|August 9th, 2011||#21|
Join Date: May 2009
US "Deeply concerned" By new Israeli Construction Plans
US Israel Construction Plans Cause Of Concern
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it is "deeply concerned" by Israeli approval of new housing construction in disputed east Jerusalem.
The State Department says such "unilateral actions work against efforts to resume direct negotiations" and the spirit of the peace process. In a statement, the department says it has raised its objections with the Israeli government.
Last week, an Israeli planning commission approved 930 new housing units in the Har Homa neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Actual building is at least two years off.
Alongside its rare rebuke of a close ally, the State Department said Israelis and Palestinians should settle their differences on Jerusalem through negotiation.
Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and claims it as part of its capital. Palestinians hope to establish their future capital there.
|September 15th, 2011||#22|
Join Date: Nov 2004
US Ambassador: Support for Israel Drives All US Mideast Policies
Alison Weir, September 14, 2011
While many Americans may believe that US policies are designed to address American needs, America’s new Ambassador to Israel explains that this is far from the case.
In a recent speech before the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Ambassador Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies: "The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government."
Shapiro went on to say: "This test explains our extraordinary security cooperation, our stand against the delegitimization of Israel, our efforts on Iran, our response to the Arab Spring, and our efforts on Israeli-Palestinian peace."
It also explains a factor in the downward slide in American prosperity and standing in the world.
US funding of Israel and its weapons industry
Shapiro elaborated: ‘Israel will receive over $3 billion in U.S. funding for training and equipment in the coming fiscal year. This assistance allows Israel to purchase the sophisticated defense equipment it needs to protect itself, by itself, including the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our assistance has also helped boost Israel’s domestic defense industry."
On top of this, Shapiro pointed out, "Congress, at the request of President Obama, provided $205 million to accelerate production and deployment of the Iron Dome short-range missile system, a project to which I devoted particular attention during my tenure at the White House."
Shapiro failed to note that this system competes with American defense firms, causing still further job loss for Americans, who have a higher unemployment rate than Israel.
Shapiro said that one of his first visits as Ambassador to Israel was to see an Iron Dome battery deployed near Ashkelon, where he "had very moving visits with the victims of rocket attacks in Ashdod." Palestinian rocket attacks have killed approximately 20 Israelis. There is no report that Shapiro has visited the victims of Israeli shelling attacks on Gaza, where over 1,400 have been killed.
Opposing international initiatives, undermining US needs
Shapiro continued: "The test of our policy – that it advances Israel’s status as a secure, Jewish, democratic state – also explains our commitment to vigorously battle against those who would attempt to isolate or delegitimize Israel in the international community."
As a result, Shapiro said, the US withdrew from the South African conference on racism in Durban and vetoed UN efforts on Israel (which otherwise would have passed).
Currently, he said, the administration is "doing everything we can" to oppose the Palestinian bid for UN membership to come later this month. "We are taking our opposition to capitals around the world."
This campaign is reminiscent of previous pro-Israel campaigns, including the original pressure brought by Israel partisans in 1947 on the UN General Assembly to pass a recommendation to give over half of Palestine to a Jewish state.
It could also be a major blow to the US.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the Saudi Royal Family who headed up its intelligence service for many years, has just published Veto a State, Lose an Ally, in which he warns that if the US vetoes Palestinian UN membership, "Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has."
He writes that it would "provoke uproar among Muslims worldwide," further undermining American relations with the Muslim world (over 1.2 billion people), "threaten regional stability," and increase "the chances of another war in the region."
In 1973 Saudi Arabia, which has been an extremely important US ally, issued a warning based on a similarly reasonable request that Israel obey international law (see discussion below). When Henry Kissinger ignored this, the US was thrown into a major recession and thousands of Americans lost their jobs and homes.
Author and international attorney John Whitbeck writes: "The adverse consequences for the United States of blocking Palestine’s membership are dazzlingly obvious. An American veto would constitute a shotgun blast in both of its own feet, further isolating the United States from the rest of mankind and outraging the already agitated and unstable Arab and Muslim worlds (notably including Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey).
Since 120 nations have already recognized Palestine, such a veto would outrage countries all over the globe.
Policies on Iran based on Israeli concerns
Shapiro went on to say:
"The test of our policy – to advance Israel’s status as a secure, Jewish democratic state – explains our persistent efforts and the President’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"Since 2009, the United States has led the world in imposing the toughest sanctions ever against Iran, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, through the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, and through additional sanctions imposed by European and other partners beyond those mandated by the U.N. Security Council… We are working to increase pressure on Iran through additional means, and have taken no option off the table.
Twenty years ago similar pressure on Iraq created a humanitarian catastrophe in which, according to the World Health Organization, over 5,000 children under the age of five died each month from "embargo-related causes."
Arab Spring actions predicated on Israeli interests
Shapiro explained that concerns for Israel also drive the Administration’s actions regarding the Arab Spring:
"The test of our policy explains President Obama’s original outreach to the Muslim world, and his response to the Arab Spring.
"Israel’s interests were not served by the deep anger felt toward the United States in many Muslim communities, and the President made clear that those who would accept his outstretched hand must do so knowing that the United States will remain a fierce defender of Israel’s legitimacy and call on others to build their own connections with Israel.
"As the unprecedented events of the Arab Spring have unfolded, we have recognized the opportunity presented by the possible emergence of more open, transparent, peaceful, and democratic governments, who will make better neighbors, while remaining vigilant about the risks these changes could present. We know the stakes for Israel are high, and in a situation where neither of us can control outcomes, we are working closely together to chart a common strategy."
Shapiro said that US support for a "two-state solution" is also based on Israeli desires, explaining that he and the Administration are "convinced that a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state." Therefore, he said, the administration’s "vigorous pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace" also meets the pro-Israel test.
Need to bolster pro-Israel ties among Jewish Americans
Shapiro spoke of the close allegiance that most Jewish Americans feel for Israel, but expressed concern that "much research has shown that growing numbers of younger American Jews feel disconnected, or at best ambivalent, toward Israel. Valuable programs like Birthright have exposed many to this connection, but many more have not been reached."
He said that "a stronger commitment to Zionist education for American Jewish youth could do much to strengthen bonds that we want to be even stronger in the next generation, but may not be if left untended."
Helping Israeli finances even further
Shapiro said that "one of the most fruitful opportunities for deepening ties" between Americans and Israelis is in the economic sphere:
"There are approximately one dozen American-Israel Chambers of Commerce throughout the United States, based in New York, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. These organizations are run and organized by Americans who care deeply about the U.S.- Israel relationship and strive to facilitate U.S.-Israel business connections."
Shapiro pointed out:
"In 2010 alone the U.S. imported $21 billion of Israeli goods and services; that’s 10 percent of Israel’s GDP. American companies and their representatives here directly employ about 60,000 Israelis; that’s fully 2 percent of Israel’s entire workforce. This figure does not include the many thousands more that are supported by American companies here as subcontractors or in downstream businesses.
"American companies have opened two-thirds of all foreign R&D facilities in Israel and brought in nearly 60 percent of all foreign direct investment. In 2011, American companies have acquired ten Israeli startups to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars, not just for their products, but to establish leading international R&D centers tapping into the greatest asset of Israel’s people, their brainpower. American-sourced venture capitalism provides more than half of all money for nascent technology companies to get off the ground.
"Just as other Diaspora communities are often in the lead in promoting economic ties with their countries of origin, many of these projects began because of Jewish-American ‘champions’ of corporate interaction with Israel."
Ambassador Shapiro failed to mention that Israel’s current account balance is 29th in the world; the U.S. comes in at 196th.
1973 War and Shapiro’s personal ties to Israel
In his speech, Ambassador Shapiro recounted his personal history "for the insights it can give us about the connection of the American Jewish community to the U.S.-Israel relationship." He stated:
“I am a proud member of our Jewish community in Washington, DC, active in a Conservative synagogue and the Jewish day school that my children attend and where my wife, Julie, worked for many years. And my profound respect for the State of Israel and its remarkable achievements stems from a lifetime of exposure to the extraordinary people who brought Theodore Herzl’s Zionist dream to life.”
Shapiro explained that his close attachment to Israel began in 1973 when he was four years old and his family spent a fall semester in Israel. They were there during the war in which Egypt and Syria tried to retrieve land that had been taken by Israel seven years before.
While Ambassador Shapiro didn’t go into this, there is a close US connection to the 1973 war, called by Israel and US media the "Yom Kippur War."
Before and during this war, Saudi Arabia called on the US to pressure Israel to return the lands that it had taken and held since 1967, in violation of international law. Instead, Henry Kissinger arranged a massive airlift of US weaponry to Israel, saving Israel from losing the war. This support led to the oil embargo against the US that caused a deep depression and cost thousands of Americans their jobs.
As historian Donald Neff later wrote, this boycott, induced by Kissinger’s weapons to Israel, left "economies around the world shattered and many individuals living poorer lives." Neff wrote that while "Kissinger admitted, ‘I made a mistake,’ skeptics might wonder whether it was a mistake, or wanton disregard of U.S. interests during a passionate effort to help Israel."
Shapiro explained that the 1973 war had a major impact on his family:
"By the end of the war, and even more so, by the end of our stay, our family’s relationship with Israel had been utterly transformed, from a solid but light connection to the deepest of bonds. Throughout the remainder of my childhood, family dinner conversations turned easily to events in Israel, from the thrill of the peace with Egypt to the anguish of the Lebanon War [initiated by Israel; fatalities were approximately 25:1 Lebanese to Israelis]. The ample bookshelves in my parents’ home grew laden with studies in Zionism, Jewish history, and Israeli literature.
"A product of the Reform Movement, I nurtured my own connection to Israel primarily through summer camp experiences at the Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, an unlikely setting for some of the most innovative Jewish and Zionist education to be found anywhere.
"These experiences led me to spend half a year after high school in Israel on a Reform Movement program, living with an Israeli family in Jerusalem, studying at Hebrew Union College, traveling widely throughout the country, and volunteering on Kibbutz Yahel in the Arava.
"I returned for my sophomore year of college at Hebrew University, supplementing my studies with work as a waiter at the wedding hall in the Beit Knesset HaGadol and long walks in Rehavia, where my girlfriend – who is now my wife of 19 years – took an apartment.
"In the years since, I have made Israel, its history and people, its quest for peace and security in the Middle East, and its relationship with the United States, the centerpiece of my academic studies at Brandeis and Harvard, my work on Capitol Hill, and my service in the Clinton and Obama Administrations."
Shapiro emphasized that in many ways his story is not unique, stating that "it is impossible to deny the special connection that most in the American Jewish community feel for Israel…. wherever they fall on the political spectrum, and whatever their views on American policy, Israeli policy or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the vast majority of American Jews care deeply about Israel…"
Shapiro said that he is “deeply honored” that President Obama has entrusted him with the "task and responsibility of strengthening and deepening" US ties to Israel.
Shapiro concluded: "… as a committed Jewish American, with deep roots in the American Jewish community and warm bonds of affection with Israel, I will have an opportunity to draw on those associations to help make the U.S.-Israel relationship, strong as it is, even stronger in the years ahead."
Alison Weir is Executive Director of If Americans Knew and President of the Council for the National Interest. She can be reached at contact@CNIonline.org.
|September 16th, 2011||#23|
Join Date: Jul 2005
9/11 Whistleblower Susan Lindauer: 'Libyan Opposition Is Al-Qaeda' NATO Working With Al CIAeda! - YouTube
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?
We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.
-Charles A. Lindbergh
|October 4th, 2011||#24|
Join Date: Jul 2007
It's now time for the West to recognise Palestinian statehood
October 4, 2011
The current negative approach is damaging and can't be justified.
The arguments against recognition of a Palestinian state seem to rest on the simple proposition that agreement must be reached through negotiation and that a resolution granting statehood would set that process back.
If that argument was valid it would have been true in 1948 when the United Nations recognised Israel as an independent state. People should then have argued the Israelis must negotiate with the Palestinians, the people who were being pushed out, and once they had come to an agreement, we could recognise Israel.
If the argument is so thin, why are some Western powers so strongly against recognition of a Palestinian state? I suggest it is because of the lock that Israel has over the policies of too many Western countries. There is an Israeli lobby that governments are not prepared to offend.
There have been two major stumbling blocks to peace. The first is the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, the daily diminution of what might become Palestine. US President Barack Obama, to his credit, tried to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the expansions. He did not succeed. If other Western countries had supported Obama at the time, that result may have been better.
The second problem concerns the divisions between Fatah and Hamas, and here both Israel and the West have played their part in perpetuating that division. Hamas won a legitimate election. Nobody claimed it was fraudulent. Indeed, people working in Palestine had predicted a Hamas victory because, in small communities across the territory, if people had needed help it was Hamas that would provide it and not Fatah, which was seen as self-serving and corrupt.
After Hamas's election victory, much of the West, led by Israel and the US, said: ''Well, you are going to have to change your policy before we will talk to you. You must now accept the existence of the Israeli state.'' That stand forced Hamas back to the weapons it had known for too long, most of which were psychological. Its rocket attacks on Israel caused little damage relative to the retribution exacted by the Israeli army against the people of Gaza. The main effect of those rockets has been, and remains, the propaganda weapon that it provides Israel.
The ineffective use of power by Hamas has been regarded as totally illegitimate, while Israel has used its official forces time and again in provocation or retribution. The violence is endless and who is responsible for cause and effect will depend very much on who you are talking to. There is no absolute truth.
If the West had said to Hamas, ''we will talk with you, we will negotiate with you, but we oppose absolutely your failure to recognise the state of Israel'', it could have done much to heal the wounds between Hamas and Fatah and provide a strong Palestinian entity that could negotiate with Israel. The West could also have said very clearly to Hamas, and I believe Hamas would have accepted this, ''while you do not recognise the existence of Israel now, once there are agreed boundaries of a Palestinian state, from that moment on you must recognise the existence and permanence of the Jewish state of Israel''.
Many would regard that as a fair bargain. Why should Palestinians recognise Israel when Israel refuses to talk substantively about realistic boundaries to a Palestinian state and while Israeli settlers are diminishing what might be and should be a Palestinian state?
One could almost argue that Israel, the US and Fatah are in an unholy alliance to destroy Hamas. They have not done so. To talk of negotiations leading to peace while ignoring the reality of Hamas is to talk nonsense. So Prime Minister Abbas is correct in pressing for United Nations recognition.
There are other reasons a new approach is needed urgently. The power of the US under current policies is diminishing in the Middle East. Its capacity to influence events in future will be less than it has been. Turkey has changed the substance of its relationship with Israel in major ways. It will never return to the old subservience to Israeli and American wishes. Likewise in Egypt. Whether the generals allow a true democratic state to emerge may be doubtful, but it is clear that the pro-Israeli policies followed by former president Hosni Mubarak are not now being followed by Egypt. As time passes without progress, Egypt's stand is likely to become stronger and more effective. Saudi Arabia has also pressed the US very hard on this issue.
Recognition by the United Nations could give greater weight to Palestinian arguments and would put pressure on Israel of a new kind to end the policy of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. That is an essential part of an ultimate settlement.
The lack of progress over 18 years is due not so much to Palestinian division or to the ineffective rocketry of Hamas, but to the determination of Israel and its closest friends to make sure that nothing is done that Israel does not support. The changes in the Middle East, not only in Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia but across North Africa, will end in greater support for the Palestinian cause. These important relationships for the West may be irretrievably damaged if the West persists in its negative approach to the question of Palestinian statehood.
Malcolm Fraser was prime minister of Australia from 1975 to 1982.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...#ixzz1ZorbqauC
|January 20th, 2012||#25|
Join Date: Nov 2004
|March 1st, 2012||#26|
Join Date: Oct 2007
!!!!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.
|March 30th, 2012||#27|
Join Date: Jul 2007
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:
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.
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.
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]
|December 13th, 2012||#28|
Join Date: Nov 2004
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.
|February 3rd, 2013||#29|
Join Date: May 2009
|June 10th, 2014||#30|
Join Date: Nov 2004
How the Israel Lobby Works
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
By Philip Giraldi • June 3, 2014 • 1,400 Words • 52 Comments
The major organizations that comprise the Israel Lobby are well known: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and Christians United For Israel (CUFI). All are well known, benefiting from large budgets and staffs. They are extremely effective, having excellent access to politicians and the media to promote their points of view, and are, as a group, regular visitors to the White House. AIPAC is without doubt the most powerful lobby in the United States that is focused on a foreign policy issue.
The institutional Israel boosters are in turn backed by a cluster of think tanks and institutes that spout a relentlessly pro-Likud line. They include Foundation for Defense of Democracies, The Emergency Committee for Israel, The American Enterprise Institute, The Hudson Institute, Brookings and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. A recent op-ed at The National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center) “Why Israel Fears Containment of a Nuclear Iran,” written by two Israelis with government ties, illustrates to what extent spokesmen for Tel Aviv have access to the media across the political spectrum to make their points while contrary views rarely surface. It would be difficult to imagine a similar piece appearing advancing Iranian views on Israel, for example, and one might well question whose “National Interest” is being promoted by providing a platform to current or former foreign government officials.
And backing the think tanks up are the enablers in the media who suppress stories critical of Israel and consistently editorialize supporting policies favored by Tel Aviv. Israeli Ambassadors, uniquely, regularly write op-eds for publications like the Washington Post and The New York Times. Prominent among the consistently pro-Israel media are the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch publications in general and magazines like Mortimer Zuckerman owned US News and World Report, but it would be fair to say that nearly all mainstream media outlets are to some extent wary of offending Israel and its backers.
But as Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted in their groundbreaking expose of the Israel Lobby, the lobbying effort extends well beyond the organizational level to include friends of Israel who labor assiduously and voluntarily at state and local levels as well as at universities and from within professional organizations to maintain a positive viewpoint on Israel while promoting a negative narrative regarding its increasing number of critics. Most recently they have been focused on halting the growth of BDS, “boycott, divestment, and sanctions,” particularly in attempts to use “Lawfare” to make such activity illegal when it singles out Israel.
Israel’s friends quite rightly see Congress as their major ally in keeping the United States Israel-friendly, so much so that Pat Buchanan once dubbed America’s legislative body as “Israeli occupied territory.” And so it remains with legislation favorable to Israel passing by unanimous consent voice votes or grossly lopsided margins when a tally actually takes place. The White House too is into the charade that Israel is a major US ally and friend, in spite of mounting evidence that Tel Aviv consistently spies on Washington, is not interested in any peace process with the Palestinians and works against genuine American interests.
I have recently obtained a handout memo relating to a congressional race in Virginia that illustrates how the process works at the political entry level. Congressman Jim Moran has announced that he will not seek reelection in the heavily Democratic district that encompasses Alexandria Virginia. Moran has fallen afoul of the pro-Israel establishment by telling attendees at a 2003 antiwar forum, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.” He added that Jewish leaders were “influential enough” to change the course of US policy. Moran inevitably apologized for those remarks, but the damage was done and he was considered to be unreliable on the issue of Israel, a view reflected in the handout which quotes Debbie Linick, Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, asserting that Moran had been “lacking the nuances of understanding the peace process. It is crucial that the next representative from the 8th District be a strong supporter of Israel.”
The handout described a Jewish Community Relations Council Political Forum for the 8th District that was to be held on May 18th in Alexandria at the Council’s Early Childhood Learning Center. All prospective candidates for the 8th District were invited to participate to present their positions on various issues of interest to those attending. The access to the event was by paid tickets only, presumably to permit screening to control the make-up of the audience. The handout again quotes Linick as stating that “all area synagogues will be asked to participate” even if they were not in the voting district.
The memo suggests that someone at the forum might ask every candidate to publish his or her signed Israel Position paper, which AIPAC “requires” all candidates for office to personally sign. It also recommends that signs be placed on the street outside demanding release of the paper and notes that if there should happen to be demonstrators present they will not be allowed to block the entrance, which is behind the building on private property.
The Northern Virginia Council might well be more than usually politically active and is unlikely to have a counterpart in most congressional districts, but the handout reveals how AIPAC has an impact on all viable congressional candidates, often before they are even nominated. Once nominated, candidates go through a vetting process in which they meet with an AIPAC official and are asked to write and sign a position paper on Israel, if they have not already done so. Many of the papers are subsequently highlighted on the AIPAC website.
Few if any candidates refuse to cooperate because to do so would mean that AIPAC and its friends would find and fund an opponent and use their media access to distort the politician’s record. This type of blackballing most recently occurred in the case of Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, who was on the receiving end of a vicious and well-funded campaign because he is an anti-war candidate strongly opposed by the pro-Israel establishment.
To be sure Americans have a constitutional right to both demand to know and challenge the views of those running for office but the important thing to note here is that the discussion is not about healthcare, immigration or government programs – it is rather about unconditional support for the policies of a foreign country. I can think of no other advocacy group in the United States that is comparable to the Israel Lobby in terms of its promotion of positions that are demonstrably not beneficial to the United States with the only possible exception being the prominent Cubans in Congress who vet candidates based on their willingness to continue to punish the regime in Havana. The Cubans, unlike the Israel Firsters, have, however, only regional impact, mostly concentrated in Florida, though it is interesting note that they – Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, Joe Garcia and Robert Menendez – are also all passionate supporters of Israel.
Americans really have little choice when it comes to Congress and Israel as anyone who refuses to cooperate with AIPAC is unlikely to find himself in the running, but there should at least be some awareness of what happens routinely to prospective candidates to insure conformity with the Lobby’s viewpoint. If unconditional loyalty to a foreign country is a sine qua non for election to congress perhaps there should be some discussion of what that is likely to mean and the promoters of such policies should be held accountable when they produce a bad result, as they did in Iraq and are promising to do vis-a-vis Iran. It is one thing to be all for Israel due to cultural or familial affinity or even as an abstraction but it is quite another to persist in that view when it does genuine harm to the United States, regarding which a case certainly can and has already been made.
|June 22nd, 2014||#31|
Bread and Circuses
Alison Weir : The Origins of the Israel Lobby in the US
“Against Our Better Judgment” presents many facts that could help end “the passionate attachment” that U.S. State Department officials warned President Truman against.
|June 22nd, 2014||#32|
Bread and Circuses
How the Israel Lobby Works
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
|August 19th, 2014||#33|
Bread and Circuses
How the U.S. "Special Relationship" with Israel came about
Louis Brandeis, flanked by Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise, founding secretary of the American Federation of Zionists (right) and Nathan Straus, co-owner of Macy’s (Source: Library of Congress)
According to this report, the Obama Administration gave $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel for the Fiscal Year 2014. In addition, the U.S contributed $504 million to the joint U.S.-Israel Missile Defense Program during FY 2014. If we include that number, American taxpayers give Israel $9.9 million per day.
|August 25th, 2014||#34|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kikesville, Hymietown
Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea married a kike. Obongo's brother in law is a kike rabbi. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of Jack and Jackie, also married a kike. The yids' control of U.S. foreign policy has always been blatant. Face it, the yids don't care what people think of them, their goal is world rule by exterminating the White European people and they use niggers and mudslimes to accomplish it.
No jews, no problems.
Never trust a jew.
|August 29th, 2014||#35|
Bread and Circuses
Obama Signs Law Providing $225 Million for Israel's Iron Dome
US passes $225 million assistance package for Israeli missile defense system.
Friends of Israel
|April 12th, 2015||#36|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Kerry and top negotiator meet Jewish leaders to discuss Iran deal
April 12, 2015 6:12am
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Top Obama administration officials met for two hours with U.S. Jewish community leaders to discuss the emerging Iran nuclear deal.
Represented at the April 8 meeting were Secretary of State John Kerry and his undersecretary, Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. side in the nuclear talks.
On the Jewish organizational side, representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the Orthodox, Reform and Conservative streams were present.
A State Department official said the meeting was part of the administration’s regular outreach to various civil society groups in the United States.
Kerry, the official told JTA, discussed “the U.S.-Israel relationship and the latest developments in our negotiations with the EU, P5+1 and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program.” P5+1 refers to the countries negotiating with Iran, including the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.
Kerry stayed for an hour in the room, which was cleared of leavened goods in honor of Passover week, and Sherman remained for an additional hour.
The Jewish officials present would not describe the content of the off-the-record meeting, but they did say that they raised concerns about the deal.
“Both the secretary and the undersecretary articulated with depth, rigor and passion the deal and explained it,” one Jewish official said. “There was an opportunity for real engagement. Secretary Kerry was reaching out to those who need more engagement and convincing.”
The deal outline presented earlier this month by Iran and the major powers exchanges sanctions relief for restrictions aimed at keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Israel and a number of Jewish groups have expressed concerns about the degree of the sanctions relief and whether the structures in place go far enough to keep Iran from achieving nuclear capability.
|September 19th, 2017||#37|
Join Date: Jul 2014
America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
PHILIP GIRALDI • SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 • 1,500 WORDS • LEAVE A COMMENT
I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”
It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.
Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.
And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens.
Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”
And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.
So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish.
One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.
Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.
There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.
Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.
For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”
As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.
|December 23rd, 2017||#38|
Join Date: May 2009
Top DC Jew: “Jewish Lobby Writes US Policy”
|November 22nd, 2018||#39|
Join Date: May 2009
Study: Jewish Lobby Neocon US Wars Have Cost $5.9 trillion, 1 Million Dead Since 2001