ANTISEMITISM AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS AND THE US STATE DEPT

On Oct 16, 2004 AD, President Bush signed into law the global anti-Semitism review act; which is quite interesting. The United States state Department list the following sets of beliefs as being anti-Semitic.

1. Any assertion that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world is anti-Semitic.

2. Any strong anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic.

3. Virulent criticism of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic.

4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature, especially the Talmud and the Kabala is anti-Semitic. [I wonder if that includes the traditions of the elders that Jesus criticized. “And woe unto the Pharisees” that Jesus said.]

5. Criticism of the US government and congress for being under influences of the Jewish/Zionist community, including AIPEC, is anti-Semitic.

6. Criticism of the Jewish/Zionist community for promoting Globalism, [the New World Order] is anti-Semitic.

7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

8. Diminishing the 6 million figure of the holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

9. Calling Israel a racist state is anti-Semitic.

10. Asserting that there exists a Zionist conspiracy is anti-Semitic.

11. Claiming the Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik revolution is Russia is anti-Semitic. [I guess you have to revise history].

12. Making derogatory statements about Jewish persons is anti-Semitic.

Now isn’t this interesting and all inclusive? It seems the only thing one can do is praise these creatures for all the wonders they work within society. All the good things they do for humanity. Perhaps praise them for caring so much for their Palestinian brethren that they only have their best interests at heart! Pretty amazing material. So the Bible is a document that has lied for the past few thousand years.

I suppose this renders almost the entire planet antisemitic because according to the GLOBAL INDEX PEACE RANKINGS, Vision of Humanity, Israel is rated as the fourth of 144 planets as the most violent nation on the planet. The only countries more violent are Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, respectively.

As Israel's partner in crime, the United States has dropped to the 81st.

The UK and Canada are not quite so bad as these two. Not for lack of effort by our Zionist directed leadership. Ooops me bad! Such an anti semite!!

Israel 141

United States of America 83

United Kingdom 35

Canada 8

New Zealand clocked in as #1 followed by the Scandinavian Countries.

I dunno, is this anti semitic?
Should I be worried for posting it?
Should I care?
Guess what! I don't!!

AIPAC'S HIDDEN PERSUADERS

Written by m.idrees

May 16, 2009 at 2:26 am

A map from a brochure distributed at a recent AIPAC meeting.

‘The Israel lobby is aiming to soften up US public opinion for an attack on Iran,’ writes Richard Silverstein, ‘Americans should resist its propaganda’.

Despite the ballyhoo of the recent Aipac national policy conference in Washington, when Israel-US bonds were feted, relations between the two countries are currently more strained than at any time since 1991. That was when the elder George Bush, as US president, fiercely lobbied Yitzchak Shamir to join in the Madrid peace conference. Relations then reached their nadir when James Baker uttered his infamous remark about Israel’s American-Jewish supporters: “Fuck the Jews, they don’t even vote for us.”

If relations continue to deteriorate in coming months, we might have to go back in time to the Suez crisis of 1956 to find a time when relations were this fraught.

A case in point is Iran. That bogey-nation was everywhere at the Aipac conference. Every keynote speech ~ if they weren’t directly written by that group’s staff ~ seemed unmistakably scripted and “on message”, dedicated to the existential threat that Iran poses not just to Israel, but the entire world.

A glossy brochure distributed at the Aipac meeting showed a map (pictured below) centred on Iran and beyond, with a dark ominous ring around Iran’s neighbours and as far away as India, Russia, Africa and eastern Europe. The message: these are the countries under imminent threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.

The brochure copy even intimates that the next step for Iran is “building a missile with range to reach US territory”. (Never mind that Iran doesn’t yet have any ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, nor will it have the bomb itself for anywhere from a year to five years depending on which you source you choose to believe.)

Israel is in the midst of a massive diplomatic, political and intelligence campaign, both public and covert, that could lead ~ if those officials behind it have their way ~ towards a military strike on Iran. It is a war for the hearts and minds of Americans. Or you might call it the war before the war. In intelligence circles, this Israeli project is known as perception management and defined by the department of defence as:

Actions to convey and/or deny information … to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders … ultimately resulting in foreign behaviours and official actions favourable to [US] objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception and psychological operations.

The Israelis are following the template of the Bush administration’s run-up to the Iraq war. First, the US government advocated half-hearted efforts at diplomatic engagement. Then it ratcheted up pressure through sanctions and UN resolutions. That is where the Israeli campaign stands now.

Aipac’s members carried a unified message to Capitol Hill during their lobbying of US senators and members of Congress. They demanded that Congress pass the most draconian sanctions ever proposed against Iran. They demanded that Iran be offered a limited time in which to respond to an ultimatum insisting it drop its nuclear programme.

What then? If you review Aipac’s literature and the various commentaries published either by Israeli diplomats or their supporters in the US media, they don’t specify what comes next. But any sensible person can guess that the final step will be war: “Israeli leaders have … hinted at pre-emptive military strikes if they decide that diplomacy has failed.”

The Israelis surely know that the Obama administration will never go to war against Iran. In fact, they know that Obama would not approve of Israel doing so. But I’ve become convinced, in doing the research and speaking to knowledgeable sources, that Israel is prepared at some date in the near future to attack Iran itself, even against the wishes of the US.

This of course will put Obama in an untenable position: do US forces attack the Israelis (in effect defending the Iranians) and risk the fallout that would occur in relations between the Democratic administration and American Jews? Or does he allow the Israelis to carry on to their targets and bomb Iran, accepting the bloodletting and mayhem that will inevitably result? If Israel wishes for the latter outcome, they must lay the groundwork here in the US for tacit acceptance by the American people of a third-party attack on Iran.

Indeed, they are already a good deal of the way toward this goal, as the latest polling from Rasmussen Report reveals. According to it, 49% of Americans believe that if Israel attacks Iran then the US should help Israel.

Some readers may say this is alarmist. Before I learned some of the information I gathered from sources both public and not, I also would have labelled this as overly dramatic. But Israel hasn’t shrunk, for example, from drafting opinion columns for US newspapers on the menace posed by Iran, and telling the editor that a local Jewish community leader would be attaching his name to it.

Within the US, Israel exploits a willing circle of Likudist advocacy groups and think tanks ~ such as the Washington Institute for Near East Peace, the Israel Project, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs as well as Aipac itself ~ that are closely scripted and co-ordinate their political message with Israeli diplomats. While some of these groups deny such a close affiliation, there is proof of scripting and amplification of the Israeli government’s agenda. And of course there may be cases in which the organizations know the needs of their patron so well that they need no prompting.

In another example, Israeli diplomats monitored and encouraged a member of Congress to host an anti-Iranian conference that would advocate Israel’s message of sanctions (and more).

Israel, along with enablers like Aipac, has not shrunk from hounding its critics. One peace activist in the US so angered Israeli authorities that he was driven from a job through a whispering campaign in the community, which also included a disparaging article leaked to a willing reporter.

The level of hubris necessary to pull this off is astonishing. Fresh off the dismissal of the Rosen-Weissman spy charges involving its own employees, Aipac is flexing its political muscle and reminding the world of its resurgence. It does this through a combination of manipulation, public lobbying and punishment of its enemies.

We in the US must be prepared to resist. We must protect ourselves from Israel’s propaganda offensive ginning up war with Iran. We must encourage President Obama to stay strong in his commitment to Israeli-Arab peace, whether or not Israel is a willing partner. Keeping our eyes on the prize of peace is going to be the hardest challenge of all, because the Netanyahu government is doing everything it can to divert the world’s attention.

How Obama will manage to stay strong surrounded as he is by the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and a completely Zionist cabinet, I do not know. Peace is never first option with bankers, of which his cabinet is composed, because there is so much money to be made from war. Israel really will just do as it wants and damn the consequences or world opinion. "Ignore world opinion" is a phrase that pops frequently when they think no one is listening. These Satanic creatures want war with Iran for its oil reserves and because they want to rule the Middle east from the Iranian coast all the way down to and including Egypt. This has been stated over and over. And from there, the rest of the world. They will not stop. But we cannot just let it happen on the outset that somehow, by some miracle, they can be halted.

THE BIG DOG WINS ANOTHER ONE

GODDAMN IT, THEY DID IT AGAIN!

By Kevin MacDonald
May 8, 2009
Occidental Observer

My $.02 worth is in this dark green.

The acquittal of former AIPAC operatives Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman on espionage is yet another victory for the Israel Lobby. As happens so often these days, stories that are much discussed in some sectors of the Internet are pretty much ignored in the MSM. The New York Times buried it and the LA Times ignored it entirely. It was missing from network news and from cable TV talk shows of all political leanings.

Lobbies, it is said, live in the dark and die in the light of day. (Could this be due to the fact that evil works are better performed under the cover of darkness?) And here the media cooperates with a bit of self-censorship. One of the major points made by the defense was the following argument:

Highlighting the curious underpinnings of this prosecution, the high-level government officials with whom Rosen and Weissman regularly met and who, according to the Indictment, illegally disclosed classified NDI [national defense information], have not ~ with but one exception ~ been charged criminally. Indeed, one of the disclosing officials has since received, not charges or reprimands, but a series of promotions to one of the highest, most sensitive positions in the government.

ONLY the dirtiest can get to the top! And we wonder why the world is as it is? One must be a highly skilled Master of one of the dark arts at least, to qualify for upward mobility in the world of government.

The “one exception” is former Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin, who has been sentenced to a 12-year prison term. The two other high-level government officials were given coded names in the original indictment, but they are now known to be Kenneth Pollack and David Satterfield. The indictment indicates that both Pollack and Satterfield gave classified information to Rosen and/or Weissman.

Despite the wording of the indictment, Pollack claims that he “could not imagine having relayed classified information.” I guess we are supposed to take his word for it.

Kenneth Pollack

The indictment also mentions two Department of Defense employees who put Rosen in contact with Franklin. Neither of these has ever been named, but it would be interesting to find out their names as well. One of these employees was at a breakfast meeting with Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman when Franklin provided the AIPAC employees with classified information.

Rather than being indicted as Franklin was, life has been good for Satterfield (and Pollack; see below). Satterfield has been promoted ~ three times: to Principal Deputy in the Department of State’s Mideast Bureau, then to Deputy Chief of Mission with the rank of Ambassador in Iraq and most recently to Principal Adviser to the Secretary of State on Iraq.

All of these are sensitive assignments and all of them relate to the area of AIPAC’s main concern. AIPAC is doubtless quite happy that there are high-level US government officials who are stationed in just the right areas and who cooperate in giving them classified information.

The point of the defense, of course, is that since Satterfield and Pollack have never been indicted, Rosen and Weissman were not doing anything out of the ordinary. That is, they were talking with government officials who were not seen as doing anything wrong because nothing was done to them.

And if the government officials weren’t doing anything wrong, then how could the defendants possibly be doing anything wrong? It’s all part of business as usual in Washington.

This is an excellent argument. The government’s prosecution seems to have been capricious at best. And at worst, one might speculate that the prosecution decided to sacrifice a non-Jew so that it would not be seen as exclusively targeting Jews.

So the question is: Why weren’t Pollack and Satterfield indicted? And why was Lawrence Franklin targeted as the fall guy while two high-level Jewish officials ~ officials that the government claims gave Rosen and Weissman classified information ~ were not charged at all?

From the standpoint of the government, it should make much more sense to go after the ethnic Jews who are providing classified information to AIPAC than to go after a hapless non-Jew who seems to have been seeking to advance his career by doing what his Jewish peers are doing ~ providing information to AIPAC. What better way to ingratiate oneself into the power structure?

Indeed, in the indictment, Franklin asks Rosen “to put in a good word for him” for a position on the National Security Council (NSC), and Rosen replies “I’ll do what I can.” Quite clearly, Franklin was seeking to advance his career in the national security establishment by cooperating with AIPAC. What a statement on the power of AIPAC in the eyes of people trying to get ahead in Washington!

On the other hand, during his trial Franklin portrayed himself as seeking to get information to people on the NSC. He had nothing but the highest motives.

But this implies that Franklin thought that it was reasonable for him to believe that by giving information to Rosen and Weissman he could influence the NSC. This shows that Franklin viewed AIPAC as having extraordinary access to the NSC ~ more access than he had as an employee of the Defense Department going through regular channels. Obviously, this does nothing to diminish one's estimate of the power of AIPAC in the US government.

But the big point is that if the government really wanted to end the funneling of classified information to AIPAC and to Israel, it would go after the ethnic Jews in the government who are providing the classified information. The “passionate attachment” of ethnic Jews to Israel is the stuff of legend and is an obvious motivation that any reasonable person concerned about security issues should be aware of and try to eliminate.

The question is important because Pollack and Satterfield are exactly the types of people whose presence at high levels of the US government illustrate the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to get information from the highest levels of the US government.

Indeed, there is now a long list of Jewish patriots who have been credibly charged with spying for Israel. Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish were convicted or pled guilty, but there is also a top drawer list of neoconservatives in that category who were not convicted: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.

Satterfield has kept a fairly low profile in terms of his associations, but Pollack is a classic Jewish activist who has gone back and forth between high positions in the government and high positions in pro-Israel activist organizations. In particular, he was working for the NSC at the time when he was mentioned in the indictment of Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman ~ presumably indicating that Rosen and Weissman did indeed have a close contact at the NSC and would be able to put in a good word for the ambitious Mr. Franklin.

At the end of the Clinton administration, Pollack moved seamlessly to hardline pro-Israel advocacy as Director or Research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. In this role he has been a strong advocate for the war in Iraq.

Whereas the Iraq War was definitely a project of the neocons, Pollack is a Democrat who used his influence to successfully promote the war among liberals. New York Times columnist Bill Keller noted “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.”

And liberal columnist Matthew Yglesias pointed to Pollack’s influence among liberals in creating a bi-partisan agreement in favor of the war. He describes himself as among those “who read Pollack's celebrated 2002 book, 'The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,' and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn't actually have).”

Pollack therefore is a good example of how the Israel Lobby plays both sides of the aisle. The neocons take over the Republican Party, while the liberals are swayed by the likes of Pollack. And wealthy activists like Haim Saban are there to endow the Saban Center so that people like Pollack can have good jobs and a prominent platform for their ideas.

As noted in my previous column, dual citizen Saban’s love for Israel knows no bounds. Indeed, one aspect of Saban's commitment is that he seems to be involved in yet another AIPAC scandal as the person who asked Rep. Jane Harman to use her influence to get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.

Saban and Pollack obviously have a lot in common. Like Pollack, Saban is a Democrat. Saban is a huge donor to the Democratic Party ~ he gave over $10,000,000 in 2001–2002. But he’s a liberal who loves war if it’s in Israel’s interests, and he obviously got the right man in Pollack to head his center.

Finally, Judge T. S. Ellis III forced the government to have a very high standard for conviction. The government had to prove that Rosen and Weissman “had a bad faith reason to believe the disclosures could be used to the injury of the United States or to the aid of a foreign nation; and … intended that such injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation occur.”

This is a very high standard and would make it pretty much impossible to convict anyone of spying on behalf of Israel. Indeed, the first line of defense for neocons against accusations of dual loyalty is to claim that they sincerely believe that are advocating policies that are in the interests of the United States.

As I noted elsewhere, one need not be a professional psychologist to realize that sincere beliefs can be influenced in subtle ways by one’s ethnic commitments. The neocons may not be consciously disloyal, but there is every reason to suppose that their beliefs are tailor-made to conform to their perception of ethnic interests.

And in the case of the neocons ... there is overwhelming evidence for deep ethnic commitments among neoconservative Jews.

Jewish organizations have every reason to celebrate this victory. Not only were the AIPAC operatives acquitted, the Jewish activists inside the US government who are alleged to have given AIPAC classified information were not even indicted.

True to form, their reaction is to take full advantage of their victory. Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations hinted darkly that the investigation was motivated by antisemitism: “Hoenlein questioned ‘the justification’ for the case and the decision to bring charges under a law that had barely been used in more than 90 years.”

Investigating international espionage is antisemitism now as well? More proof these people will always be miserable, grasping, greedy and ungrateful.

As one activist rabbi noted, “We are very, very happy this has been dismissed,” But “for us this is not over, this is the beginning. The government should not be able to get away with this.”

Substitute "antisemitism" for "the holocaust" and you just about have it!

The effects of this are obvious. US government personnel will be very reluctant to mount such investigations in the future. They will be intimidated ~ afraid to investigate any espionage on behalf of Israel because of effects on their own career.

This is exactly what Charles Freeman said would happen as a result of the AIPAC dogs hounding him so badly that he would be unable to do his job properly enough to serve his country. The example set would serve as a deterrent to anyone who is an honest sort.

The result will be a repeat of what happened to the State Department. In the bad old days (from the standpoint of the organized Jewish community), the State Department, and especially the Near East Desk, was run by people who were not sympathetic to Israel.

All that has changed as a result of a major push by Jewish activists to assume positions in the State Department and to shift policy their way. David Satterfield seems to fit this profile, and it is certainly the case with Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, both of whom have had long careers shuttling back and forth between influential positions in the diplomatic corps related to Israel and high-profile positions within pro-Israel activist organizations.

Jewish activists may not be able to influence the security establishment to quite the same extent. But they surely will use the results of the current case to do what they can to make the people who were responsible for this case pay a very high price. And they may well succeed.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

WHO WILL STOP THE AIPAC JEWS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE?

By Medea Benjamin

Wednesday, May 6, 2009
CommonDreams.org

While I was being tackled by security guards at Washington's Convention Center during the AIPAC conference for unfurling a banner that asked "What about Gaza?," my heart was aching. I wasn't bothered so much by the burly guards who were yanking my arms behind by back and dragging me ~ along with 5 other CODEPINK members ~ out of the hall. They were doing their job.

What made my heart ache was the hatred I felt from the AIPAC staff who tore up the banner and slammed their hands across my mouth as I tried to yell out: "What about Gaza? What about the children?"

"Shut the f--- up. Shut the f--- up." one staffer yelled, red-faced and sweating as he ran beside me. "This is not the place to be saying that shit. Get the f--- out of here."

What makes my heart ache is thinking about the traumatized children I met on my recent trip to Gaza, and how their suffering is denied by the 6,000 AIPAC conventioneers who are living in a bubble ~ a bubble where Israel is the victim and all critics are anti-Semitic, terrorist lovers or, as in my case, self-hating Jews.

I found it fascinating that AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr opened the conference admitting that there was now a huge, international campaign against the policies of Israel. He painted a picture of 30,000 people marching in Spain, Italian trade unionists calling for a boycott of Israeli products, the UN Human Rights Council passing 26 resolutions condemning Israel, an Israeli Apartheid Week that is building a global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.

This global movement, he warned, emanates from the Middle East, echoes in the halls of the United Nations and the capitals of Europe, is voiced in meetings of international peace organizations, and is spreading throughout the United States-from the media to town hall meetings, from campuses to city squares.

"No longer is this campaign confined to the ravings of the political far left or far right," he lamented, "but increasingly it is entering the American mainstream."

But Kohr failed to explain why there has been such an explosion in this movement, even among the American Jewish community. He didn't tell the attendees that the world was shocked and outraged by Israel's devastating 22-day attack on Gaza that left over 1,300 people dead ~ mostly women and children.

He didn't mention the killing of civilians fleeing their homes, the use of white phosphorous, the bombing of homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, UN buildings, factories.

He didn't talk about the continuing, cruel blockade of the Gaza Strip that is keeping desperately needed humanitarian aid from reaching 1.5 million people and making rebuilding impossible.

There were no seminars at the conference by human rights groups like Amnesty International that are calling for an immediate and comprehensive suspension of arms to Israel.

Instead, one after another, U.S. elected officials eager to curry favor with AIPAC pledged continued U.S. financial support for Israel.

Senator Kerry, despite that fact that he was one of only a handful of legislators who visited Gaza, didn't say one word about the massive destruction he witnessed and pledged that as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he would do everything to ensure that "the $30 billion in military aid to Israel is delivered in full. America will continue our military aid, and Israel will keep its military strength," he insisted.

Instead of calling for talks with the democratically elected government of Hamas, Kerry said: "Hamas has already won one election ~ we cannot allow them to win another."

He ended his speech shouting several times in Hebrew, "Am Yisrael Chai ~ Israel lives!"

Even Vice President Biden, who at least told AIPAC that Israel should freeze new settlement activity, didn't say a word about the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused by Israel's invasion and continued blockade of Gaza.

No U.S. officials, and there were hundreds at the conference, dared echo the call of the United Nations or the world community to lift the siege of Gaza.

Republican Congressman Eric Cantor was one of the most emotional speakers, portraying Israel as the victim of an evil global movement determined to wipe out Israel and all Jews. Evoking the "shivering, naked victims who were herded into the gas chambers," he wondered when it would become too late to protect Israel. "When is it too late?", he repeated over and over.

I wonder the same thing. When is it too late, I wonder, to stop Israel from destroying itself?

When is it too late to tell AIPAC attendees that more violence and hatred is not the answer? When is it too late to open the hardened hearts of my people, once victims of a terrible holocaust, to realize that by occupying Palestine we have become they evil we deplore?

When is it too late to restore meaning to the Hebrew term "tikkun olam" by truly working to heal the world?

When is it too late for the Jews of the world to weep for the children of Gaza, recognizing that they, too, are the children of God?

I couldn't ask my questions at AIPAC. My mouth was muzzled by the sweaty hands of hate-filled staffers demanding that I "shut the f--- up."

But despite AIPAC's massive funds and influence, I feel certain that more and more members of the Jewish community will step forward and refuse to be silent. I just pray it is not too late. For information on upcoming delegations to Gaza, see www.codepinkalert.org/gaza.

Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org).A

AIPAC MEETS TO DETERMINE ISRAELI POLICY

HOW MUCH CLEARER DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR AMERICANS TO REALIZE JUST WHO SETS AMERICAN POLICY WITH REGARDS TO ALL THINGS ZIONIST?

AIPAC SEEMS TO BE HAVING TROUBLE

FINDING SPEAKERS FOR THEIR UPCOMING SUMMIT

April 2, 2009
Posted by Adam Horowitz
Mondoweiss
 

AIPAC seems to be having trouble finding speakers for their upcoming summit ~ are they open to suggestions?

Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to head to DC to cover the upcoming AIPAC policy conference. It's being promoted as "three of the most important days affecting Israel's (no mention of America's!) future" and I'm looking forward to it. But only two weeks away, they seem to be having a hard time holding on to speakers. 

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not coming to DC for the conference. Evidently once President Obama made it clear he would not meet with Netanyahu on this visit, he decided to cancel.

He is trying to foist it off on President Shimon Peres (the Israeli presidency is a mostly ceremonial position) and even Peres has "not yet decided whether to accept the invitation." Strange.

Sending Avigdor Lieberman seems to be out of the question, so it looks like we'll have to make sure with a video-taped message. 

Now questions are being raised whether AIPAC is going to lose another speaker. Spencer Ackerman has asked whether Rep. Jane Harman will still speak at the conference now that she is embroiled in an the quickly unfolding espionage wiretapping scandal? He points out that she is slated to “explore the myriad foreign policy challenges facing the United States, Israel and the world.” Could be an awkward conversation as the scandal unfolds to say the least. 

Not to fear. I have been pushing AIPAC to invite Walt and Mearshimer to the conference to discuss their work. It would be great ~ it's not too late to send out the invites!

AIPAC MEETS TO DETERMINE ISRAELI
FOREIGN POLICY

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Zionist Israeli lobby group, will meet from Sunday 3 May through to 5 May to determine the Obama administration’s foreign policy for the coming year.

America’s foreign policy chief for the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will be speaking to the conference via satellite. Netanyahu will be flying in to Washington to meet with Obama on 18 May to discuss the outcome of the AIPAC conference.

While Netanyahu has made it quite clear that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state, he and President Obama are likely to be at loggerheads over Obama’s demand that Netanyahu at least keep up an appearance that Israel is willing to talk about peace ~ even if it doesn’t involve actually talking about statehood for the Palestinians.

Besides the Palestinian question, heading up discussions is likely to be Israel’s perennial Iran ‘problem’. Israel, who like to tell the world that Iran is a problem because it is seeking nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of bombing Israel out of existence, actually has a problem with Iran only inasmuch that Iran is now the only country of any influence that stands between Israel and its realization of their expansionist dreams of a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and south Lebanon up to the Litani River.

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." ~ David Ben-Gurion,

While discussions that are in full view of the world between Obama and his Middle East policy chief Netanyahu, are likely to be cordial and result in outcomes that are likely to seem mutually agreeable, behind the scenes Netanyahu will be sounding out Obama on the likelihood of US support if Israel made a preemptive unilateral strike against Iran and or Iran’s allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas

President Obama needs to tread a careful path. On the one hand he needs to show both his fellow Americans and the peoples of the world that he is a President that can bring America back from the dark inglorious days of the George W. Bush administration and he can only do this by seemingly being tough with Israeli demands and giving the appearance of not being so hardline on Iran.

On the other hand, however, Obama cannot upset the Israeli lobby too much and has already demonstrated his support for Israel when he did nothing to stop the Israeli carnage in the Gaza in December and January using President-elect protocols as an excuse for saying nothing while hundreds died. In public, Obama is unlikely to give any succour to the Israelis with regard to attacking Iran with a view to regime change.

Netanyahu’s only option, therefore, will be to manipulate a casus belli which will result in Israel appearing to have no option other than to attack Iran and then, having done so, hope that Obama will see as fait accompli the necessity to support Israel against Iran albeit with the appearance of such support being given reluctantly.

The future of America’s Middle East foreign policy is likely to be determined at this upcoming AIPAC conference. Frightening, isn’t it.

ABE FOXMAN IS ONE OF THE DEVIL'S INFLAMED HEMORRHOIDS

THE WRITER OF THIS PIECE HAS CAPTURED MY FEELINGS ABOUT FOXMAN PERFECTLY AND NOT ONLY DO I APPROVE OF, BUT AGREE, WITH HIS STANCE REGARDING THIS PURVEYOR OF FILTH. PLEASE ENJOY THE READ ~ AND KNOW HE IS SPEAKING FOR ME AS WELL.

By Les Visible
JUSTGETHERE.US
May 2, 2009

Let’s face it (with averted, horrified eyes) Abe Foxman is a major player in the infernal kingdom. I toyed with some other illustrations; dead skunk in the middle of the road. The idea had promise. Abe smells at least that bad and he is dead. He’s dead to all human qualities, which makes him sort of like the undead that you see in those zombie films except, he would have to be a dung golem wouldn’t he? Then I considered he might be one of the devil’s butt hairs but I can’t see the devil wasting the kind of nasty talent he has invested in Abe on something as pedestrian as a butt hair.

No… when I thought about hemorrhoids, something just clicked. My understanding of hemorrhoids, I don’t have any but… my understanding is that they itch and burn and are really annoying and no one really wants one in their private places. All that dovetailed perfectly with how I understand Abe Foxman. As I read on, I realized that this is what Abe is but… not just any hemorrhoid; One of the devil’s hemorrhoids.

Two very famous hemorrhoids, Foxman and Sharon

Now the Zionist Occupied Government of America has dropped their case against the AIPAC spies. Larry Franklin went to prison for this but you can’t put AIPAC members in jail. You can’t even take them to court. If you try, Abe Foxman is going to go nova and The Devil is going to start squirming on his throne and getting really annoyed and pull some strings in the places where he has the most sway on the planet.

Those places would be most governments, most legal systems and certainly all of the ones in America and especially the legislative and administrative branches too. Once the Devil takes care of this, Abe will move on to something else which will lead to something like this or maybe something like this and the Devil can cut back on those Preparation H applications.

In America and Great Britain where people like Abe hold the greatest sway, the world is becoming a replica of George Orwell’s, 1984. They’ve got the German government sewed up pretty tight too and the same is true about the rest of Europe. Very few of the people in any of these countries support what Flaming Abe is up to but the will and opinion of the people isn’t worth anything at all in those places any more.

Let’s not leave out Canada and Australia where the psychopathic Zionistas are making life difficult for anyone who isn’t bending over for them. This is the sort of thing that is going on all over the place now and this article barely scratches the surface.

Let’s go back to the first link where we see that Professor William Robinson from the University of Santa Barbara has compared the Israelis to Nazis and apparently he’s going to be prosecuted for this. I thought the First Amendment was a protection against this sort of thing but, most likely there are no more Constitutional protections. The strange thing is that what the professor says is absolutely true.

In fact, the Israelis and The Zionists (wherever they may be) are worse than the Nazis. It’s no wonder the devil is in such a bad mood all the time, given how many hemorrhoids he has.

AIPAC holds their conventions there; Congress holds its sessions there. The Devil’s Rectum is like the world’s biggest soccer stadium. It’s no wonder that everything we hear from the governments and the press …as well as the Zionist Israelis who control them…

It’s no wonder that everything they say and do stinks of something we learned the smell of as children because they form their words and actions out of the substance found in the Devil’s rear end.

Please enlarge and read. Apparently Jewish visitors to Rotten.Com felt that the Pillsbury Doughboy was creating concentration camps in American kitchens.

Flaming Abe says that the professor’s curriculum intimidated a couple of Jewish students who complained about the professors take. Of course, hypocrisy is one of Flaming Abe’s main characteristics but you do have to wonder whether the Palestinians feel intimidated by the Nazi tactics of the Israelis. You have to wonder if Charles Freeman or Walt and Mearsheimer have felt intimidated.

The offending image. The site did nothing, nothing more happened.

You have to wonder if all the people being intimidated by Flaming Abe and his legion of dung golems feel intimidated. I know what Abe would say. He would say that feeling intimidated by ADL-Zionist-Israeli pressure amounts to antisemitism. I believe he would say that Palestinians crying out in their death agonies is antisemitism. I am sure he would say that every time a Palestinian draws a breath that it is an anti-Semitic act.

I’d wanted to make Flaming Abe the Hemorrhoid one of my first entries in my new blog, Profiles in Evil but I’m not ready with that yet and Abe really needs to hear this now. He needs to hear from all of us. Abe… the Israelis and their Zionist supporters are worse than the Nazis.

I’m never going to recant or change my tune on this. I wouldn’t let the threat of jail or anything else keep me from letting you know that I know that you are an inflamed hemorrhoid in the devil’s rear end.

Even if I did have to go to jail for telling the truth, I would have written a thousand essays to be published while I was away. I wouldn’t stop. I would go right back to saying what I am saying ~ no matter what. That’s how I am Abe, just like you are what you are, a vicious Nazi who crucifies the truth every day and who has no morals, no scruples, no honor and no soul.
I know you can ‘waddle in’ to Blogger and have them shut me down but I have blog locations all over. It takes five extra minutes to set up a new location and less than that to let everyone know where it is.

Maybe you can’t help yourself, Abe. I realize that living where you do might give you a distorted view on life. I realize that the only substance you come across in your day is something most people are repelled by. Of course, in your case, you’ve got that coprophagia thing happening so you think its pate. Even so, given the position you see the world from, it can’t be an asset to a wider perspective AND, given the sort of people you are likely to meet, well, you have my understanding. I’ve got compassion for a mad dog, Abe, but there’s no treatment for it.

Let me sum it up for you, Abe. Zionism and it’s weapon of ‘Antisemitism’ were created to give the impression that the people who took Palestine by force and evicted what inhabitants they didn’t kill, and who imprisoned the rest in Warsaw-like ghettos, are Biblical inheritors of that land. Actually, the real Semitic inhabitants were already there.

This presented a public relations problem, so you and your reptile, hemorrhoid associates needed to pretend that you were the people you replaced. This is why you changed the names of all of the towns so as to blot out the former presence of those you disenfranchised and murdered. It’s as simple as that and there is nothing more to it than that.

Now you’re using this hate crime legislation, which you and your proxies are behind, to stifle any and all opposition to your relentless assault on the freedom of human thought, speech and action. It’s right there to be seen. It’s right there. We can all see you the same way the Devil can feel you.

And,speaking of the Devil, he’s not happy, not even a little bit, with what you’ve been putting him through and he’s going to be settling your account at some point along with the overdue accounts of the rest of your odious, psychopathic crew.

I’ve been taught to have compassion Abe. I know that I must acquire compassion for everyone to achieve my goal in this life. You don’t need compassion, of course, but we are headed in different directions. In any case, you provide me with quite a conundrum. Is one required to feel compassion for a hemorrhoid? I’ve never had to think about that Abe. Should one have compassion for the Ebola virus as it is attacked by antibodies? It’s a difficult call.

Given what I see these days it really looks like the hemorrhoids have taken over the world. That could have the tendency to depress a person. Still, I’ve got the feeling that something is going to happen some way, somehow and that there’s going to be the kind of shrinking that happened to the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.

Maybe then we won’t be hearing any more from the shrieking violets that trigger all of the witch hunts we have seen in recent times. I don’t know what’s going to put an end to your mischief but I can tell you this ~ it’s going to happen and you aren’t going to shut me up any more than you will shut up the rest of us.

My advice to you is to go into a kind of remission and just enjoy the amenities of your natural home. For a man like yourself there is probably no sweeter place to be. Why not kick back and enjoy it?

THE COMING BREAK UP OF AMERICAN ZIONISM

Independent scholar and author,
Norman Finkelstein,
speaking at Evergreen State College
in Olympia, Washington.

The title of the lecture is:

"The Coming Breakup of
American Zionism"

THE FREEMAN AFFAIR ~ PART FOUR

My $.02 is in the dark green.

John Mearsheimer - The Lobby Falters

Posted: 23 Mar 2009 11:43 AM PDT

Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates.

Charles Freeman is a career diplomat who rose quickly through the ranks. As the man who translated for President Nixon in his 'realpolitik' trip to China, in 1972, and who then rose to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman's fate has been a mere sideshow overshadowed by President Obama's struggles with the economy.

Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but has publicly criticized Israeli policy and America's special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that 'as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.'

Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalize the intelligence community, which had been very politicized in the Bush years.

At first, nobody noticed when the new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, nominated Freeman for chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, the man who sorts fact from fable before advising the President.

Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama.

The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman's views of the Middle East, he said, 'are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship'.

Interesting, since Chas Freeman, school chum and close friend of Papa Bush, worked together with him during his Presidency.

Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

This is the usual pack of pro-Zionist media, like slavering wolves trying to hamstring a stag, chasing and nipping at its heels until one of them manages to get the fatal bite.

The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as 'America's Pro-Israel Lobby') wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer.'I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,' Schumer said, 'and I am glad they did the right thing.'

It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman's finances.

In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment 'beyond the pale'.

"Let there be no doubt ~ the United States of America stands with the State of Israel also because it is in our national interests to stand with the State of Israel." ~ Nancy "impartial" Pelosi.

Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama's pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.

With Rahm Emanuel and Joe Lieberman advising him, and thoroughly owned by Zionism, of course Obama did what he does best when challenged ~ played golf, walked the puppy, anything but stand for the proper thing to do.

The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman's resignation. Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organization 'took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it'.

Why would anyone believe that lot about anything, even a weather report? These critters could have stains all over their shirts and still deny they were into the jam bottle! And frequently have. Up until this event, they tried to deny their own existence.

The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman's resignation was something dreamed up by 'Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists."

Charles Freeman, known for his forthright honesty, has served his country with honour and high ethics during his long Diplomatic career. With this low blow, the Washington Post sinks to a new journalistic low, if that could be possible.

Those crazy bloggers are always making up things. Remember the Holocaust! Some of them actually deny the Holocaust! Conspiracy theorists, who can believe a word they say. And they had the NERVE to make this story public when we, the legitimate media had ignored it hoping no one would notice what AIPAC was up to.

In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hard line supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac.

Let me see if I get this right. Bloggers are ok if you can USE them and trust them to keep their mouths shut about their sources! But if they actually tell the truth, they are conspiracy theorists and thereby unethical and unreliable.

Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwords: 'Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.'

Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen's role in bringing Freeman down.

On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair.

Make up your mind, Washington Post!

If you are going to lie, at least be consistent about it!

There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: 'The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.'

Freeman's critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close - maybe even improper - ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn't stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it.

Israel's supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tienanmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman's pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.

Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position?

Here's the main reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates.

Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since.

DEAR READERS,

THIS NEXT POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

CONSIDER THIS THE NEXT TIME ISRAEL TALKS

ABOUT IRAN WHICH, WITH NETANYAHU

IN POWER, IS FREQUENTLY!

The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran's nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.

An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America's present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalize anyone who criticizes the special relationship.

If Freeman hadn't been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention ~ the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down ~ while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere.

Freeman's opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition.

Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them.

IN SHORT, THE INTERNET ENABLED A SERIOUS DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT AN ISSUE INVOLVING ISRAEL. THE LOBBY HAS NEVER HAD MUCH TROUBLE KEEPING THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST IN LINE, BUT IT HAS FEW WAYS TO SILENCE CRITICS ON THE INTERNET.

When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back.

The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter's footsteps, but with sharper elbows.

After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of 'unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country whose aim is to prevent any view other than its own from being aired'.

'There is,' he continued, 'a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.'

Freeman's remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn't good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman's appointment without leaving any fingerprints.

But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.

THUS, AN ORGANIZATION WHICH PREFERS TO WORK UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS, THANKS TO MR. FREEMAN, HAS BEEN OUTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE OUTED, UNDER THE BRIGHT LIGHT OF THE DAY.

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.