or you wouldn't keep wasting your time talking to me, since all my arguments are "circular".

Israel is here to stay, and so is AIPAC, and so are people like me, who support the Jewish state.

Get used to it.

saxyboy,

Notice I didn't comment on the paper itself.

You claim that the Arab oil lobby is stronger than AIPAC. Do you know of any independent study that suggests so?

You could argue that because of oil interests, US administrations do take the oil-rich Arab states views into consideration.

In case of Israel, it is the other way around. It is usually radical Israel-supporters who lobby Washington in order to provide unlimited support for Israeli governments and ultimately for the occupation. It is radical Israel-supporters who distort the dynamics of the conflict in their favor by undermining Palestinian rights (which enjoy wide international support outside of America).

It should be quite suspect for any reasonable observer that Israel almost-never gets criticized by US administrations even though every leading INDEPENDENT Human Rights organization has condemned Israeli governments.

Whether AIPAC stays or goes is not the question. No one is calling for AIPAC to be shut down.

People simply want to be able to debate and question Israeli-US relations and its dynamics without being intimidated.

Welcome back saxyboy-

"The Israeli Lobby is very influential, but ultimately, the most powerful lobby in the middle east game is the Arab oil Lobby."

This is a crucial point. The Arab oil Lobby provides something in return for American support: the stuff that makes funds our transportation infrastructure.

I am unaware of a car that runs on "Israel's respect for America" alone. Until such car exists, the impetus is on you to explain the utility in providing material support for Israel.

As earlier you have refused to provide this support. You have reassured us four of five times now that you do, in fact, people like you "support the Jewish state." Why? Are you Jewish? Do you really like Jewish women? Do you think Israel is a valuable ally in the war on terror? Did an enemy of Israel kill someone in your family?

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone whose motivations are utterly mysterious. At least you know what motivates me: I think it is apparent that our support for Israel limits our ability to win the war on terror because it provides justification for future terrorists and marginalizes us to the "moderate muslims" --if any exist-- whose hearts and minds we must win. Further I think it is fiscally irresponsible to foolishly hand out 3 billion a year to healthy economies when our own government runs a 500 billion dollar deficit annualy.

Now you have my motivation. What is yours, sir? Here is your opportunity to explain what drives your support for Israel.

Yo, Notice! Thanks for the warm welcome.

Look, I know why you don't support Israel. You've said it again. And again. And again.

I support Israel for many reasons, and feel the U.S. should. None of the reasons I give will ever be satisfactory for you. Some have been given, only to have you say, "What's your point?" and "That's irrelevant!", etc.

You're actually a funny guy. I can imagine if you and I ever met for a conversation in my Brooklyn hood. Here's how it would go:

Notice: Yo, saxyboy, what's up?

Saxyboy: Hi Notice. I'm not in the mood.

Notice: No, here is your opportunity to explain why all sax players should familiarize themeselves with Coltrane

Saxyboy: Well, I just think Coltrane was the most technically innovative and..

Notice: SO, lots of musicians are innovative.

Saxyboy: Yeah, but he was stretching tonalities and redifined the language...

Notice: What's your point? You haven't made any solid arguments.

Wow, that would be a fun afternoon, jerky!

Karim: I really haven't read your entire response, because you still haven't answered any questions I've put up. You're not really saying anything.

And if you want proof of the power of Saudi influence, take a trip to your local gas pump.

Now, I'm really gone. Notice: I know you'll post a response, but I'm not reading it. I'm pulling away, returning to my AIPAC loving bubble.

HAVE a good one!

saxyboy-

"I support Israel for many reasons, and feel the U.S. should. None of the reasons I give will ever be satisfactory for you. Some have been given, only to have you say, "What's your point?" and "That's irrelevant!", etc."

Again you duck an excellent opportunity to put all criticism to rest. "Some have been given" - like what? If I have repeated my own motivations ad nauseum it is because I hope to lead by example. We have yet to understand why you "support Israel for many reasons, and feel the U.S. should." What are those reasons, exactly?

Your analogy implies that you think supporting Israel is a matter of taste or personal preference. On the trivial matter of Coltrane and sax players, it took you one post to identify a reasonable explanation for why you think sax players should learn Coltrane: because Coltrane is the most technically innovative.

Do you think we should support Israel because they are technically innovative or am I taking the analogy too far? Not that I would have any idea what position to attribute to you since you are so reluctant to offer your thoughts.

It's impossible to even have a reasonable discussion with you because I don't know what my refusal to support Israel is costing you. Are you Jewish? Are you anti-arab (NOT an accusation, just a question)? Do you think Israel is a valuable ally in the war on terror? Do you think Israeli women are hot?

If I knew the answer to any of these questions I could debate with you the merits of your position. But, as of now, I'm left defending my position --that Israel does not need or deserve my financial support because that support threatens our national security and is also an unnecessary financial drain on an otherwise overspending federal government--against no one. You refuse to dispute even these points. When asked what motivates you, you deferrentially tell us to write our senators, or leave you alone, or repeat Noam Chomsky's disagreement with the article. But really, who cares? I'm more interested in what drives a particular American, who listens to Coltrane saxaphone, to support Israel? Just tell us, Sax?

Notice - I'm not taking the bait.

"I could debate with you the merits of your position."

No, you couldn't. Stop making believe you are being open-minded and are interested in hearing what I have to say. You really aren't. People have given reasons for supporting Israel, and you merely say, "So, what's your point." Or, "That's irrelevant." That's not debate.

You seem to think you are judge and jury, here, and that what you have to say is so important, and that I've failed in making my case because I'm not drawn into your bullying and preaching to the choir.

What qualifies you to be so arrogant about your POV? And who are you to interrogate me about my background? It's really none of your business. Do you really want to make this personal? Why must I always be on the defensive and answer to you?

Let me ask you: What are YOUR qualifications? Are you a State department employee? A former negotiator? A diplomat with extensive experience in the Mideast? You exude no introspection whatsoever...you simply keep saying, "I'm right...tell me why I'm wrong," and when someone steps up and tries to, you simply say, "You're wrong."

Notice: You really just want me to answer your questions so you can beat me to the ground, like you have with everyone else. I don't like people like that. You're actually a pretty nasty bastard.

And you have absolutely no sense of humor, either. You can't even see the humor in the Coltrane thing...you try to make that into a debate as well.

I can't believe I've waisted this much of my time talking to you.

saxyboy-

Thank you for the response.

"No, you couldn't. Stop making believe you are being open-minded and are interested in hearing what I have to say. You really aren't. People have given reasons for supporting Israel, and you merely say, "So, what's your point." Or, "That's irrelevant." That's not debate."

I am interested in why you support Israel. I was interested a week ago, on April 3rd, when I asked you to qualify what benefits the United States reaps from Israel. That was a broad question you did not answer. Failing in getting you to actually defend Israel, I pressed about what motivates you as a person.

You could respond to this question in a number of ways that would not warrant deferential treatment by me. You could say "I am Jewish." I would respond that your support is perfectly reasonable, though utterly unbinding on the majority of Americans who are not Jewish. You could say "I hate arabs" and we could discuss why you hate them and why that translates into aid for Israel. You could say "Israel is an ally in the war on terror" and we could have a discussion about whether or not the claim is actually true.

As it stands you completely eliminate even the possibility of a "debate" because no one on this board knows why you hold your position. It is, as you said, like convincing someone that they do not like a certain kind of music. Is supporting Israel for you the same as supporting strawberry ice cream over vanilla? Is that really the level of seriousness you want to convey on this very serious issue?

In the real world --the world of countries with foreign and domestic policy objectives, a world of consequences-- saying "Look, I just like Israel, ok?" is not a defense of a policy. It is not even an explanation of a policy.

If you were truly interested in a debate you would stop dancing around the issue: Why do you support Israel? You can insist that you need not answer me because I have upset you, which is fine. But at some point people who support Israel might have to make the case to Americans, like me. You would do your position an enormous service by explaining your own motivations.

"What qualifies you to be so arrogant about your POV? And who are you to interrogate me about my background? It's really none of your business. Do you really want to make this personal? Why must I always be on the defensive and answer to you?"

I do not want this to be personal. The reason your position requires explanation and mine does not is because I have explained my position and you have not.

Saxyboy, you do not have to answer to me or to anyone. But here you are debating points like how many tanks existed in Jordan in 1949, or what Noam Chomsky's opinion regarding the M-W paper is, or the influence of the Saudi Arabian lobby in the United States. If you think Israel is worth supporting you should tell us why.

The United States gives Israel money; not the other way around. If any party deserves an explanation for this arrangement, it is America and Americans.

"Let me ask you: What are YOUR qualifications? Are you a State department employee? A former negotiator? A diplomat with extensive experience in the Mideast? You exude no introspection whatsoever..."

No I am not a state department employee. I am not a former negotiator. I am not a diplomat with extensive experience in the Mideast. I am an American voter and tax payer which qualifies me to participate in discussions about how government funds are spent.

I do not want to beat you to the ground, I just want to know who you are and what motivates you. A week after this debate started, after countless pages of back and forth, you have yet to describe a single positive reason for why I should support Israel. More telling, perhaps, is that you've failed to offer a single positive reason why you support Israel.

Notice:

"A week after this debate started, after countless pages of back and forth, you have yet to describe a single positive reason for why I should support Israel."

That's becuase, in your eyes, there are no positive reasons, Notice. You've made that very clear.

And nothing that I, or anyone can say, will change that.

saxyboy-

I've already described a few positive reasons. If you were Jewish, for example, I would understand your support for Israel. If you thought Israeli women were super hot even that might qualify as a reason, albeit a poor one, to support Israel. If you felt that Israel was a valuable ally in the war on terror, that would be a positive reason for your support.

I may not agree with all those reasons but I at least concede that they are positive reasons for supporting Israel.

In any event, you haven't admitted to any of those three. You haven't acknowledged a single positive reason for your support for Israel.

Here is your chance.

"If you were Jewish, for example, I would understand your support for Israel."

Notice, you are a liar.

If you felt that way, you wouldn't have trumpeted your faith in the U.N.'s one-sided condemnations about the Jewish State.

And you wouldn't voice support for Saudi Arabia, which exports the most virulent strain of religious fundamentalism and anti-Semitism in the world.

You also wouldn't have implied that September 11th, or the U.S.S. Cole happened solely because of our support for Israel - as you did before you were corrected.

YOU also wouldn't defend a paper that accused American Jews - and every publication from the leftist and sometimes anti-Zionist Forward (which I doubt you even know about, but which the Harvard paper accuses of being part of the Lobby - a ridiculous accusation) to the New York Times (which didn't support Israel's establishment in the first place - which I'm sure you didn't know - and hasn't supported a single Israeli incursion as a means of self defense in a single editorial since the intifada) - of being a part of a "pro-Israel Lobby" because you'd see how ridiculous and unsupportable is.

You also wouldn't question why I don't truck with Jewish Holocaust revisionists like Norman Finkelstein.

You wouldn't use anti-Semitic rhetoric, saying our Lobby has "coerced" people into putting the Jewish interests before the U.S.

Yes, I'm a Jew. And an American. And a taxpayer. I support Israel because I know that if God forbid, this country ever had a president more to the right than Bush, who wanted to Christianize it fully as many in his party do, I would have a place to go where I wouldn't have to defend and explain like I do on this message board, to people like you who could care less. Sure, I'd have to worry about some Arab blowing himeself up on a bus...but them's the breaks.

That is but one of the many reasons I support Israel.

Now, I'm in hostile territory, here. On a board where you have your allies, and I'm sure I'll get pounced on.

Let me explain:

A couple of weeks ago at work, a coworker started up with me about Israel, and I hadn't even discussed it with her. I tried to tell her that I wasn't interested in getting into it with her, but she was as persistent as you are.

So you can take your false sincerity, and you know what you can do with it. Because if you really were open to what I was saying, you wouldn't have engaged in the nasty dissembling that you did before, and you would have called people on the endless B.S. that's been flowing on this message board for the last week, where people have been slamming Israel left and right, and you wouldn't be defending a paper that says, "The Jewish lobby controls debate on Israel, and anyone who disagrees is just a dishonest member of that lobby."

Now, have a nice life, and leave me alone.

saxyboy,

The doors of Aliyah are still wide open, why don't you move to Israel before its too late?

Is it fair to involve millions of Americans into the Israeli mess because you want to make sure that you will have a refuge in the Middle East in case "Christian fascism" takes power in America?

As few posters have explained here, America's best interests lie more with the Arabs because the world's oil resources happen to be in lands Arabs have held into and fought for for many centuries.

Since 1967, Israel turned into a ruthless colonial power with a radical messianic ideology bent on re-claiming and cleansing what they beleive as God's promised land.

"As few posters have explained here, America's best interests lie more with the Arabs because the world's oil resources happen to be in lands Arabs have held into and fought for for many centuries."

Karim, I saw what your Arab brothers did in my city on September 11th, right outside my window, in the name of Allah. A friend of mine was almost killed. A guy I know lost all the people he used to work with.

He'd certainly disagree with your assessment that our best interests lie with your barbaric, backwards culture.

Also, I'll move to Israel when you and your fellow camel jockeys move back to Mecca.

You might get your Sharia in Europe, but I promise you, it's not gonna happen here.

saxyboy-

I recognize that being Jewish is a positive reason to support Israel. I am not Jewish, so obviously this reasoning is non-binding on me.

I do think it raises some profound questions about your allegience. You have a religious familiarity with a foreign power. When the interests of these foreign powers diverge, where would you stand?

Now to your ultra defensive nonsense:

"And you wouldn't voice support for Saudi Arabia, which exports the most virulent strain of religious fundamentalism and anti-Semitism in the world."

I did not voice support for Saudi Arabia, I explained why Saudi interests and American interests might coincide for reasons that American-Israeli interests might not: oil. I do not support religious fundamentalism or anti-Semitism.

"You also wouldn't have implied that September 11th, or the U.S.S. Cole happened solely because of our support for Israel - as you did before you were corrected."

Wrong. I acknowledged, later, that our relationship with Israel was not the sole reason for terrorist attacks... though I never asserted such a strong claim in the first place. I said our relationship with Israel has cost American lives which I still stand by.

"You wouldn't use anti-Semitic rhetoric, saying our Lobby has "coerced" people into putting the Jewish interests before the U.S."

Well that's reassuring, though I did no such thing. I said if you were incapable of making a coherent argument for why I should support Israel, then it was unlikely that AIPAC would be able to make a coercive (coherent, compelling, convincing, etc.) argument either.

However, there is nothing anti-semitic about pointing out the obvious: The purpose of a lobby is to coerce others into adopting its policies or policies that are in its best interests. An Israeli lobby would be interested in coercing people to pursue policies that are in Israel's best interests.

Despite your lunatic rant against me you are right about one thing. This truly has been an enormous waste of time. Had you just explained, a week ago, that you were Jewish we could have settled then. I wouldn't expect a Palestinian to understand why I will not financially or politically support Hamas. I wouldn't expect you to understand why Judaism does not motivate me to support Israel.

Cheers.

saxyboy,

Your angry posts contain racist slurs and bigoted commentary. Not sure one could have a meaningful discussion with you.

Karim says:

"Your angry posts contain racist slurs and bigoted commentary."

Coming from you Karim, I take that as a compliment.

Notice:

“Now to your ultra defensive nonsense.”

Give it a rest, Notice. There’s nothing nonsensical about it. You stood by one-sided condemnations from the U.N., blamed Israel for American deaths (you still do), stood by the conclusions of the specious paper with a total disregard for its mistakes, and dismissed ANY statements that people on this board made in Israel’s defense, with empty, condescending comebacks. Now, you’re questioning my loyalty. Your “Israel and its Lobby is to blame for our problems and goes against the United States” falls right in line with the rhetoric preached on hate sites. Your contempt and bigotry are obvious.

I was simply reacting to that. If you’d showed a modicum of sincerity and objectivity, I’d have reacted differently.

"I do think it raises some profound questions about your allegience. You have a religious familiarity with a foreign power. When the interests of these foreign powers diverge, where would you stand?"

Many ethnic groups in this country lobby about their interests abroad, including Saudis, Cubans, the Irish, African Americans (currently lobbying for intervention in Sudan, which doesn’t coincide with our interests in oil), Ukranians. I'll assume your concerns about dual loyalty extend to them, as well.

"I said our relationship with Israel has cost American lives which I still stand by."

You can stand by it all you want. It simply isn’t true. Osama Bin Laden's main gripe is our relationship with the totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia. I don’t recall any troops being deployed anywhere because of Israel, either. You have not provided any links nor evidence that our relationship with Israel has cost American lives, because you can’t.

Now, I'm really gone. You get the last word, which I'm sure you'll take, being how important it is that you get the upper hand.

And a note: At least I had the guts to open up to you and tell you a bit about myself. You haven't extended the same courtesy. For all I know, I could be talking with some bratty college kid, which is what it feels like.

Notice:

One more thing, on top of what I said above, one of the reasons you gave for your opinion is that we need to get "moderate allies in the Arab world".

If you knew anything about the Middle East, you'd know that there are Arab moderates who support the U.S. regardless of its relationship with Israel.

But, your attitude is basically "We should appease the Arabs by severing our relationship with Israel." I'm sorry, you might want to act as if that comes from a place of realistic necessity, but, adding that to everything I've said above, I'm inclined to think differently.

Sorry, you might think it's nonsense, but that's the image you've conveyed, here.

Good luck.

Is anyone here aware that during the debates, without anyone specifically asking them to do so, both George Bush and John Kerry said that one of the justifications for the war in Iraq was that it was keeping Israel safe.

Now I think that it is safe to say that when the president and the leader of the opposing polical party agree on an issue and that not a single other politician from either party or any major news agency questions their remarks, either at the time or in the ensuing months or years, you could conclude that those remarks are political truth. In other words, at least some portion of all casualties and costs in Iraq are because of Israel, who by the way, does not have one single soldier in fighting in Iraq. So, it is safe to say that we are losing lives and world respect to defend the settlement movement, in that most of all arab restistance to israel is caused by the occupation and the settlements that they protect.

Joe

Saxyboy wrote:

"You can stand by it all you want. It simply isn’t true. Osama Bin Laden's main gripe is our relationship with the totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia."

Europe also has good relations with Saudi Arabia. There is more criticism of Saudi Arabia coming from US administrations than anything coming out of European governments.

The former Saudi King used to spent most of his vacation in Southern Spain.

Europe is a former colonial power in all of the Middle East, including Palestine.

So explain to us why Arabs mostly attack the US, and not Europe, their former oppressors?

The answer lies with long decades of UNCONDITIONAL Israeli support.

Sure Arabs might not like certain things about America or Europe but there is a difference between what Arabs consider a "nuisance" and what they consider a matter of life and death.

In Morocco, we don't like how France backed our former repressive king (for instance, why sell him weapons?), but no one is going to attack France for that and no one ever did!

saxyboy-

"Many ethnic groups in this country lobby about their interests abroad, including Saudis, Cubans, the Irish, African Americans (currently lobbying for intervention in Sudan, which doesn’t coincide with our interests in oil), Ukranians. I'll assume your concerns about dual loyalty extend to them, as well."

You certainly may assume that, and they certainly do. And I'll assume that you are afraid to answer my question since you didn't actually answer my question.

"You have not provided any links nor evidence that our relationship with Israel has cost American lives, because you can’t."

The oft-repeated link between America and the Israeli world by terrorists is evidence enough. The evidence for the anger generated from said connection are evidenct throughout this thread. This quote, attributed to Osama Bin Ladin, from the following link http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

In justifying his attacks against civilians, Osama had this to say: "The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates."

"And a note: At least I had the guts to open up to you and tell you a bit about myself. You haven't extended the same courtesy."

I'm an American tax payer and I am not Jewish. What have you revealed that I have not?

"But, your attitude is basically "We should appease the Arabs by severing our relationship with Israel." I'm sorry, you might want to act as if that comes from a place of realistic necessity, but, adding that to everything I've said above, I'm inclined to think differently."

Because you are Jewish? Why don't you just admit that's what drives your reasoning? I am sorry that I am not Jewish and I do not see the great necessity in supporting Israel.

Israel has a sovereign right to exist and the United States needs to recognize that and refuse aid to countries that fail to do so. We do not need to absolutely sever ties with Israel. However, there is a world of difference between treating Israel as a sovereign nation and treating them as our little brother.

I don't think we should appease the arabs no matter what, but I certainly don't think we should unnecessarily inflame them for Israel since Israel offers nothing of value in return for our support.

Are we involved in war on terror in spite of our relationship with Israel or because of it?

"Israel offers nothing of value in return for our support."

Notice: I've grown tired of your contemptuous attitude and your juvenile strategy of stating your opinions as absolutes. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Tell our military strategists in the Pentagon and in Iraq - a country which Israel stopped from getting the bomb AND the supergun (I'm sure you know nothing about that, either) - that Israel gives us nothing of value.

Tell Bill Gates Israel gives us nothing of value. Tell one of Wall Street's main rainmakers at Google Inc, which just opened research facilities in Israel - that Israel gives us nothing of value. Tell the farmers in the midwest who just travelled there to learn irrigation techniques - that Israel gives nothing of value. Tell the Jordanians, who are interested in the Kosher cell phone (yes, do a Google search, I'm not making it up), that Israel gives us nothing of value. Tell that to Chrisopher Reeve, RIP, who went over there to work with Israeli doctors to help his condition. Tell it to the Arab diplomats from Egypt who go to Israeli hospitals when they get sick.

Now, to try and sound sincere, you say we should refuse aid to countries that don't recognize Israel. What a crock. You sat here defending the U.N.'s one-sided condemnations, then said you see the necessity of having Saudi Arabia as our ally because they have oil, but dismissed when I and others brought up ("What's your point?") that the very computer you're typing on has technology that was developed in Israel and the cell phone you use has technology developed in Israel - being that Israel is at the center of high-tech innovation.

Or is that stuff not crucial to our economy?

"Are we involved in war on terror in spite of our relationship with Israel or because of it?"

This really shows what a lightweight you are on the subject of Islamic Fundamentalism. Interesting when I challenge you to come up with facts, you go straight for the hard left wing, anti-Israel Guardian.

Where were you this winter when an Al Queda suicide bomber blew up a Jordanian hotel? Ranting with people on message boards? Where have you been during the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia - which they blamed on the Zionists?

Aren't you the least bit informed?

And I already told you I know Bin Laden had mentioned it later on to try and get Arab support. Hell, his stated goal is the same as the Hamas charter - is to establish an Islamic Calyphite and put half the earth under Islamic rule. Of course he doesn't want Israel there. But during his attacks, his main gripe has been our relationship with the Saudi regime, whom he hates just as much as the U.S., and arguably more than Israel. Bin Laden and Islamic Fundamentalism are an outgrowth of a radical ideology whose foundations are independent of Zionism.

Anyway, this is it for me. I always suspected you were clueless and just trying to hide it. And that was O.K.

But now that you've confirmed that you're clueless AND mean, I'm getting out of here.

I've already wasted enough time with you. Go talk to your friend, Karim. You guys are at the same level of understanding.

Adios, jewbater.

Saxyboy-

"Now, to try and sound sincere, you say we should refuse aid to countries that don't recognize Israel. What a crock. You sat here defending the U.N.'s one-sided condemnations, then said you see the necessity of having Saudi Arabia as our ally because they have oil, but dismissed when I and others brought up ("What's your point?") that the very computer you're typing on has technology that was developed in Israel and the cell phone you use has technology developed in Israel - being that Israel is at the center of high-tech innovation."

Let's acknowledge that Israel produces many things of value that Americans use. Let's also acknowledge that Saudi Arabia produces many things of value that Americans use. Let's also acknowledge that Canada produces many things of value that America uses. Now why is it we give more to Israel than we do to Canada or Saudi Arabia?

Must you live in a world of absolutes where either we support Israel unquestionably or we join the Arab world in constantly condemning them? How about we treat them even handedly, as Iceland or Canada might?

So, while we are on the subject, if you hold allegience to Israel and the United States, and the interests of those two countries diverge, which would you support? Still waiting on a response...

Our Israel apologist is repeating the same tired mantras about why America needs to fund Israel financially, military, politically even though Israel is practically no different than the former Apartheid South Africa (5 million Israeli rule by military force 3.5 million Palestinians, for 35 years now).

Israeli apologists want to America to trade in its security, vital interests (oil), and sometimes its citizen lives because of radical messianic Israeli governments that have little respect for international law or conventions and who have no concept of what national borders are.

To this day, and since 1948, the state of Israel has no official borders in all directions. Some are set, some are still "up for negotiations" (ie up for grab) with the natives while Israeli government after government have been busy building its colonies with the help if US taxpayers.

This is not about Israeli hospitals or Israeli high-tech companies. Nazi Germany excelled in technology during its war of aggressions (the list of Nazi technological inventions is very long). It is an ethical question, a question of principles and a practical issue too.

There are about 300 million Arabs who sit on and control the world's largest oil resources, and only about 5 million Israeli, many of whom were born outside of Israel itself, who wouldn't let go foreign lands they took by force in the last 35 years.

Israel, among other things, has become a costly liabilty for America.

America could have won easily the hearts and minds of Iraqi (and Arabs in general) if it was not for its Israeli support.

Morocco was colonized by France from 1912 to 1956. Moroccans certainly did mind French colonialism but still a good number of Moroccans fought (and died) along the French back in Europe to free France from the Nazis.

It is therefore important to consider what people can tolerate and what people can't.

Israeli occupation is a brutal inhumane occupation in which millions of innocent people are forced to live in hardship and are tortured psychologically on a DAILY basis because of a few state sponsored radical messianic Israeli settlers.

If AIPAC shares the best interests with the US why are they spying on the US?

Why did they change their name from the American Zionist Comittee for Public Affairs?

Why would a former AIPAC President brag - we have a dozen people in Clinton's headquarters and they're all going to get big jobs - (this was as Clinton was taking office) ?

Why does Israel pressure the US to release Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel against the US?

Why do people still refer to Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East?

Dhimmi -

Unless it's been moved I am pretty sure Israel is not in Asia and also I am pretty sure it does NOT have a US base - so not sure what your point is!!

Zain, Saxboy, loudzionist.........

Muerde Me ....Este!!!

See u in Gaza....don't forget if I am wearing a Journalist Vest you can take a pot shot....

To Zain - apologies I misread the earlier posts - please exclude yourself from my prior post...

Saxxyboy, would you please gratify the many posters on this forum, and kindly submit your arguments, in a logical and rational manner as to why we, Americans should be obligated to financially support the state of Israel. No sophistry and casuistry please. Give it to us straight.

Now They're Pro-Israel!
Our item yesterday on Edward Peck's latest defense of anti-Israel scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt brought this email from David Theroux, head of the Independent Institute, who earlier sent us Peck's reply to last week's item:

Your including the copy-editing of Ambassador Peck's letter to you must be unprecedented in the history of journalism. Congratulations! The point?

It would be common courtesy and ethical practice to print Ambassador Peck's letter without the copy editor's marks, and most editors would have honorably checked with the author first since only the final version was approved for publication by him.

The atrocities by Arab states and suicide bombers are indeed an outrage and should be condemned, and those individuals responsible held fully accountable. However, this has nothing to do with the policy issues at hand here.

And, why do you resort to name-calling when you disagree with someone? Since Mearsheimer/Walt/Peck strongly believe that U.S. policies in the Mideast are seriously endangering Israelis and Jewish (and all) people worldwide, and the recent Israeli elections show that the majority of Israeli citizens also oppose invasive policies as foolish and wrong, Mearsheimer/Walt/Peck could similarly accuse you of anti-semitism [sic] for supporting such measures. And yet although the attacks on Mearsheimer/Walt/Peck continue in flawed, disingenuous and disgraceful manners, Mearsheimer/Walt/Peck have remained properly respectful and civil throughout.

The end never justifies the means regarding the issues of government policy nor the simple decency of the Golden Rule.

Well, to quote Al Gore, "I also believe in the Golden Rule." We reproduced the Peck missive exactly as we received it; and we thought one of the Theroux edits relevant: He inserted the words "with ad hominem attacks" into Peck's complaints about "vilification." In fact, our original item included no ad hominem attacks against Peck, though we did make some gibes at the expense of the Independent Institute.

On to the substance. Theroux writes that "the atrocities by Arab states and suicide bombers" have "nothing to do with the policy issues at hand here." This is the only honest thing we have heard anyone say in defense of Mearsheimer and Walt. It is a pithy recapitulation of their argument, which is a moral condemnation of Israel on the basis of its sins (real and imagined), without regard to context. That is, in judging the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mearsheimer and Walt admit only those facts that establish the guilt of the Jewish side. This is an anti-Semitic argument.

To say so is not "name-calling," as Theroux implies it is. We have not impugned the motives or personal character of Walt and Mearsheimer, only taken issue with their work. As we noted yesterday, Peck evaded the substance of the criticism and instead recast the Mearsheimer-Walt argument as a trivial truth. Now Theroux, incredibly, tries to recast it as a pro-Israel argument, a vindication of, in his words, "Israelis and Jewish (and all) people worldwide" and of the Israeli political center as a better guardian of Jerusalem's interests than the right.

In fact, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is a broadside against Israel and against American support for the Jewish state. Theroux has put the prestige (such as it is) of the Independent Institute behind a paper whose central claim is: "Neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Yet Theroux, like Walt and Mearsheimer's other backers, is unable or unwilling to defend that claim. Instead, he pretends it is something else entirely.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

George Orwell

M&W bashers -

Please read the Op-Ed by Tony Judt in today's NY Times. It is highly supportive of the paper.

The Search for an Easy Answer
Our recent commentary on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's anti-Israel paper brought this interesting comment from reader Bob Meuser:

Implicit in the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis is the proposition that that United States should sacrifice Israel in order to appease radical Islam and deflect its jihad away from the United States.

Follow the bouncing ball: U.S. support for Israel is a claimed "grievance" of the Islamists. If we withdraw support for Israel, we will redress that grievance and eliminate a pretext for Islamist jihad against the United States. To "throw Israel under the bus," the United States will need some rationale for abandoning a longstanding ally. Claiming that U.S. support for Israel is based not on the merits, but rather on the domestic political power of the "vast pro-Israeli conspiracy," provides such a rationale. Ergo, delegitimize U.S. support for Israel, provoke a policy shift away from Israel and toward the Palestinians, and thereby ingratiate the United States with Islamic radicals and the "Arab street."

The folly and fallacies of this thesis are too numerous to list. At bottom, it would be a disgraceful and dishonorable act of treachery that would engender contempt, not respect or appreciation, from its intended audience. But the left and the realist camp have been searching since 9/11 for a way to address on the cheap the fundamental dynamic giving Islamism its appeal, without doing any heavy lifting or getting their hands dirty: from Richard Clarke's proposal to do a really, really good PR campaign with our "friends" in the Arab world (and who might that be?), to John Kerry's "aggressive policing" using American special ops to "go after the terrorists where they live" (now, that would reassure the Arab street!), to the realists arguing for déjà vu all over again by relying on those lovable "proxies" to maintain "peace" (how'd that work out the first time through?).

The Walt-Mearsheimer thesis is merely another in this line of policy proposals that share in common the relentless search for a plausible intellectual pretext to do nothing, see nothing, know nothing--until the next smoke cloud arises from a European or American city.

Kirstin,

What would be wrong with allowing the U.S. Army or the U.N. forces to go into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, remove all the settlers, relocate them inside the pre 67 borders, rebuild the security wall in a way that stays on the 67 borders and then have them guard those borders to help keep Israeli settlers and the IDF out until a stable Palestinian state could be established? Isreal would be a safer place. America would be safer place, and above all else, we would finally be doing the right thing. In fact, we would benefit dramatically, because, as Bill Clinton put it during a Charlie Rose interview, a fair and peaceful solution in the occupied territories would remove the philosophical underpinnings for terrorist recruitment in the middle east. (Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Pat Buchannon and many others agree as well)
So let me recap. removal of the settlements = Israel safer, U.S. Safer , World terrorism down. No one is thrown under a bus. The U.S. Finaly starts doing the right thing again and benefits as a result.
Whos unhappy with this result? the settlers, the christian right, the war mongers.

Whos happy with this result? Most of America, Israel, the entire middle east and the rest of the world, and Walt and Mearsheimer. re-read the paper carefully. I think your missing a great deal of it's point.

J