Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 14th, 2008 #1
KMRATHELL
deken
 
KMRATHELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865
KMRATHELL
Default Videos for people new to the Jewish question

Here are a series of videos useful for people just learning bout the Jewish problem or a brush up for those already aware.

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/howiz.htm
 
Old December 18th, 2008 #2
Brian Foley
Member
 
Brian Foley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Top End Australia
Posts: 282
Brian Foley
Default Jew Control U.S. Foreign Policy

Quote:
Drunk George Tenet lashed out at Bush’s neocons: ‘The Jews’ who tried to ‘pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him

Goldberg says that the book’s prologue contains a “whopper of a scene” featuring former CIA director George Tenet “drunk on scotch, flailing about Prince Bandar’s Riyadh pool, screaming about the Bush Administration officials who were just then trying to pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him.” Tyler reports that Tenet also “mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration” as “the Jews“:
The US/Israel relationship is one that is in serious need of reform.
In exchange for subsidizing Israel to the tune of Billion$ a year (with no interest and no strings attached) and underwriting various weapons systems that remain exclusive to Israel, and supplying them with munitions whenever they need them for their militaristic adventures the Israelis are exempted from supporting the US militarily (regardless of the cause), do whatever the hell they want, constantly spy inside the US and basically function as an ungrateful and demanding welfare case–Yet no politicians dare to examine just how the hell the US really benefits from this lopsided arrangement.
 
Old December 19th, 2008 #3
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default In Vino Veritas

this is a big deal. CIA kills people without getting caught under color of law. So does Israel. WOuldnt it be interesting if the CIA got tired of a "shitty little country" of 6 million Jews off in Palestine calling the shots for the worlds one remaining superpower, and decided it was time to rub out a few trouble making jews to teach em a lesson. I promise you if John Foster Dulles could have seen the trouble they would cause, he'd have swatted them like flies.

Evidently Tenet did not get the news that the USA govt is "ZOG" and he is supposed to be taking orders from the Jewboys. evidently he thinks he has a right to do his job, and that Jews were trying to start a fucking war and pin the lies on him. Which is true.

What else can you infer? While the USA govt is unduly influenced by Jews, it is NOT owned by them. There IS the possibility of defeating Jews. It starts with naming them.

Like George Tenet did on this occasion. IN VINO VERITAS.
 
Old December 19th, 2008 #4
KMRATHELL
deken
 
KMRATHELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865
KMRATHELL
Default

Quote:
Goldberg says that the book’s prologue contains a “whopper of a scene” featuring former CIA director George Tenet “drunk on scotch, flailing about Prince Bandar’s Riyadh pool, screaming about the Bush Administration officials who were just then trying to pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him.” Tyler reports that Tenet also “mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration” as “the Jews“:
Of course someone would have to be drunk to criticize the Jews
 
Old December 19th, 2008 #5
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMRATHELL View Post
Of course someone would have to be drunk to criticize the Jews
And of course, while he was three sheets to the wind, he was also "flailing about", no doubt in his undersized Speedo, screaming incoherently about the Iraq WMD fiasco...in the pool of a Muslim prince. Tenet has obviously lost his marbles, right?

Jews really are born raconteurs. And my how they love to smother their little smears with a sumptuous gravy of esoteric adjectives, odd adverbs, and unusual verb clauses.

Neoconservatives are really just "the Jews"? What a discredited antisemitic canard.
 
Old December 23rd, 2008 #6
The Barrenness
Angry Shiksa
 
The Barrenness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: the unholy land
Posts: 9,977
The Barrenness
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMRATHELL View Post
Of course someone would have to be drunk to criticize the Jews
They might have to be in a drunken state to gather up the courage they do not have when they are sober, yes.
__________________
http://www.thephora.net/forum

FKA, Hitler Goddess, Starr
 
Old December 23rd, 2008 #7
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr View Post
They might have to be in a drunken state to gather up the courage they do not have when they are sober, yes.
You like the sauce. So does Mel.
 
Old January 20th, 2012 #8
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,900
Serbian
Default

Quote:
The Return of the Smear Bund

Phony charges of "anti-Semitism" are nothing new



by Justin Raimondo, January 20, 2012


The tale of the DC Five – the five Beltway bloggers at two prominent Democratic Washington thinktanks who have been smacked down (and one fired) for being insufficiently pro-Israel – is hardly a shock to those who know their history. But before we get into that, a few details on what is only the latest chapter in the story of how the War Party operates in this country.


The DC Five are Matt Duss, Ali Gharib, Eli Clifton and Zaid Jilani, bloggers at the Center for American Progress group blog, ThinkProgress, and former AIPAC employee MJ Rosenberg who currently writes for Media Matters. The Washington Post details the charges against them:

“The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the White House, is embroiled in a dispute with several major Jewish organizations over statements on Israel and charges that some center staffers have used anti-Semitic language to attack pro-Israel Americans.


“… Among the points of contention are several Twitter posts by one CAP writer on his personal account referring to “Israel-firsters.” Some experts say the phrase has its roots in the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country. In another case, a second staffer described a U.S. senator as showing more fealty to the prime U.S. pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, than to his own constituents, replacing a standard identifier of party affiliation and state with “R-AIPAC” on his personal Twitter account. The first writer has since left the staff.”



The campaign to purge CAP was apparently launched by one Josh Block, an analyst at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a Beltway thinktank whose progressivism is largely measured by their enthusiasm as we “progress” to a state of permanent war. This self-appointed arbiter of political correctness has certain standards we all had better abide by, as he told Politico:


“As a progressive Democrat, I am convinced that on issues as important as the US-Israel alliance and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, there is no room for uncivil discourse or name calling, like ‘Israel Firster or ‘Likudnik’, and policy or political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse. I also believe that when it occurs, progressive institutions, have a responsibility not to tolerate such speech or arguments.”


So let’s get this straight: there is “no room” among those engaging in “civil discourse” to in any way cast doubt on the proposition that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program: to even suggest such a thing is prima facie proof of “anti-Semitism.”


Glenn Greenwald tears this nonsense to pieces here: it’s an admirable piece, rich with detail and electric with indignation, but I have to say I can’t quite get as exercised by all this as Glenn does. After all, smearing opponents of whatever war we’re currently engaged in as “anti-Semites” is hardly a new phenomenon.


Indeed, practically every major war we’ve fought since World War II has witnessed identical accusations hurled at anti-interventionists. Before, during, and even after World War II, opponents of US intervention in the European war were routinely smeared as proponents of Nazism. The antiwar writer and former New Republic columnist John T. Flynn detected a pattern in the activities of the pro-war groups, which were well-funded and relentless: he called them the “Smear Bund” because they specialized in tarring war opponents with the Nazi brush. Right up to today, the biggest antiwar movement in American history – the America First Committee, which had a membership of 800,000 – and which opposed US entry into World War II is widely considered to have been a pro-Nazi anti-Semitic organization, a lie that has long outlived its pro-Communist and pro-British perpetrators.


While opponents of the Korean “police action” and the Vietnam disaster were regularly denounced as pro-Communists and “fellow travelers,” the “anti-Semite” canard gained new currency in the run-up to the first Gulf War. When Patrick J. Buchanan attributed the beating of war drums to “Israel’s amen corner,” he was attacked by both the right and the left as a hate criminal for daring to point out what was patently true: that the pro-Israel lobby in the US was pushing hard for “regime change” in Iraq. The same “Israel first” crowd was leading the charge in the months prior to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, only this time the “anti-Semitic” charge was pushed even harder. Andrew Sullivan claimed The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was being peddled at antiwar demonstrations. As fanatically pro-Israel neoconservatives pushed their war agenda, in part, to “ensure Israel’s position,” as Gen. Anthony Zinni put it, the War Party used the “anti-Semitism” charge as a toxic meme to discredit war opponents.


The Post piece singles out the phrase “Israel-firsters” and a blog post by Eli Clifton entitled “AIPAC’s Iran Strategy on Sanctions Mirrors Mimics Run-Up to Iraq War Tactics” as indicative of the crimes of the DC Five. Attacking a statement from more than 90 US Senators calling for draconian sanctions to be placed on Iraq’s central bank, and the subsequent hailing of this by AIPAC, Clifton noted that such a move would be in itself an act of war:

“But that doesn’t seem to bother AIPAC. Indeed, they’ve been down this sanctions road once before before the invasion of Iraq. In June, Robert Dreyfuss interviewed former AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman who offered details of how its allies in the Bush administration pushed the allegation that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda.”


Let’s stop here, for station identification: Weissman, formerly AIPAC’s top Iran analyst, was indicted along with AIPAC’s top lobbyist, Steve Rosen, for committing espionage against the United States for the benefit of Israel. The duo was busted after not one but two FBI raids on AIPAC’s posh Washington headquarters. However, the case ground to a halt when the defense, in effect, greymailed the government into dropping legal proceedings by insisting on the release of highly classified information as part and parcel of their clients getting a “fair trial.” As it was, there was no trial, and neither Rosen nor Weissman was ever cleared of the charges. The Rosen-Weissman tag team had been milking Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin for all the classified information they could lay their hands on, and funneling it to Israeli government officials: when the FBI came to Franklin’s door, they found a treasure trove of top secret documents in his home going back many years. Sneaking around Washington, the traitorous trio met on dark street corners and held meetings in out of the way restaurants, changing venues regularly for fear of being followed. They were caught anyway, and the FBI – having snagged and “turned” Franklin first – lured the conspirators into a well-laid trap, which was sprung just as the two AIPAC officials thought they were reeling in a really big fish – top secret information promised them by Franklin, who was wearing a wire.


Having established the context, let us proceed with Clifton’s blog post:


“More importantly, Weissman discusses AIPAC’s plans for ultimately bringing regime change in Iran. Dreyfuss writes:

“’Weissman says that Iran was alarmed at the possibility that the United States might engage in overt and covert efforts to instigate opposition inside Iran. He says that many in AIPAC, especially among its lay leadership and biggest donors, strongly backed regime change in Iran. ‘That was what Larry [Franklin] and his friends wanted,’ he says. ‘It included lots of different parts, like broadcasts, giving money to groups that would conduct sabotage, it included bringing the Mojahedin[-e Khalgh], bringing them out of Iraq and letting them go back to Iran to carry out missions for the United States. Harold Rhode backed this…. There were all these guys, Michael Ledeen, ‘Next stop Tehran, next stop Damascus.’

Clifton then goes on to note: “Indeed, as shown in the AIPAC press release, Iran is now the target of similar sanctions and bellicose rhetoric similar to those that targeted Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s.” He also notes AIPAC’s cozy relationship with the Saudis, saying they welcomed sanctions on Iranian oil because it would drive up the price of the Kingdom’s petroleum exports. Weissman recalls:

“Prince Bandar used to send us messages. I used to meet with Adel al-Jubeir a couple times a year. Adel used to joke that if we could force an American embargo on Iranian oil, he’d buy us all Mercedes! Because Saudi [Arabia] would have had the excess capacity to make up for Iran at that time.”


Here we have someone who spied on the US on behalf of Israel giving us the inside scoop on the Israel Lobby’s machinations around the issue of war with Iran. What could be clearer than the testimony of this veteran fifth columnist, who — for whatever reason — has come clean about Israel’s campaign to drag us into war with Iran? This is the real reason for the Israel Lobby’s phony outrage at CAP and its heavy-handed tactics of suppression. They don’t want the American people to know that the Lobby is doing everything in its power to provoke war with Iran – a natural function of its role as the Israeli government’s Washington mouthpiece. Clifton’s citing of Weissman hit a particularly sensitive spot, and that’s no doubt what had the Lobby howling: even mentioning Israel’s extensive covert activities in the US, including aggressive technology theft as well as traditional spying, is considered prima facie evidence of “anti-Semitism” by the Lobby.


Oh, but don’tcha know it’s a hate crime to even use the term “Israel-firster? It is because Eli Lake says so: You see, Eli — prodigy that he is– has traced the terminological origins of this phrase, and discovered that Willis Carto, nut-job extraordinaire, was supposedly the first to use it. So even if you’ve never heard of Carto, and are as Jewish as M.J. Rosenberg, you’re still an “anti-Semite” if you use it. (Naturally Jamie Kirchick, self-proclaimed “homosexual warrior” and lately an “analyst” at the ultra-Likudnik Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, re-tweeted Lake’s “discovery.”)


We aren’t allowed to say Iran gave up its nuclear program in 2003, just like the US intelligence community said in its National Intelligence Estimate on the subject (don’t you know the CIA is full of “anti-Semites”?): we aren’t allowed to say that people who passed classified data to Israeli officials are “Israel-firsters,” not even if they are named Jonathan Pollard. The reason is because these are “toxic” themes which are” corrosive and unacceptable,” according to Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, denounced the writings of the DC Five as “anti-Semitic and borderline anti-Semitic.” Jason Isaacson, of the American Jewish Committee, averred:


“For any serious policy center there are certain lines of fairness and objectivity and good sense that should not be crossed, and yet, disturbingly, those lines have regularly been crossed.”

You’re not Serious if you fail to give Israel and its American partisans a free pass: once you “cross the line,” you’re relegated to the fever swamps of “anti-Semitism” and “extremism” – oh, and by way, the very real extremism of fanatic Zionists is also never to be mentioned by Serious People. Giving this regime of strict thought control an academic imprimatur, the Post article cites one Jeffrey Herf, a historian at the University of Maryland, “who has published books on anti-Semitism” (impressive!) and who says:


The suggestion of Jewish ‘dual loyalty,’ along with the accusation that AIPAC was pushing for war with Iran, hearkened back to the early days of World War II, when certain people accused the U.S. government of entering the war as a response to powerful Jewish interests. ‘This kind of nonsense is all over the place on the Internet,’ Herf said. ‘The fact that some of this is showing up on the Center for American Progress Web site makes it important.’”


Well then, that settles it: we have a college professor who says poor little Israel is being “singled out” for “unfair” and quite possibly bigoted criticism, and is subjected (by bigots) to a standard not applied to other countries. We have Josh Block, who thinks anyone doubting the “evidence” for Iran’s alleged nuke program is a Hitlerite; Abe Foxman, who sees anti-Semites everywhere; and last, but hardly least, Jamie Kirchick, who used to work for – and regularly defend – an editor who routinely compared Arabs to “animals.” All these sterling examples of human virtue and politically correct righteousness are telling the White House it’s time for a purge at the Center for American Progress. And, guess what – they are getting their wish.


The DC Five have been muzzled: CAP management has clamped down on the ThinkProgress blog. You’ll find no more talk of “Israel-firsters” there – because the Israel-firsters don’t want to be identified as such. Being foreign agents, they prefer to operate under cover of night: but they’ll gladly execute their enemies in broad daylight, if need be, in order to make an example.


This they have certainly done in the case of the DC Five: they’ve shown that any thinktank close to the White House must be “purified” of elements whose loyalty to the “special relationship” is in doubt. The White House, according to the Post, was horrified by the reports from the complainers, and no doubt laid down the law to CAP. The Post reports Ken Gude, chief of staff and vice president for CAP, saying:

“We have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or any form of discrimination,” Gude wrote. He said CAP has adopted a new policy requiring staffers to adhere to professional standards on Twitter. In addition, Zaid Jilani, the author of the ‘Israel-firster’ tweets, apologized and left CAP’s staff in recent days to take another job. Jilani could not be reached for comment.”

“Professional standards” = no criticism of Israel. That’s the Washington thinktank rule, and you break it at your peril.


For the Smear Bund, it’s always 1939, and the Eternal Enemy is always “Hitler,” or an unreasonable facsimile thereof. If you oppose their war agenda, then you’re an “anti-Semite,” plain and simple. They been using these tactics for many years– even bending the language to suit their propagandistic purposes.


Where else do you think the term “isolationist” came from? “Anti-Semitism” used to mean hatred of Jews per se, for being Jews: today it has morphed into “disproportionate criticism” of Israel. If you don’t denounce every violent act ever perpetrated by Arabs in the same breath you critique Israel’s policy of subjecting Palestinians to conditions of helotry, then you’re spreading “hatred,” according to the learned Prof. Herf. Whether this means that every criticism of, say, Saddam Hussein’s atrocities ought to have been accompanied by denunciations of war crimes perpetrated by Americans, I’ll leave that as an open question: somehow, however, I suspect that isn’t what Prof. Herf means.


The Smear Bund has always been with us, and it will continue to be there, looking over our shoulder and parsing our words for thought-crimes, unto eternity. Indeed, I expect to hear from them shortly that anyone who advocates peace, under any circumstances, is an “anti-Semite” and a “conspiracy theorist” who deserves to be banished to intellectual Coventry for their crimes.


As we approach a state of war with Iran, this tired old accusation is going to be hauled out and pushed with renewed zeal. The Isra-bots will “argue” that since Iran represents an “existential threat” to Israel’s very existence, anyone who opposes a war with Tehran is calling for a replay of the Holocaust. If you’re for peace, and see no vital US interest in going to war with Iran, well then you’re a “Holocaust-denier.” And, hey, didn’t Willis Carto “invent” the term “Israel-firster”? Why, how dare you advocate a policy of non-intervention – what are you, some kind of Nazi? When the price of oil quadruples as US warplanes bomb Tehran, don’t even think of complaining – unless you want to be tagged as an “anti-Semite.” And if you’re caught wondering what we are doing fighting Israel’s wars, at great cost to our own interests – well then, don’t even think about working for the Center for American Progress, or, indeed, any “serious” thinktank.


Israel’s lobby in the US is reflexively defensive, and covertly authoritarian: they can’t afford to have an open discussion of our “special relationship” with Israel — and Israel’s sick relationship with its Arab helots – and so must resort to silencing their opponents. The case of the DC Five is meant to sow fear among the policy analysts and thinktankers who inhabit the Washington Beltway: “do not cross the line,” they are telling them – and the closer we get to war with Iran, the faster the boundaries of the impermissible are growing. There is a method to this madness: it is a preemptive strike aimed at opponents of US intervention, and on the left as well as the right it is turning out to be quite effective.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...he-smear-bund/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old March 1st, 2012 #9
Ty Grant
Junior Member
 
Ty Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 160
Ty Grant
Default !!!!warning!!!! Posted from a christian site

Charles E. Carlson Feb 29, 2012


A look at American Israeli Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) website, reveals that Israel is selling war at the Washington DC Convention Center on the first week in March. Every front page story is about war against Iran, except one that is against Palestinian statehood. AIPAC is in Washington to get Americans to pay for its war of choice upon its distant neighbor that just happens to produce a great deal of oil.

Our American president will address this foreign lobby. Newt Gingrich and many members of Congress will also be there. Is AIPAC a danger to world peace? Sure it is.

A second danger to world peace is the Christian Zionist churches that are selling their congregations on the need to finance Israel's wars. (1)

Zionist Christianity has some 70 million Americans under its influence; it is AIPAC's trump card. We, who claim to follow Christ, must examine the forces that are deliberately pushing for war; we must know why and how they do it, and we must figure out how we can generate peace else we will be locked into in wars unending. Can't happen? The USA first attacked Iraq 21 years ago! Can we afford AIPAC and Christian Zionism?

We asked our Christian pastor and writer friends in the DC area to name the most influential Zionist Christian mega church. They named Pastor Lon Solomon's McLean Bible Church, located in Vienna, Virginia, about fifteen miles northeast of the Washington Convention Center where AIPAC will meet on Sunday, and where hundreds of protesters calling themselves “Occupy AIPAC” will picket.

But hours earlier on that day, in front of Pastor Solomon’s giant church in Vienna, WHTT"S Project Strait Gate will confront and challenge some 13,000 members of his congregation. We will appeal to the good sense of those congregants, who are being indoctrinated with Zionism and Pastor Solomon's own personal "Messianic Christianity."

Solomon’s congregation members are family oriented, racially mixed, businessmen, academics, and university educated federal employees. His sermons are controlled and moderate, by compare to many. He is awaiting a "rapture" to take him and his congregation to Heaven, but he does not claim earthy health miracle cures, as Bennie Hinn does; he does not pray for war, or, as far as I know, ask his followers to blow Israeli horns at the start of service or sing Jewish ethnic songs, as burlesque- like John Hagee does. * ( Hagee/Hinn)

First and foremost, Pastor Solomon tells everyone he is a Jew who was rescued from a hippy past by Christianity. He preaches against Islam, but he does not scream or demand that his followers burn Qur'an, as Terry Jones in Florida. Pastor Solomon is polished, intelligent, and smooth. He sells Zionist Christianity like Geico sells insurance, with humor and geniality.

Solomon bends the Bible cleverly to his Zionist needs; he teaches that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy; one detects a holy connection. In Solomon’s Zionist Christianity, the political state that is peddling war and controlling America through AIPAC and other lobbies, is the same "tribe of Israel" named after Abraham's grandson three thousand years ago. Lon teaches the land God gave Abraham now belongs to today’s Jews in the state of Israel, never mind the UN mandate in 1948.

The only record of there ever being an "Abraham" is in the book of Genesis, referred to in later books of the Hebrew bible, none of which were written down until a thousand years after Abraham is supposed to have lived. Abraham only exists as a matter of faith in the minds of a billion or so Christians. Christ followers do not require proof he lived, because we do not use the tale to claim the property of others. Only Christian Zionists do that.

Here are a few quotes from one of Solomon's sermon's notes entitled, "The Life of Moses, The Origin of the Jewish People, Gen. 12, 1-9," dated October 16, 2005.

Two major headings of Solomon's sermon notes were:
1. "How the Jewish people came into being"
2. "How the Promised Land became their inheritance"... "the origin of the Jewish People all start with a man named Abraham"

We are told in these few words that the "Jews" of today are the same lineage as those in Abraham's time, and that God gave the land of the Philistines to the present day state of Israel, which Lon assumes are Abraham's "seed."

Solomon continues with six headings listing the promises God made to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12:1-3. The last three are:
"v-3, all the people of the earth will be blessed through you"
"v-7, to your offspring I will give this land"
"v-3, I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."

It is important to note Solomon believes God blessed is imputed to today's political Israel. He does not say why the alleged promises to Abraham and “his seed,” as the King James Bible words it, would accrue to himself or today’s Jews in Palestine. The United Nations divided the land more or less 50-50, but AIPAC and Solomon justify taking the other half by force, based on this "Abrahamic covenant" from Genesis.

Solomon teaches (in his notes) that God's ancient curses and blessings apply to states that did not exist when Abraham, or even Jesus, lived: among those he claims are cursed by God are "the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Philistines, Haman (from the book of Esther) Spain, Russia under the Tzars and Russia under Communism, and Hitler." among the blessed are "Persians, Alexander the Great, and the USA." Needless to say, Solomon did read any of this from the Christian Bible. Note "Philistine" is the Arab word for Palestine.

Solomon claimed God blessed the "Persians," but what he would say today is probably quite different. If Iran is, in fact, "blessed by God," it would be blasphemy for Solomon to join AIPAC in wanting to destroy Iran! But, since Israel wants to bomb Iran and Israel is holy, to Solomon, a preemptive strike by the US or Israel on the people of Iran is justifiable. Solomon must have overcome his former belief that the Iranians are blessed by God. This makes an interesting point, Christian Zionists modify their concepts of history to meet the needs of their sermons; they rewrite history to conform to their ideas of Bible prophesy. Sadly, most would vote to bomb Iran without giving a thought to the human and financial cost.

Solomon and the Israel-first politicians who attend AIPAC conferences to ensure Jewish donations to their campaigns base. Solomon's claim that Jews own the land of the Philistines on Bible revisions, going back to Cyrus Scofield, John Nelson Darby, and others in the evangelical movement in the 19th Century. It is easy to see from reading Lon Solomon's quotes that he gets most of his ideas on Scripture from the Zionist Scofield Reference Bible, 1967 edition, which, on page 19, interprets Genesis 12, in the footnotes nearly word for word those found above in as in his 2005 sermon notes. For instance:

"2) That God made an unconditional promise... to the present day nation of Israel to inherit a specific land territory forever..."
(Therefore the Palestinians have no claim to any land upon which they live)
"3) God made a promise of blessing on individuals and nations who bless Abram's descendants, and a curse laid on those who persecute the Jews..."

There is not a scrap of writing, physical evidence, archeological or DNA evidence that proves “Abraham” was more real than a character in a folk tale. Not one delegate at AIPAC can prove a drop of blood or strand of DNA in common with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Joseph, etc. Israeli scholars, including Professor Shlomo Sands, in "The Invention of the Jewish People," join those of us with simple common sense in saying there is no connection between biblical Israel and today’s state of Israel, 2-3000 years apart. Pastor Solomon’s legitimization of AIPAC and Israeli land theft makes him dangerous to every Palestinian child who wants to grow up free and to every member of his congregation that might have become a follower of Jesus, the Peacemaker, instead.

Traditional Christianity abhors wars and killing and respects legal and just property rights. The words of Jesus tell us over and over again that: Christ is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and Jesus does not share that throne with Israel or the USA or any other man-made government or God; land changes hands by acts of men (some of whom are violent), and God is not in the real estate business; Jesus said he would judge each man, never did He say he would judge countries, tribes, states, or churches, and finally, Jesus is a peacemaker, never a warmaker.

Christ Following is Jesus teaching plus the first 10 commandments. Jesus said added only one more,"Love your brother...even your enemy." We do not enjoy hard evidence to prove it, belief comes only from faith, which is why it is called a "faith."

Lon Solomon claims to be both a Jew and a Christian. If he lived in Israel today as a Christian, could other Jews kick him out of his home as they do to Palestinian Christians when they want his land for a "settlement"? Or if he lived as an ethnic Jew, could he invoke the Abrahamic covenant, claim to be the "seed" of Abraham, and kick out Christians who happen to be Arabs? Which would Pastor Solomon choose to be, a Jew or a Christian? Both? In fact one can not be both in Gods kingdom any more than you can be both in AIPAC'S Kingdom.

"Messianic" or Jewish Christians, are the the ultimate Christians Zionist. As Caesar Aharon, a Jew by history, and a true Christ follower once said, "Messianic Jews run churches whose attendees are largely Christian, and who are slowly converted to a form of Judaism." He might have said "convert to Christians Zionism", but the term was not in wide use then.

Pastor Solomon writes in The Life of Moses, The Origin of the Jewish People, dated October 16, 2005, that God cursed a man called Haman. He is found in he Hebrew book of Esther, which is the basis of the Jewish celebration of Purim. But the name of God is not even mentioned in the book of Esther, and the celebration of Purim celebrates the "Jewish" murder by hanging of Haman and his 12 sons. What civilized people would hang the children of an enemies. Judaism fashions a national holiday around the event?

The book of Esther and the celebration of Purim is good reason to understand why Talmudic Judaism plus Jesus does not equal Christianity, as Messianic Christian like Lon Solomon would have us believe. Instead, Judaism is corrupted Israelite-ism, which is what Jesus said and why Christ Followers believe God sent Jesus. It is corrupted by 30 or 40 books called the Talmud, with thousands of rules no one person can understand.

Traditional Christianity is also corrupted by the 1908 Scofield Reference Bible footnotes, and by many other books written by various men. Can two wrongs combined make a right? Corrupted "Israelite-ism" plus corrupted "Christianity," as combined in the Messianic Christian church by Pastor Solomon, can not produce truth. This is why Project Strait Gate is challenging McLean Bible Church on Sunday, March 4.

A recent Poll by The Hill found that 49% of Americans who are likely to vote, think war on Iran is justifiable to keep it from getting nukes; all AIPAC has to do is convince a majority that Iran is trying to get fuel for nuclear weapons, and war against Iran will have the support of a simple majority. Who are these warring 49%? You may depend upon this: the majority is influenced by hundreds of Christian Zionists like Lon Solomon.
 
Old December 19th, 2008 #10
Brian Foley
Member
 
Brian Foley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Top End Australia
Posts: 282
Brian Foley
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
I promise you if John Foster Dulles could have seen the trouble they would cause, he'd have swatted them like flies.
" The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes. "

Harry S. Truman 1947 Diary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
What else can you infer? While the USA govt is unduly influenced by Jews, it is NOT owned by them. There IS the possibility of defeating Jews. It starts with naming them.
I think the Jews are self defeating , this credit crisis has sapped billions from the war chest , influencing dead beat politicians from now on will become a lot harder .
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMRATHELL View Post
Of course someone would have to be drunk to criticize the Jews
Yeah , in their own minds how could anyone complain , besides who would listen .........
 
Old December 22nd, 2008 #11
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Foley View Post
"
I think the Jews are self defeating , this credit crisis has sapped billions from the war chest , influencing dead beat politicians from now on will become a lot harder . ......
No problem, its dollars sapped from the Goyim war chest, goy dead. Cost Jews very little.

Anyhow, Uncle Schmuely can just print more money right? Its not like theres anything backing it besides his promise to tax us more.

Inflation will hit sooner or later like a tsunami folks, remember that.
 
Old December 13th, 2012 #12
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,900
Serbian
Default

Congress Pushes Massive Increase in US Funding for Israeli Anti-Missile System

Senators Claim Funding 'Critical to American Interests'


by Jason Ditz, December 13, 2012

Print This | Share This


Nothing makes a budget grow faster than trying to out “pro-Israel” each other. That’s the lesson of today’s story on how Congress continues to grow funding for Israel’s Iron Dome system at a time when the system’s effectiveness is in serious doubt.

The initial proposal from President Obama was $210 million in funding. To prove they are even more pro-Israel, the Senate made it $420 million, insisting it is “critical to American interests.”

Did the Senate win? Not so fast, as the House is now recommending $680 million. Senators are now pushing to at least match if not exceed the House’s funding.The money is in addition to the $3.1 billion in foreign military aid already planned to send to Israel.

The extremely expensive Iron Dome system was initially scrapped by the IDF as impractical, but was eventually fully funded by the US. Israel has talked up the possibility of exporting it to other nations, but experts say the claimed success rate is dramatically overstated and the system probably doesn’t work nearly as well as it is being hyped.


http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/13/c...issile-system/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #13
Jack Black
Member
 
Jack Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 308
Jack Black
Default Israel is Getting Away with Murder!

On 12 January 2009, The New York Times reported thus:

Quote:
In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.

'I said, ‘GET ME PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE PHONE,’ Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon...

'They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I DIDN’T CARE: ‘I NEED TO TALK TO HIM NOW,’ Mr. Olmert continued.

'HE GOT OFF THE PODIUM AND SPOKE TO ME'...

Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, THE PRESIDENT CALLED MS. RICE AND TOLD HER TO ABSTAIN.

'She was left pretty embarrassed,' Mr. Olmert said.
On 13 January 2009, a fuller version of the Israeli Prime Minister's "rebuke" was provided by The Press Trust of India.

Olmert said:

Quote:
Early Friday morning, the secretary of state was considering bringing the ceasefire resolution to a UNSC vote and WE DIDN'T WANT HER TO VOTE FOR IT. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead... I said, 'GET PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE PHONE.' They tried, and told me that he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I'M NOT INTERESTED, I NEED TO SPEAK TO HIM NOW!

He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I TOLD HIM THAT THE US CANNOT POSSIBLY VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESOLUTION. HE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND TOLD HER NOT TO VOTE FOR IT.
A little of Olmert's Ashkelon speech may be seen below:


On 13 January 2009, the Israeli historian and Oxford University professor, Avi Shlaim, said this on Channel 4 News:

Quote:
The current offensive in Gaza is the climax of the Israeli tendency to shun diplomacy and compromise and to rely overwhelmingly on BRUTE MILITARY FORCE.

The key to Israel’s intransigence in the conflict is UNCRITICAL AMERICAN SUPPORT. Today ISRAEL IS, GETTING AWAY, LITERALLY, WITH MURDER IN GAZA because there is no restraint from America. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN LESS AMERICAN RESTRAINT ON ISRAEL IN THE HISTORY OF THIS TRAGIC CONFLICT.

One recent example of THIS BLIND AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL is the Security Council cease-fire resolution which CONDOLEEZA RICE SUPPORTED, MADE A SPEECH IN FAVOUR and everyone thought America was going to vote for it and yet, AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUSH AND CHENEY VETOED, didn’t veto the resolution but AMERICA ABSTAINED! THAT SENT A CLEAR SIGNAL TO ISRAEL THAT IT CAN CONTINUE WITH THIS INSANE OFFENSIVE.

The only thing that might change is American public opinion, as a result of EXCESSIVE ISRAELI BRUTALITY, gradually changing and that would weaken the power of the Israel lobby in Washington and eventually it might have an effect on American foreign policy towards the region…

Here is the crucial point, this is an unnecessary and illegal war because in June of, in July of last year Egypt brokered a cease-fire. The cease-fire succeeded. THE CEASE-FIRE WAS A STUNNING SUCCESS, CONTRARY TO ISRAELI PROPAGANDA. Before cease-fire came into effect, 170 KASSAM ROCKETS A MONTH WERE FIRED FROM GAZA ON ISRAEL After the cease-fire came into effect, for the next 4 months THE NUMBER DROPPED TO 3 A MONTH. Again CONTRARY TO ISRAEL’S PROPAGANDA, IT WAS NOT HAMAS THAT BROKE THE CEASE-FIRE, IT WAS ISRAEL WHO BROKE THE CEASE-FIRE BY LAUNCHING A RAID INTO GAZA AND KILLING SIX HAMAS MEN.
Mr Shlaim's testimony may be seen below:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid7045912001

"Getting away with murder"?

"Blind American support for Israel"?

"Excessive Israeli brutality"?

"Insane offensive".


It's not just us saying it, is it?

By 14 January 2009, 19 days after the Israelis began bombing the city, 1,013 Palestinians, more than 300 of them children, had been killed in Gaza.

4,500 people had been injured, 1,600 of them children.

3 Israeli civilians and 10 soldiers had lost their lives during the conflict.

3 of those soldiers were killed by Israeli tank fire.

During the course of the confict, Israel's President, Shimon Peres, has said this:

Quote:
Many Palestinian children are being been killed. Almost no Israeli children are being killed. Why?

BECAUSE WE TAKE CARE OF OUR CHILDREN!
Peres forgot to mention that the Palestinians are not blowing Israel's children to bits with F111 warplanes, helicopter gunships, tanks, a well-equipped army and all the up-to-date technology the American taxpayer's money can buy.

Which might conceiveably have made a bit of a difference in the sums.

Check out The Murderer, the Rapist, the Bully here:

http://www.iamanenglishman.com/page....iParentId=1192

And The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields here:

http://www.iamanenglishman.com/page....iParentId=1192
 
Old January 16th, 2009 #14
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

I can say from personal experience, being able to demand that someone take your phone call immediately is the sure sign of a boss-subordinate relationship.
 
Old December 6th, 2009 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,357
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

ha'aretz admits potential US government employees are vetted for pro-israel views
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=104656
 
Old February 27th, 2011 #16
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,900
Serbian
Default

Quote:
The Veto from Hell

by Philip Giraldi, February 24, 2011


Last Friday’s American veto of the United Nations Security Council resolution that would have called Israeli settlement activity on the West Bank illegal was not only shameful, it was possibly the low point of the already foundering Obama presidency. To be sure, United States UN Ambassador Susan Rice accompanied the veto with a stirring rendition of "I’ll cry tomorrow" as she described how the Obama White House really is opposed to the settlements. Really. Rice argued that supporting or even abstaining on a resolution criticizing Israel, however mildly framed, might setback the peace process, which, as she well knows, died completely over six months ago. But let’s not get hung up on the details. Rice should have said instead that her boss in the White House is so afraid of the Israel Lobby that he has to ask permission when he goes to the bathroom. At least that would have been completely credible, something you can believe in from an Administration that has otherwise delivered squat to the many voters who supported Obama in hopes that he might actually be interested in peace in our times.

And Obama has a lot to be afraid of, mostly from the old knife in the back trick from the Israel boosters in his own party. "This is too clever by half," said Representative Anthony Weiner. "Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the UN." Representative Nita Lowey agreed, "Compromising our support for Israel at the UN is not an option."

And over at the GOP side of the House, shortly before the veto, the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen criticized the resolution: "Support for this anti-Israel statement is a major concession to enemies of the Jewish State and other free democracies. Offering to criticize our closest ally at the UN isn’t leadership, it’s unacceptable." And just to make sure that Israel will have the money to expand its settlements, last Wednesday sixty-seven freshmen Republican House members sent a letter to their party’s leadership supporting full funding of aid to Israel. The letter cited the lawmakers’ "recognition that the national security of the United States is directly tied to the strength and security of the State of Israel."

Nice one, Anthony, Nita, Ileana and all those new congressmen who were elected because they promised to do some budget cutting, but I don’t detect anything about what the American national interest might be, just a bit of nonsense about "support for Israel," "our closest ally," and even more ridiculous bleating about how arming Israel makes America safer. In fact, none of you even mentioned the United States. Excuse me, I thought you dudes were serving in the US Congress, not the Knesset, but I might be wrong about that.

And lest anyone go wobbly on support of Israel there was the usual media claque screaming outrage because Rice had dared to criticize the settlements policy even though she was casting the veto. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post put it nicely "The US representative, while reluctantly casting a veto, joined the pack of jackals that seek to make Israel the culprit for all that ills (sic) the Middle East."

For those who have been asleep a la Rip van Winkle for the past twenty years, let us recap what has been going on in this country. There is an extremely dangerous domestic enemy out there, and it isn’t the naturalized Muslims that the redoubtable Congressman Peter King is investigating. It is an organization that calls itself the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. AIPAC is the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington, by far. It was founded in the 1950s with the support of the Israeli Foreign Ministry to create an organization that would lobby for sustained American financial, diplomatic, and military support of Israel, but, curiously, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA, which would require full public disclosure of finances – details of income and expenditures – as well as periodic reports on the nature of the relationship between the organization and the foreign government in question.

AIPAC is the focal point of the Israel Lobby in the United States. On its website it describes itself as "America’s pro-Israel lobby." It is located in Washington DC but has branches nationwide, has a budget of $70 million a year, and has several hundred full time employees. It hosts an annual conference, this year in May, which attracts 6000 supporters and is a required stop for politicians and civic leaders from both parties, all attending to pledge their support for Israel. Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, and congressional leaders all have spoken at the AIPAC conference. Hundreds of congressmen regularly attend its sessions. During the past two years the conference was focused on the issue of Iran as a threat to Israel and the world.

AIPAC wants the United States to have only one true friend in the world and that friend will be Israel. That means that uncritically supporting Israeli interests has sidelined American foreign policy objectives and led to at least one war, against Iraq, in which thousands of Americans and some hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died. If AIPAC is successful in its desire to convince Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem by force if necessary, it could lead to another war that almost certainly would have catastrophic global consequences.

The point of all this is that AIPAC is why the UN veto took place. AIPAC and its friends own Congress, the White House, and the mainstream media in its reporting on the Middle East. They are also powerful enough to set policy or overturn initiatives that they disapprove of. AIPAC operates by forcing all American politicians at a national level to respond to various positions supported by the Israel Lobby. Congressional candidates are carefully screened for their views on the Middle East and are coached to modify positions that are regarded as unacceptable. Those who pass the test are then vetted on their degree of reliability and, if approved, become recipients of good press from AIPAC’s friends in the media and cash contributions from the numerous PACs that have been set up to support the pro-Israel agenda. Once in office, the politicians are bombarded with AIPAC position papers, with visits from AIPAC representatives, and are expected to conform completely to the positions taken by the organization. That is why resolutions in Congress relating to Israel generally receive nearly unanimous approval no matter how frivolous or injurious to the US national interest. AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen once bragged that he could get the signatures of seventy senators on a napkin if he chose to do so.

AIPAC’s influence over Congress and the White House is such that the centerpiece policy of successive US administrations, the so-called peace process with the Palestinians, has been essentially fraudulent. Even though it is undeniably in the US national interest to broker some kind of peace agreement, Washington has instead never failed to lean heavily towards the Israeli point of view. The recent discussion of developments in Egypt has frequently been framed in terms of what it means for Israel even though the proper line of inquiry for the US media and politicians should be what does it mean for the United States. Other instances of AIPAC-supported policies that have damaged US interests have been the acceptance of occupations of and attacks on Lebanon, the acquiescence in the January 2009 bombing of Gaza, opposition to the Goldstone Report, and silence over last year’s Mavi Marmara incident in which a US citizen was killed. By taking positions that are lopsided and ultimately untenable, Washington’s hypocrisy has been visible to the entire world and has rightfully done much to fuel mistrust of American policies in general.

Why do office seekers and congressmen put up with the pressure? It is because they know that crossing AIPAC frequently means that the media will turn sour, funding will dry up, and a well-resourced candidate will suddenly appear in opposition at the next election. Ask Congressmen Paul Findley and Pete McCloskey or Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy, all of whom were perceived as critics of Israel and all of whom were forced from office in exactly that fashion. Opposing AIPAC can be a political death wish.

Even the appointment of senior government officials to positions that in any way deal with the Middle East is subject to the AIPAC veto. The blackballing of the highly qualified and outspoken Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council was orchestrated by AIPAC and its friends in Congress because Freeman had been critical of Israeli policies. Candidates for Director of Central Intelligence and Director of National Intelligence regularly have their resumes examined to determine how they stand on the Middle East.

So if we Americans are ever to regain control over our destinies we have to start by removing the poison from our body politic. A good start would be by first registering and then marginalizing AIPAC and any other organizations like it that represent pernicious foreign interests. It would also be nice to send Weiner, Lowey, Ros-Lehtinen, and the 67 GOP freshmen representatives who want to keep shoveling money to Israel packing in the next election. And also Obama and Susan Rice since they don’t appear to know what country they live in. We really don’t need their kind of hyphenated patriotism anymore and we certainly don’t need vetoes at the UN that demonstrate to everyone that we are a nation of amoral hypocrites.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/...eto-from-hell/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old March 10th, 2011 #17
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,900
Serbian
Default

The J Street Scam

by Philip Giraldi, March 10, 2011

J Street is seductive. Americans have been bombarded with propaganda about Israel ever since the foundation of the country over sixty years ago. More recently, the United States has been designated by the media and the chattering classes as the protector of the Jewish state with little regard for those actions undertaken by Tel Aviv that impact negatively on US interests. This is because the Israel Lobby is the most powerful foreign lobby in the United States by far. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has become the ugly side of the Lobby, has rightly drawn criticism for its bullying tactics and its alignment with extreme right-wing parties in Israel. Progressives and some conservatives in the United States who support Israel as a homeland for the world’s Jews have been eager to find a more respectable alternative lobby. That alternative is J Street.

J Street, which recently completed its third annual conference in Washington, is a self-proclaimed kinder and gentler advocate of Israeli interests. It favors peace on equitable terms with the Palestinians and also with Israel’s Arab neighbors. It opposes expansion of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank because they are an obstacle to peace. It calls itself "pro-Israel, pro-American, and pro-peace." If one judges by the enemies it has attracted, including nearly all leading neoconservatives, J Street has to be considered a breath of fresh air and the best option for sustainable peace in the Middle East.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? But somehow the parts don’t quite add up. J Street really only differs from AIPAC in tone, not in substance. It advocates continued and unlimited United States support for Israel, militarily, economically, and politically. J Street wants Israel to have an overwhelming military advantage over its Arab neighbors and it wants that margin to be provided by Washington. It wants Republicans and Democrats together to provide political cover for Israel when it attacks Lebanon or bombs the Gazans. It does not object when Israel exercises a military option against its neighbors. In spite of the fact that the United States is in deep trouble economically while Israel is one of the richest countries in the world and is enjoying an economic boom, J Street was one of the first organizations to complain when Senator Rand Paul called for an end to all foreign aid.

J Street also believes that Israel is and should be a Jewish state with unlimited right of "return" for Jews from anywhere in the world and no such rights for Christians or Muslims who lived in the country before 1948. A Jewish state, by definition, would have limited rights for the 20% and growing segment of the current Israeli population that is Christian or Muslim. J Street quixotically supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, even though it knows that the half million Israeli Jews living in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank cannot be moved and will make two states impossible. It does not accept a one-state solution, the only one likely to work, that would make the followers of all religions equal citizens in a unified state embracing both Arabs and Jews. J Street’s Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami has called a one-state solution a "nightmare."

J Street seems a lot better than AIPAC, but much of what it advocates sounds familiar. Ben-Ami has criticized the highly acclaimed John Mearsheimer-Stephen Walt book on the Israel Lobby for its scholarship and refers to the authors as anti-Semites. J Street opposed Israel’s bloody incursion into Gaza, but only because it was disproportionate, and then rejected the UN’s Goldstone report that detailed the war crimes that were committed. When Israeli commandoes killed nine Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara ship trying to break the blockade of Gaza, J Street mourned the loss of life but blamed the victims for deliberately "using the media coverage to further damage Israel’s standing in world opinion." J Street supports military action against Iran as a "last resort" to incapacitate the country’s nuclear program and denies to Tehran the right to enrich uranium for any purpose.

Supporters of J Street claim that its positions will become more nuanced as its influence grows, but one of the panels at the just-concluded convention debated "Is the Settlement Enterprise Destroying Israel’s Democracy?" One might well ask why there was a question mark at the end since it is well documented that the settlements bring with them every imaginable evil. Fifteen months ago, J Street sponsored a speaking tour by an Israeli general Danny Rothschild who was advocating a two-state solution with the Palestinians. He made the rounds in Washington arguing that demographics and common sense dictate that Israel must come to some kind of settlement. But then, he added, there is "Islamofascism" and also Iran, genuine threats that must be dealt with by force. So what was the real message, peace with the Palestinians (on Israel’s terms, it might be added), or expand the war against extremism while bombing Iran?

But the real problem with J Street is that it exists at all. Why should there be a new and powerful lobby in Washington composed of American citizens arguing for a special relationship with any country? Why should the United States be providing unlimited support to a nation that claims to be a democracy but which limits rights based on religion? If J Street truly wants to fix Israel it should be working in Israel, not in the United States, because the settlers and hardline right-wing parties are Israeli problems. J Street knows perfectly well that Congress, the White House, and the media will not challenge the Israel status quo so, at best, it is a bit of scam designed to support Israel while making progressives feel more comfortable in lining up behind the effort.

The United States already has too many special interest lobbies promoting policies that do absolutely nothing good for the American people. If Israel has become a rogue state, which it has, the problem must be resolved by the Israelis themselves and the diaspora Jews who believe that they have a stake in the outcome. If the latter really want to have an impact, they should turn in their US passports and move to Israel. From the American perspective, which should be the only one that matters to US citizens, the best policy for the United States is to disengage from the Arab-Israel conflict, not to become even more deeply involved from another, slightly more palatable perspective offered by J Street.

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/...j-street-scam/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old March 30th, 2012 #18
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

James Abourezk: Tales of the Israel Lobby: Threats, Dershowitz, & Embedded Lobbyists



James Abourezk represented South Dakota in Congress from 1971 to 1979. CNI asked Senator Abourezk about his experiences with the Israel Lobby. In his first response he told of an Israeli plot to assassinate him. In this column he discusses threats to his family, Alan Dershowitz, and Israeli lobbyists embedded in the U.S. State Department:

When I was Chairman of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC), we had two bombing incidents. I had no idea who was responsible, but I had a guess.

Someone unknown placed a bomb in the doorway of ADC’s Boston headquarters. The staff there called the Boston police, who came and were in the process of disarming the pipe bomb that they found there. If I recall correctly, the police had put the bomb in a metal barrel, and it exploded in the face of one of the police officers, seriously injuring him. We all felt terrible about the policeman being injured and we tried as best we could to console his family. The whole incident was covered by a Boston TV station, and I assume they still have the footage of the explosion on file.

At around the same time, someone unknown firebombed the ADC headquarters in Washington, D.C. I was out of town at the time, but no one was hurt, and I was able to get back in time to accompany the arson expert with the D.C. police department, who showed us exactly where the bomb was thrown and how the fire had spread from that point.

Because we were all gripped with fear of what might be next, I decided to tighten up the security on my home, if nothing more than to calm down my family. I had bought a Rottweiler dog sometime earlier both for protection of my family and of our home. I learned that Rottweilers would automatically attack anyone who came near our home, unless we had introduced the dog to person visiting. I had a security expert—someone who had once worked as a Secret Service agent in the White House—make recommendations to insure that we would be a difficult target for someone who would wish us harm. We followed his advice and made the house a bit more invulnerable. He also told us that it would be impossible to make any home 100 per cent safe, but we could make it so a potential bomber would be discouraged enough to give up trying.

I also hired a 24 hour guard for the house. The first night the guard, a young man wearing a blue blazer and armed with a weapon situated himself inside, near the front door. At one point during the night, he ran upstairs to our bedrooms and shouted that there was something making noises outside. I suggested that, since he had the gun, that he should check it out, but he wanted me to go with him. So I dressed, took the Rottweiler with me on a leash and the guard and I did a search around the house. Finding nothing we went back in. The guard spent the rest of the night immediately outside my bedroom door, I suspect more frightened that I was, and the next day, I fired the security service.

After the bombing of the ADC headquarters in Washington, I was still extremely nervous about what might happen, but I put on my brave face and held a press conference, announcing to the world that “we would not be intimidated” by these kind of terrorists, and that we were going to work harder than ever to bring justice to the Palestinians and others in the Middle East who were victims of Israel’s aggression. But I honestly had a hard time staying calm and preventing myself from running out of the room to find a safe place to hide.

What Has Been Your Experience with Alan Dershowitz?

I remember Alan Dershowitz, not as a Harvard Law Professor, but as the person who wrote an op-ed column in one of our national newspapers in which he said that Palestinians need not worry about justice in the Occupied Territories, as the Israeli Supreme Court would always make certain that they were fairly treated. I’ve been reading Mondoweiss online, which has a daily list of Palestinians whose homes are leveled by U.S.-made bulldozers, of land outright stolen by Israeli settlers for the use of the settlers, most of whom come from the United States to live in the West Bank. I know that Dershowitz’s words about the Israeli Supreme Court are a great comfort to those Palestinians in the West Bank who have been killed, maimed, and their property stolen.

A few short years ago when I was in Damascus, I did an interview on Al Manar Television, which is Hizbollah’s channel in Lebanon. During the interview I mentioned that Alan Dershowitz was a “snake.”

There is a pro-Israeli group here in the U.S. which calls itself “MEMRI” which tapes television shows broadcast in the Middle East. They had taped my interview, which I suppose is where Alan Dershowitz heard about my description of him. He thereupon wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post in which he called me an “anti-Semite.” That slur is the favorite of Pro-Israeli Lobbyists and it works a lot of the time, often succeeding in silencing critics of Israel or of its policies.

Later, when I was invited to speak to the ADC gathering in Washington honoring Helen Thomas, who was herself the target of the same anti-semite smear, I spoke about Dershowitz’s attempt to silence me by calling me an anti-Semite. I told the audience at that dinner that anti-semitism means that the person charged disliked Jews as Jews. I further said that I do not dislike Jews, but I only disliked Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman, the head of the B’nai B’rith, and that my dislike of them had nothing to do with anti-semitism, but with how they operated.

My speech that night was later published on the Counterpunch site, which prompted the ever vigilant Dershowitz, after he had read the speech, to vehemently deny that he had labeled me an anti-semite. The co-editor of Counterpunch, Alex Cockburn, somehow located the old Jerusalem Post column written by Dershowitz, and there it was, plain as day, with him very cleverly saying about me that, when it comes to anti-semitism, “if the shoe fits, wear it.”

Here is the relevant portion of Alexander Cockburn’s column, quoting Dershowitz:

“In his [CounterPunch] article entitled ‘Honoring Helen Thomas’ dated November 22, 2010, James Abourezk makes the following statement:

‘I once called Alan Dershowitz a snake on Al Manar television. Al Manar is Hezbollah’s news channel in Lebanon. When he found out what I had said, he wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post, calling me an anti-Semite.’

[That] is a lie. Here is a link to my article to which he refers. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-d...tml?view=print) I challenge him to find the term ‘anti-Semite’ in the article. I also challenge your readers to read the article and judge Abourezk’s credibility. Now I will characterize Abourezk: He is a liar.”

Cockburn went on:

“I duly clicked on the Huffington Post link thoughtfully provided by prof. Dershowitz and indeed, there is no use of the term ‘anti-Semite’ in the column by the noted Harvard law professor, published on September 21, 2007. But since the prof. is a notoriously slippery fellow, I put a couple of sentences from that same column into the google search engine, pressed button A and, hey presto, up came the same Sep 21, 2007 Dershowitz column, printed that same day on the site of the United Jewish Foundation. And lo! there was a final paragraph, omitted from the Huffpost version. Here it is.

‘Well maybe former Senator Abourezk isn’t so different from the late Senator Bilbo after all. He uses the word ‘Zionist’ in precisely the same bigoted way Bilbo used ‘kike.’ [Huffington Post version ends here.]

‘It is true that not all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but just because it is anti-Zionist does not mean it is not also anti-Semitic. If the shoe fits…’ (C2007 FrontPageMagazine.com 09/21/07).

“Anti-Semite”… “anti-Semitic” … A minute difference on which the slippery prof. would no doubt try to hang his hat, but to any impartial observer it’s plain enough that Abourezk’s memory is true. Dershowitz was sliming the former distinguished Senator from South Dakota as an anti-Semite. It’s maybe why Huffington Post dropped the final paragraph as libelous, unless Dershowitz reserved the slime for the version he sent FrontPageMagazine which, the vigilant reader will have noted, was credited as its source by the United Jerusalem Foundation.”

And here is my response to Alex after he found the “anti-semite” article:

Alex:

Dershowitz is neither a good lawyer nor a good liar. He is trying to slither out of what has become nearly a full time occupation–that of branding any criticism of Israel as coming from someone who hates Jews. That does not work on me, as I’m secure in my anti-racist feelings. I’ve had any number of Zionists who are devoid of any reasonable argument throw the anti-semitism charge at me. Sorry, but it doesn’t work, and Dershowitz is not clever enough to make the "shoe fit" no matter how hard he tries. Does he think that pointing to an incomplete article reprinted in Huffington Post will do the trick? Obviously he does, which makes his lie even more prominent. That’s a trick that even a first year law student would be smart enough not to try. He’s been caught lying and no amount of his flailing about will make that vanish. I hadn’t realized that it would be that easy getting a job teaching law at Harvard. Had I been younger, armed with this knowledge I would have applied for the job.

Jim Abourezk

I guess my failing in this episode was not to apologize to the snakes.

We’ve heard nothing from Dershowitz since that time, but he’s still out there somewhere, apologizing for Israel’s dirty deeds.

Letters of 76 Senators

When Gerald Ford was President and Henry Kissinger was his Secretary of State, the two decided, during U.S. backed peace talks to bring Israel around to U.S. thinking by withholding American aid to Israel. That effort ended quickly when 76 U.S. Senators signed an AIPAC drafted letter to President Ford containing a thinly veiled threat to Mr. Ford if he continued to withhold military aid to Israel. The letter prompted President Ford to give in to the Lobby’s demand and to resume aid to Israel.

What happened leading up to the publication of the letter in the U.S. press is an interesting story. I had dinner with one Senator—who shall go unnamed here—the night before the letter was released to the press. He told me that he had no intention of signing it.

The next day, when the letter appeared in the Washington Post his name was on the list, I asked my friend what had happened.

“Jim, I received phone call after phone call all during the day yesterday, calls from people who had gone beyond just supporting me in my election, but people—lawyers, doctors, professional people and businessmen—who had interrupted their careers to work in my campaign. I couldn’t say no to them, which is why you saw my name on the letter.”

Later, in the Senate cloakroom, a number of us were standing together, talking about the letter. Ted Kennedy spoke first. “I knew that’s what would happen when I was approached to sign the letter, and I don’t like it at all. We should, next time, get together before signing such a letter, and all of us say no at the same time.” What Kennedy was referring to was the Israeli Lobby’s practice of picking off the Senators by going to one Senator, saying, “Senator So- and-so has signed, and you’d better not be the only potential presidential candidate not on the letter.” They would then go to Senator So-and-so and say the same thing. Ultimately, all of the leading Senators—especially those who wanted to run for President—would put their signature on the letter.

Kennedy’s statement was what spurred me to say something, during a mini-debate I had with Hyman Bookbinder before a section of the D.C. Bar Association’s meeting in D.C. We were promoting a book we had written together as a debate on the Middle East—Through Different Eyes—and I mentioned that Senators would cheer on Israel in public but would bad mouth both Israel and the Lobby in private. One lawyer raised his hand and asked, “name just one U.S. Senator who would do that.”

I said, simply, “Ted Kennedy,” hoping he was politically strong enough to resist the Lobby’s counter-attack.

Two or three days later, Ted Kennedy called me and said, “Abourezk, what the hell have you done to me?” I guess Ted had underestimated his own political strength, or at least, did not want any of it diluted in a tiff over the Middle East. And he for sure did not want to spend his time defending himself from the Israeli Lobby.

Getting help from the lobby

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1948, at age 17, immediately after I graduated from High School. After training in San Diego, I was ordered to Japan to become a member of the occupation. I was stationed on quasi-shore duty in Japan, actually aboard a non-propulsion barracks ship tied up in the heart of Tokyo, on the Sumida River. The ship was essentially the barracks for members of the Admiral’s staff. Early on in my tour there, the Kodokan Judo University in Tokyo sent a few Judo instructors to our ship in order to recruit students for their Judo school. The delegation included the then world champion, Ishikawa-san, and a slightly built man in his eighties, named “never fall Mifune.” We converted a large empty cabin on the ship into a Judo room, with mats on the metal floors to break our falls.

There I learned the essence of the art of Judo—using your opponent’s strength and momentum against him in order to win.

That lesson was very useful in helping me get a Committee assignment I wanted while in the Senate. When North Carolina’s celebrated Senator Sam Ervin retired from the Senate after masterfully chairing the Senate Watergate Committee, I decided to try for his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Jim Allen, from Alabama, also decided to try for the seat. But he was senior to me so it was obvious to everyone that I had an uphill battle.

With the lessons I learned studying Judo in mind, I caught David Brody, one of the Israeli Lobbyists, in the corridor, telling him that I was trying for the Judiciary Committee seat that Sam Ervin was vacating. I casually mentioned that if I didn’t get on Judiciary, I would then try for Foreign Relations. That, I knew, would get his attention.

Although I never saw any evidence of the Lobby’s actions, even though Allen was senior to me, I surprisingly got the most votes from the Senate Steering Committee, which makes Committee assignments. So I later thanked Dave Brody for his help, but he never acknowledged that he had done the job.

Embedded Lobbyists.

It is difficult to describe how deep into the U.S. Government the Israel Lobby is embedded, but occasionally signs of the depth of its penetration become obvious. I can cite two instances where it was more than obvious.

I received a call one day from a career State Department diplomat, someone I had met during a trip I had made to the Middle East. He was my “control officer” when I was in Egypt on that trip, the diplomat whose job it was to stay with me during my stay there.

His call came out of the blue, at least two or three years after having met him in Cairo. He sounded both desperate and frantic, telling me he had to come to my apartment to talk to me about something.

When we met, he was totally different than when I had met him in Cairo, then a very suave professional diplomat. The day he came to my apartment he was both nervous and frantic, telling me that someone had to do something about the Israeli Lobby. They were “everywhere” in the State Department, he said, leaning on anyone who had anything to do with the Middle East. By that, he explained, he had witnessed both Lobby representatives and Israeli officials working over U.S. diplomats in every kind of setting, that is, he saw them doing so in restaurants, in State Department offices, virtually everywhere. All he wanted to do, he said, was to stop it, and he didn’t know how. I had to confess that I didn’t either.

I’m not certain that anyone in Washington, D.C. knows the total amount of money and favors our government gives to Israel, largely due to its Lobby. Aside from the several billions of dollars in aid that goes from our Treasury to Israel, there are a great number of top secret contracts that we sign with the Israeli government that could not stand the light of day should they be disclosed. I do remember that our taxpayers funded the “Arrow” air defense system Israel has now to deter incoming rockets and missiles.

I also knew about Israeli Aircraft Industries having an office at the airport in Wilmington, Delaware, presumably to handle air force contracts between Israel and the U.S. government. Why else would there be such an office in Delaware?

Other avenues for the Lobby to Pursue?

After I left the Senate and began practicing law in Washington, D.C. I was retained by a very wealthy Palestinian who had spent a number of years attending schools in the United States. He received a PhD from Columbia University in New York, and had spent a lot of time making money and investing it in real estate in various parts of America, as well as in Europe. He was married to a Palestinian woman and they had two sons, both of whom were born in New York during his schooling there.

My client was building a satisfying life, traveling in Europe and the United States to tend to his business interests, until, one day, he was surprisingly denied entry into the United States. He was accused of being a member of the PLO. Other than all Palestinians considering themselves belonging to the Palestinian liberation movement, he had never done anything that would brand him as a terrorist. He suspected that someone who was an enemy had deliberately told the U.S. government that he was a PLO member, hoping to cause him problems.

This was during the Reagan Administration, so my first move was to hire a Republican law firm to help lobby for a visa for him. He not only had business interests in the United States, but his two sons were both in college here, so not being allowed to come into the U.S. was a decided handicap.

Aside from the law firm charging great amounts of money for whatever time they spent on his case, the lawyer assigned to his case was ultimately never able to get him cleared to enter the U.S. Finally, the lawyer/lobbyist told my client that he had a Jewish partner in the firm who was well connected in Israel, and would be able, he said, to travel to Israel to plead his case and to obtain Israel’s approval for his entry visa into the United States. He was told that the cost would be extra for the service.

My client looked at him, dumbfounded, and to his credit, said that he would prefer not to enter the U.S. if it came to relying on the Israeli government’s intervention to get him a visa.

#

JAMES ABOUREZK is a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and is a contributor to CounterPunch and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate. His e mail address is: [email protected]

http://www.councilforthenationalinte...e-israel-lobby
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.
Page generated in 0.33642 seconds.