NationStates Jolt Archive

Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.

They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.

And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.

"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
...
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.

"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud,"
--UPI--

My comment is "damn Antisemite proffessors". [/sarc]

I did not read that

If this is indeed so, it would be quite interesting. Maybe it would paint a more accurate picture of who truly rules the USA.

Jesus. Is there anything you don't think the Jews are responsible for?

@ The question. Yes, the Israeli lobbies may have wielded power. So does every other fucking lobby. It's what they're meant to do. I doubt one is anymore powerful than the other.

Jesus. Is there anything you don't think the Jews are responsible for?

@ The question. Yes, the Israeli lobbies may have wielded power. So does every other fucking lobby. It's what they're meant to do. I doubt one is anymore powerful than the other.

That's funny. The palestinian lobby doesn't seem to be doing too well...

That's funny. The palestinian lobby doesn't seem to be doing too well...

Is there even one? (Serious question). Anyway, my point remains - there is an Israeli lobby, and it may wield power, but I doubt that means it controls the direction of US foreign policy in Israel. Influence, perhaps, but I doubt it has that much of an effect, especially since the US often makes overtures to Palestine as well.

I wouldn't classify the Israel Lobby as the Jewish Lobby. That's like calling the European Lobby the Atheist Lobby, and the Canadian Lobby the Gay Hockey Player Lobby.

Is there even one? (Serious question). Anyway, my point remains - there is an Israeli lobby, and it may wield power, but I doubt that means it controls the direction of US foreign policy in Israel. Influence, perhaps, but I doubt it has that much of an effect, especially since the US often makes overtures to Palestine as well.
Isn't Israel pretty much the epicentre of US foreign policy?

Those professors are obviously neo-nazis, and should never be allowed to teach again!!!!1111

Isn't Israel pretty much the epicentre of US foreign policy?the billions of $$$ foreign Welfare we waste.. The wars we get into.

..do seem to point in that direction. doesn't it?

Is there even one? (Serious question). Anyway, my point remains - there is an Israeli lobby, and it may wield power, but I doubt that means it controls the direction of US foreign policy in Israel. Influence, perhaps, but I doubt it has that much of an effect, especially since the US often makes overtures to Palestine as well.

There almost certainly is a Palestinian lobby, there are as many lobbies as there are spaces in the combined US governments' diaries. Furthermore, your claim that all lobbies are of equal standing is ridiculous, lobbies vary _hugely_ in power as some are better financed, some are more sympathetic to government opinion, some are better connected, and a whole myriad of other reasons.

Also, the labelling of this thread as the 'jewish lobby' is inappropriate zionism and judaism are hardly connected.

the billions of $$$ foreign Welfare we waste.. The wars we get into.

..do seem to point in that direction. doesn't it?
Pretty much so. All the US's other ventures seem to be dwarfed by comparison.

I wouldn't classify the Israel Lobby as the Jewish Lobby.I use what I think is the best know expression.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22jewish+lobby%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt

If it is not the rigth words.. then why so many people call it that way?

In other news the Jews are also responsible for bird flu, the tsunami, and Oceandrive's posts.

I use what I think is the best know expression.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22jewish+lobby%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt

If it is not the rigth words.. then why so many people call it that way?

Let's look at the top 4 hits for that search you provided:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (in other words, a Pro-Israeli site that claims to be for all Jews)

The Institute for Historical Review (an anti-semitic holocaust revisionist website)

WorldNetDaily.com (a news publication with about as much credibility as my left testicle)

www.rense.com (a conspiracy theory website)


Do you really consider those people to be "everybody?"

Yes, we've all heard about the dreaded Shylock Goldstein, leader of the Elders of Zion, and how he plots world domination in his dark lair in Israel and how he keeps running into piles of stolen money and shouting "Ow! My nose!":rolleyes:

Enough with the JCTs.

Let's look at the top 4 hits for that search you provided:
(knock-knock,com.. knock-knock,com.. knock-knock,com.. etc)

Do you really consider those people to be "everybody?"there is 274,000 websites.. not only 4.

BTW how do you like webpage #9 ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

Apartheid in the Holy Land
In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

there is 274,000 websites.. not only 4.

I don't have time to shit 274,000 times just because you're an anti-semite. ;)

BTW how do you like webpage #9 ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

Apartheid in the Holy Land
In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

This has WHAT to do with calling the Zionist/Pro-Israeli group the Jewish Lobby? Oh yeah thats right. NOTHING.

This has WHAT to do with... You pulled a few pages from the search.. and so I did.

I could also say: If the Jewish Lobby were not so Pwerful.. Maybe we would not have evicted the Palestineans.. creating the Never-Ending-Bloody-Mess.

So The Jewish-Lobby and The Palestinean-Apartheid are related.

You pulled a a few pages from the search.. and so I did.


Yeah, but mine was relevant in showing that basically the only people who call it the Jewish Lobby are:

1) Zionists
2) Anti-Semites
3) Idiots

I could also say: If the Jewish Lobby were not so Pwerful.. Maybe we would not have evicted the Palestineans.. creating the Never-Ending-Bloody-Mess.

So The Jewish-Lobby and The Palestinean-Apartheid are related.

I could also say: my left testicle is hairy, I think you'd like it.

*sigh*

*goes rummaging for tin-foil hat in the closet*

I don't have time to shit 274,000 times..God.. I hope not :D

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/115stomach/images/pepto_bismol_ad.gif

I could also say: my left testicle is hairy, I think you'd like it.Bull.. Girls do not have testicles.

You are female right?
going AFK..

OP link http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060320-124726-1902r

There is no "Jewish lobby," any more than there is a "Christian lobby." The term is offensive.

The lie, repeated so often by anti-Semites and Israeli nationalists alike, that Jews are in some sort of monolithic bloc in support of Israeli repression and colonialism amounts to little more than slanderous propaganda.

Bull.. Girls do not have testicles.

You are female right?
going AFK..

No, I'm a guy. So yes, I have testicles - two of them in fact.

No, I'm a guy. ahh
weird.. what was I thinking.. must be your name :confused:

ahh
weird.. what was I thinking.. must be your name :confused:

Yeah, I get that a lot.

But even so, Saint Barbara had balls too. She's the patron saint of Artillerymen.

But even so, Saint Barbara had balls too. She's the patron saint of Artillerymen.Santa Barbara is a Spanish expression.

If its Female its "santa". (santa Maria, santa Ana, santa Anita, santa Cruz, etc)

If its Male its "san" or santo (san Pedro, san Pablo, san Antonio, san Jose, etc)

Santa Barbara is a Spanish expression.

If its Female its "santa". (santa Maria, santa Ana, santa Anita, santa Cruz, etc)

If its Male its "san" or santo (san Pedro, san Pablo, san Antonio, san Jose, etc)

Well, yes. And Barbara was a chick. A chick with balls.

And a response to the piece.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342

Stephen Walt's War with Israel
March 20th, 2006

Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky

Harvard Professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer have just published a lengthy diatribe against what they call the “Israel lobby.” Their article (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html) appeared in the London Review of Books, and a longer version has been released as a Harvard Kennedy School working paper. The two professors are employed by prestigious universities. But their new paper, a collection of innuendo, half truths, and outright misrepresentations (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/166#m), fails the test of academic integrity and honest research.

It is a work without a trace of balance, in essence no more than an angry polemic disguised as academic research. “The Israel Lobby” is a long, bitter, op-ed piece given a patina of respectability because of where the authors are employed. They may feel themselves protected from criticism by tenure and their titles. They live and work in the proverbial ivory towers of an academic environment that has become an Arab-subsidized lobby against Israel.

Walt and Mearsheimer have an axe to grind. They don’t much care for Israel, and they resent the power of those whom they believe have influenced American policymakers to support Israel in its long conflict with some of the Arab states and the Palestinians. The authors do pay lip service to defending Israel’s right to exist. But their attacks on Israel fail every basic test of fairness, and lead one to believe they would prefer a world without Israel.

One blatant example of this concerns Israel’s role in the 1991 Gulf War. The authors condemn Israel, though it did exactly what the US asked, by electing not to enter the war despite absorbing Iraqi scud missile attacks that killed and wounded hundreds of Israelis.* Israel’s crime, according to the authors, was the placement of Patriot batteries in the country to defend against the scuds. The Patriots, of course, were a failure, and given the American instructions for Israel to stay out of the war, were a minimum contribution by the US to Israel’s self-defense.

But the real problem for Walt and Mearsheimer would seem to be Israel’s existence at the time of the conflict. If it were not there, the US could have ignored it. And were Israel gone, the US could focus on what Walt and Mearsheimer have elsewhere (http://realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2005/01/ending_the_isra.php) argued should be the real strategic goal of our policy in the Middle East: securing a continuing source of cheap oil from the region.

This so-called “realist” school of foreign policy claptrap is comfortable with brutal Arab regimes, so long as the oil keeps coming. Saudi Arabia is an important ally for Walt and Mearsheimer because it supplies oil, regardless of whether its oil earnings fund the madrassas around the world that breed new generations of Muslim fanatics committed to destroying America; and regardless of the nature of its regime, and its treatment of minorities, women, gays, and Christians.

Syria and Iran

Israel is held to a standard of perfection (which of course it fails) in “Walt’s World” while thuggish terror-supporting states such as Iran and Syria are presented as potential important allies of America, and are insulated from any criticism by the professors. Israel is demonized by the authors; the surrounding dictatorships, who have sent terrorists to our shores and who are killing our soldiers now, are sanctified.

The professors’ attempt to promote the good deeds of Syria in the war on terror is particularly laughable. Syria has opened its border to virtually every jihadist willing to kill Americans in Iraq. It has attempted to undermine every serious peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and its other neighbors since Israel’s founding. Syria occupied Lebanon for over 15 years, has treated terrorist groups as proxies for Syria, has been implicated in the assassination of the leader of Lebanon, and has openly served as a conduit for over 10,000 missiles delivered to Hezbollah terrorists in Southern Lebanon – who seemingly run their own Islamic terror state within a state.

The professors also cavalierly argue that an Iranian nuclear capability is no threat to America. These “experts” seem to be unaware that Iran has consistently been ranked as the number one terror state in the world by our State Department (a charge they would probably discount since in their delusional world, the Jews control even the famously anti-Israel State Department). But Shiite Iran, with missiles purchased from North Korea, can reach many of the Sunni Arab states that the authors argue are America’s real allies in the region, and also Europe.

Are the professors unaware of the thousand year rivalry between the Shiites and Sunnis in the Islamic world? Are Europe and the Arab states not areas of strategic interest for America? During his presidency, Jimmy Carter enunciated what later became known as the Carter Doctrine: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf Region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Jimmy Carter, and his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski have always been considered two of the most anti-Israel national figures. The Carter Doctrine was not about protecting Israel. The Sunni nations around what they consider the “Arab Gulf” would feel threatened by Iranian hegemony in the region – as we all should be. An Iran in possession of nuclear arms would be in a position to greatly threaten the region and probably lead to a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world. The current need to restrain Iran has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with America and its role as the defender of the West. Are nuclear weapons in the hands of a fanatic Islamist state, committed to the destruction of America and the infidel states of Western Europe, something to be shrugged off?

The Role of AIPAC

Walt and Mearsheimer aim most of their fire at the supposed power of AIPAC, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. The authors express powerful frustration in their inability to turn America against Israel. Their anger with Israel and the pro-Israel lobby lead them to indulge in some of the kinds of malicious attacks and charges that are routinely found on neo-Nazi websites where the “all-powerful Jews” are blamed for everything that is wrong with the world. They avoid telltale phrases, but the underlying arguments betray the same logic. For instance, the authors succumb to claiming that “AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress.” The Congress, in other words, is Israeli-controlled territory. The neo-Nazis have coined a slogan for this charge: they call Congress part of the Zionist Occupation Government, or ZOG. Evidence of the authors’ political bedfellows (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013468.php) is the ringing endorsement of the Walt/Mearsheimer document by Ku Klux Klansman David Duke who called it “vindication (http://www.nysun.com/article/29380).” Harvard and University of Chicago professors are now swimming, or at least sticking their toes, in that fetid swampland.

The authors decry AIPAC’s power but acknowledge that what AIPAC does, is perfectly legitimate.

“The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalize them for doing so.

“In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy. The Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.”

Of course, the authors denounce anti-Semitism, attempting to inoculate themselves from accusations that they harbor such views themselves by arguing that all critics of Israel have to face such charges. That argument is ludicrous. Israel’s media is dominated by critics of Israeli policies in the territories, who have been political foes of every Likud-run government in the last quarter century. The authors themselves often rely on criticism coming from Israelis and within the Israeli government to disparage Israel. It is indeed odd that the authors don’t at least acknowledge one of the many contradictions within their paper: Israel is demonized at every turn, yet it is the only nation in the entire region that allows such criticism to come from within the government and from its own citizens (including Israeli Arabs). No other government or nation that surrounds it would allow such freedom to criticize the regime.

One would think that that might be at least acknowledged by the authors as a mark in Israel’s favor. But such fairness can not be found in a paper that is really just a hit job.

The authors argue that AIPAC has been little more than a Likud Party mouthpiece. This charge is also ridiculous, and if either of the authors had ever deigned to attend an AIPAC policy conference, they would be well aware of the vigorous policy debate that always goes on, and the range of views on Middle East policy that are represented within the organization, whether the topic be Iraq, Iran, the peace process or the territories.

American Support for Israel

The authors’ frustration level must be greater today than when their article was first poison-penned. Recent surveys by the Gallup organization reveal that American support for Israel is at near record levels. Approximately four times as many Americans support Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians as support the Palestinian side. The victory by the terrorist group Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections, the refusal by Hamas to backtrack on any of the organization’s guiding principles since that victory (including a commitment to the destruction of Israel), the wild statements by Iran’s new president denying the holocaust while threatening a new one with Iran’s soon-to-be-completed nuclear program, have all hardened the views of most Americans as to what is obvious about this region: who America’s friends are, and who our enemies are.

Iran has spoken publicly of destroying America, not just Israel. That was bin Laden’s message well before 9/11, and his public statements about Israel are a late addition to his anti-Western vitriol. It is not AIPAC, nor the pro-Israel lobby that has made most Americans wary of Islamic radicalism, and terror supporting states. It was not an Israeli student who attempted to mass murder students at the University of North Carolina by running them over.

The Palestinians have now graduated from merely harboring terrorists on the loose, and with a wink and a nod sanctioning their heinous suicide attacks, to giving the reins of power to these same murderers. Americans saw the Palestinians partying in Ramallah celebrating the attacks on 9/11, and the same death cult worship of martyrdom with every successful terror attack against Israel. If the Congress is pro-Israel, it is because Americans are pro-Israel. If Americans are unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause, it is because they regard it as self -destructive for always choosing the path of violence over constructive negotiations, and are uncomfortable with its celebration of anti-Americanism.

Perhaps the American public is more aware of the facts than these two experts.

Fact: Muslims are committing terror in the Sudan, in India, In England, in Nigeria, in Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, France, Algeria, Morocco, Russia…need we continue? These countries will never be mistaken for supporters of Israel.

Fact: America has supported Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and protected them from genocide, has liberated millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, has provided vast material support to Muslims suffering from natural disasters (the tsunami, the Pakistan earthquake), and has worked to support the founding of a Palestinian state.

The crux of the problem is not American support for Israel. The crux of the problem is that the Muslim world is beset by a variety of divisions and conflicts that have nothing to do with the Palestinians. The Arab world is deeply dysfunctional and a clash of civilizations does seem to be occurring.

Another item Walt and Mearsheimer pass over: the ideological symbol for the extremists in the Arab World is Sayyid Qutb (http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/february/presence.htm). He was an Egyptian writer who attended a small college in Colorado in the 1950s. He came back from his American sojourn with a vile hatred of the West and America in particular. Gender equality (relative to the Arab world), capitalism, free speech, consumerism, American culture – all were facets of America he hated. His view was that America must be destroyed for what it was, not for what it did. America was not a strong supporter of Israel during the 1950s: the Israeli Air Force flew French fighters because America would not supply it. He was executed for treason by the Egyptian dictator Nasser in 1966, but his views have lived on with even greater power. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor jailed for his role in the murder of Sadat, is an ideological heir of Qutb , as is his partner-in-terror Osama Bin Laden.

If the Arab world cared so much for the plight of the Palestinians, why have they all (except for Jordan) denied them rights to citizenship? Or the right to own property? Why did Kuwait force 300,000 Palestinians out of their nation after Saddam’s army was forced out of their nation in the first Gulf War in 1991? Why are Filipinos and Indians given hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Gulf nations while Palestinians languish in camps? Indeed, why do Arab nations continue to keep them penned up in refugee camps instead of resettling them (as Israel re-settled the 600,000 Jews forced out of Arab lands after the founding of Israel in 1948)?

Why do Arab nations routinely fail to deliver on their pledges of aid to the Palestinians – except for money meant to support the killing of Israelis? That last point gives a clue: the Arab nations prefer to keep Palestinians impoverished and radicalized – all the better to destroy Israel. To not even mention any of these facts, is to reveal that the authors have violated the principles of academic scholarship, which demand that facts be portrayed in an objective, non-biased manner. This paper is a hatchet job, with the hatchet falling on Israel and American Jews.

Israeli Peace Efforts

The authors repeat the lie that Ehud Barak offered nothing but South African-style bantustans to the Palestinians at Camp David. In a separate statement (http://realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2005/01/ending_the_isra.php) Walt and Mearsheimer have called for a return to the Taba approach ( the January 2001 discussions between Barak, Arafat and former President Clinton). But the Taba approach differed very little from what was discussed at Camp David. Certainly the Palestinians did not need to create an intifada, and the suffering it has caused on both sides, to move the negotiating process forward.

The authors condemn former Prime Minster Sharon’s re-occupation of some West Bank cities in 2002, though they say nothing about the suicide attack murders of 130 Israelis in the month preceding Sharon’s move. On an American scale, given Israel’s small population, 130 deaths is the equivalent of more than two World Trade Center attacks. Israel did not start the intifada, but tried to end it. The building of a separation barrier designed to keep suicide killers out, the disengagement from Gaza and a few West Bank settlements and the promise of further pullbacks, are all part of a plan designed to separate the warring parties, and insure Israel’s security. Americans would demand no less of our government if we were subject to dozens of daily terror threats and attacks.

The authors also claim that Palestinian terror attacks are caused by the Israeli occupation. Are the authors unaware of the terror attack against Israel or Jewish settlers in the 50 years before the 1967 war? The PLO was founded in 1964. Fatah attacks occurred with regularity from 1948 on.

Walt and Mearscheimer claim that Israel has rejected overtures to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. This is either a deliberate fabrication or academic failure of the highest and ugliest order.

The authors deliberately choose to send down the “memory hole” the Israeli offers of peace after the 1967 war. These offers were roundly and proudly rejected by the Arab world in the infamous “3 Nos” of the Khartoum Resolution (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Khartoum%20Resolutions): No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel. The fact that the authors fail to mention this stance (and the past 30 year history of Muslim rejection of Israel’s right to Israel exist, let alone gloating over the upcoming genocide of the Jews of Israel) is an indication that they have suspended the prime principle of academic scholarship: an honest and comprehensive view of all the facts, including those that weaken one’s own argument. The authors seem to set aside these age-old scholarly principles to indulge in the writing of a screed that is best described as agitprop.

Certainly individual Israeli policies can be legitimately criticized by Americans, whether journalists, government officials, or academics. As mentioned already, Israeli policies are routinely savaged in the Israeli media. No less a foe of Israel than Ali Abunimah, the creator of the electronic intifada website, has stated that the Israeli press is far more willing to publish his denunciations of Israel than the Arab press. But to believe Walt and Mearsheimer, the Arab and Palestinian side of the debate gets no hearing in this country. The authors point to the fact that Israeli studies chairs are popping up on some campuses, and that some well known columnists routinely support Israel. The authors attempt to de-legitimize this support for Israel in this country by making a dual allegiance charge, much as they attempt to de-legitimize Israel throughout their article.

Arab Lobbying Efforts in America

The authors pretend there is no effective counterweight on the Palestinian or Arab side to this pro-Israel juggernaut. They ignore the proliferation of stridently anti-Israel Middle East studies centers on campuses across the country, which receive funding from the Gulf states and wealthy Arab donors. Professor Walt’s own university recently received a $20 million gift from a Saudi prince for a new Islamic studies program. Georgetown University received a similar gift from the same donor. Perhaps to show its appreciation, Georgetown decided not to allow an anti-terrorism conference to take place at a hotel on its campus, but helped sponsor and promote a Palestinian solidarity conference, replete with calls for Israel’s destruction by various speakers. The Saudis have spoken openly of how they can influence officials of the State Department and the intelligence community while they are employed by the American government, with the knowledge that when their government careers are over, they can be set up with far more lucrative arrangements at Middle East studies centers, or lobbying groups or public relations firms that promote the Saudi line.

The former Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bander bin Sultan, openly boasted (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/981) of his success (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/joelmowbray/2003/10/01/168404.html) in cultivating (http://www.cq.com/public/20060203_homeland.html) powerful Americans.

“If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you would be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.”

The list of ex-office holders who propagate pro-Saudi spin is a long and disgraceful one. Hume Horan is an ex-Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who is a noble exception to the rule. He says this of his former colleagues who are now on the Saudi dole:

“There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll and work as advisors and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that.”

The authors try to minimize the pro-Arab lobbying effort in America, and create the Goliath of Israel in its path. But Saudi money, which is much more substantial than that of the pro-Israel lobby, is very much at work, very often against American interests, in a variety of ways: radicalizing prison clerics, and mosque imams, setting up Wahhabbist schools, lobbying Congress against energy independence, and supporting academic chairs and policy centers that hire professors who routinely bash American policies and America itself.

The authors roundly condemn any and all efforts by supporters of Israel in America to make their voices heard. Christian support for Israel is criticized, despite the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that has allowed Christians complete freedom to practice their religion and has protected all Christian religious sites. It seems to have escaped the authors’ notice that there has been a mass exodus of Christians from throughout the region (particularly in Palestinian-controlled areas), that any religion other than Wahhabbi Islam is banned or severely restricted in Saudi Arabia, that Christian Copts are persecuted in Egypt. It is no surprise that Christians in America see Judeo-Christian civilization under threat and would support a lone outpost of such civilization in the place where Judeo-Christian civilization was born.

Jewish American support for Israel is likewise castigated. The authors resent Jewish citizens who contribute to universities, Jewish critics of the media, Jewish supporters of think tanks, and, finally it seems, Jewish people in government. However, they seem to have no concern for or even acknowledge the magnitude of FOREIGN (Arab) donations, given by dictators who steal their own people’s wealth to support hate and terror around the world, raining money down on think tanks, colleges, and media outlets in America.

On the latter issue, the same Saudi Prince who gave $20 million to Harvard bragged (http://www.aim.org/press_release/4222_0_19_0_C) of his recent 5% purchase of News Corporation stock giving him the power to influence news reporting. This is a worrisome development, for he also owned a 30% stake in an Arab TV network, ART TV, that spews forth anti-Semitism and anti-Western agitprop (http://daily.nysun.com/Archive/Skins/NYSun/navigator.asp?BP=OK). Foreign money, as long as it is anti-Israel, is worth its weight in gold (or oil). Jewish Americans who support universities are somehow tainted in their worldview. Do these authors seem to support an America that would strip Jews of their right to support charities, voice their opinions, or work in government or other influential positions? Have these scholars ever heard of Nazi Germany?

The authors also contend that there is a “dwindling moral case” for Israel. To prove this point, they pull statements out of context to discredit Israel. Indeed, one of the most distressing instances of their lack of objectivity and proof of their bias is the devotion they show in scraping together every bit of innuendo, biased research, quotes out of context, and use of suspect sources, while completely ignoring even the most basic facts of the conflict, available to anyone with more than a passing interest in the topic, let alone professors who hold themselves out as “experts.” They fail, for instance, to address some simple facts: Israeli Arabs enjoy not just the right to vote, but the highest standard of living in the region of any Muslim individuals (except for the unusual cases of tiny Gulf states), and until the outbreak of terrorism, the West Bank residents had benefited from a very strong and healthy symbiotic economic relationship with the Israelis. Their own economy boomed along with Israel’s, and indices of educational and health benefits had soared from pre-1967 levels.

The Iraq War Slur

The Iraq war is a source of much of the Israel-loathing which is just beneath the surface in the Walt/Mearsheimer article. The authors promote the theory that America went to war with Iraq in 2003 because of Israel, and in particular, at the direction of Israel’s Likud Party and Ariel Sharon and their flacks in the American neoconservative movement. There were certainly Jews who supported the war with Iraq, though as even the authors admit, Jewish Americans disproportionately opposed the war, with a far higher percentage opposed to the war than among the general population. So much, one would think, for the proposition that the Jews drove America to war. But the professors want us to ignore the general disapproval of the war by American Jews, for what is important are the powerful neoconservative voices, who pushed Bush and Cheney to war. To believe this theory, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice and Colin Powell were mere pushovers and puppets for the likes of Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby.

Characterizing this as suggesting the cart is pulling the horse is too kind (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3562&search=richard) to the authors’ theory. In fact, people such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have always been consistent in their views opposing tyranny. They worked to bring down Communism, acted to save Bosnian Muslims and Iraqi Shiites from genocide, tried to stabilize Somalia and protect its citizens from the depredations of warlords, and have acted to stop the genocide in the Sudan. These actions are not particularly pro-Israel, as much as they are anti-dictatorship and pro-human rights.

The nations that directly benefited from the downfall of Saddam were Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq itself, since all these nations and peoples suffered from the sadism of Saddam. If Israel also benefited (a big “if”), it certainly was not a prime beneficiary. Perhaps, these experts should be more aware of a basic statistical principle: correlation does not prove causation. Israel may have been aided by Iraq’s liberation, but it does not prove – except in the delusional world of the authors – that tiny Israel (or a tiny minority of American Jews) caused the war to happen.

The realist school in foreign policy, and its old standbys, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski among them, have been bitter critics of the Iraq war. These former government officials were always fond of, and comfortable with, Arab leaders, regardless of how loathesome their regimes were. For this realist school, containing Saddam was better than removing Saddam and thereby risking upsetting the status quo order.

These same individuals have always had little good to say about Israel. That Walt and Mearsheimer are comfortable with this realist group is no great surprise. When your highest strategic concern is maintaining the flow of oil, it is pretty logical that your friends are where the oil is, and you can look away from all the hideous behavior associated with the regimes in question, and just accept that it goes with the territory.

One needn’t have to defend the Iraq war to challenge the thesis that Israel made us do it. President Bush came to office as a proponent of sorts of the realist school. He argued in the 2000 campaign against America attempting to undertake nation building. His worldview, as the authors are forced to admit, changed after 9/11. It changed because the President decided that the “let sleeping dogs lie” approach to the Arab world was not working, that these brutal, intolerant regimes were breeding fanatics who wanted to kill Americans. Bush decided that the region needed a dose of openness, and freedom and democracy, much as occurred in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet empire.

It is too early to judge the wisdom of the Bush Doctrine. Clearly, everything has not gone smoothly, and the forces of resistance to change in the Arab and Islamic world are quite strong. But the Walt accusation is phony and wrong. Israel, at best, would have been a minor beneficiary of removing Saddam. But it did not initiate, nor cause the shift in policy in the Bush administration to actively seek Saddam’s removal. The same small band of neoconservatives Walt paints as the architects and orchestrators of our Iraq war policy were singularly ineffective in getting any American President to move on Iraq until 9/11. It would be a lot more accurate to say bin Laden made Bush do it, not Israel.

But Iraq is important to the Walt/Mearsheimer argument for one reason: it is a twofer. If you blame an unpopular war on a foreign country and on Americans working at the behest of this country rather than their own, you can translate some of the discontent with the war onto the authors’ real bogeyman, Israel. If Israel is blamed for the Iraq war, then maybe some of that strong support for Israel among Americans will wear thin. And that is the apparent goal of the professors. They want to destroy the pro-Israel Lobby, because it is effective. To that end, almost any reckless charge will do. An example is their attempt to link the Pollard spying case to the current affair with Larry Franklin, a non-Jewish Defense Department official, who, on his own volition, passed information to an Israeli, and to two AIPAC employees. No one has accused Israel of running any agents or officials or spying on America in this matter.

But guilt by association is part and parcel of the Walt approach. For this noxious paper is designed above all to taint the efforts by any Americans to support a strong US-Israel relationship, a bipartisan effort that has won overwhelming American support for many decades. Much as they try, this article will be unpersuasive in convincing Americans that our real national interest lies with cozying up with Saudi Arabia, and abandoning Israel. And much as they claim their approach is motivated only by the national interest, something uglier is at work here. When something walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, usually it is a duck. Walt and Mearsheimer have decided to navigate the waters of the Israel-hating, Jew-hating conspiracy theorists. There is a good reason for this. They seem comfortable in these waters.

*To clarify: a few hundred were treated for wounds, but only two actual fatalities were recorded. Property damage ran to tens of millions of dollars.

Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent, and Ed Lasky is the news editor of The American Thinker

That's funny. The palestinian lobby doesn't seem to be doing too well...

Really, because I believe they have a special membership at the UN. Something that they do not deserve, it should be given to Tibet or even Quebec instead.

In other news the Jews are also responsible for bird flu, the tsunami, and Oceandrive's posts.
Now now, the bird flu was engineered by the baha'i.

Finally someone posts something for the defense of Israel. All they did was get created by Great Britain following the end of WW2 and then they defended themselves when the Muslims attacked them repeatedly from 1948 to 1972. I think they have a right to exist if they beat back Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan enough times. And need I remind you, that it was the Russians that first supplied the Jewish nation with military equipment and then the French, not America. America waited until the 60's because the Russians were getting free oil from Arab countries, who then gave them weapons to fight Israel. And because of this, America began to support the Jewish State.

And does anyone EVEN remember hearing about the Iranian Presidents statement that "Israel should be bombed off the face of the earth?" Why are people defending Iran, when they want to eradicate a nation that has been fighting from its very creation to be at peace with the world?

*sniped boring long copy-paste from NeoCon website* http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342
yup ... written by (neocons'r'us) Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr

Iraq/Iran Wars and the Jewish Lobby.
Did you really have to say it like that? There are millions of Jews who disagree 100% with the neocon foreign policy.

There are millions of Jews who disagree 100% with the neocon foreign policy.did you take a poll or something?

If this is indeed so, it would be quite interesting. Maybe it would paint a more accurate picture of who truly rules the USA.

Its not true. Jews make up about 1% or 2% (at the most) percent of Americas population, and it would be false to say that all of them support Israel.

These are just stupid lies that stupid people spread.

Dont take them seriously.

did you take a poll or something?
Let me be the first to say...YES, I DO HATE THE NEOCON AGENDA. In fact THE MAJORITY OF U.S. JEWS VOTE FOR THE LEFT! It's a verifiable fact. So stop your wild conspiracy theories. In fact, many people in Israel opposed the Iraq war because it would take out an important counterweight to Iran. Guess what's happened?:rolleyes:

EDIT: According to this (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103) page from the Pew center , 79% and 74% percent of Jews voted for Gore and Kerry respectively

Let me be the first to say...YES, I DO HATE THE NEOCON AGENDA. In fact THE MAJORITY OF U.S. JEWS VOTE FOR THE LEFT! It's a verifiable fact. So stop your wild conspiracy theories. In fact, many people in Israel opposed the Iraq war because it would take out an important counterweight to Iran. Guess what's happened?:rolleyes:

Yeah...most Jews are extreme left. In fact, I am one of the only Jewish families that I know of that even supports Bush.....we are obviously not left at all..lol.

The Jewish Lobby is so strong that it has managed to extract over 3 trillion dollars from the American taxpayers, since the late 1940's, and have it sent directly into Israel. Not loans, not economy aid, just cold hard cash. The US will NEVER see that money again.

For reference, $3 trillion over 58 years (counting from 1948) is roughly $51.7 billion per year. Israel's yearly budget is $58.04 billion. Israel's GDP is $163.45 billion.

This does not include money provided by private citizens and corporations, which only increases the final sum.

It's pretty clear what part of America, Israel has hold of.

did you take a poll or something?
No, but there's my personal experience, and the fact that 74% of American Jews voted for Kerry back in 2004.

If this is indeed so, it would be quite interesting. Maybe it would paint a more accurate picture of who truly rules the USA.
How long is it until we start getting into Nazi rhetoric?

Corporations rule the US. The vast majority of them are not controlled by Jews.

Well, whatever the Israeli Lobby, or any other lobby might say, US Foreign Politics Specialists should know this:

Iran and the US have a lot of common interests.
Iran has played a major role in stablising Afghanistan, they have lost some 3000 troops in border fighting there (among other things, to stop drug trafficking).
Iran has no interest in chaos in Iraq. Especially not if that means radical Sunnis having a power base there.
Iran needs the world economy to function, they have no interest in seeing it collapse. They are one of the most democratic states in the region (their neighbours are countries like Pakistan or Turkmenistan), and one of the most modernised with a pretty decent GDP per capita.

They need to talk to each other, about Iraq, about how they want to see the region develop, about nuclear technology. This empty rhetoric from both sides is just crap.

dp

Yeah...most Jews are extreme left. In fact, I am one of the only Jewish families that I know of that even supports Bush.....we are obviously not left at all..lol.

Most Jews are not at all "extreme left." Most Jews are American liberals, especially on social issues, but hardly "extreme left."

In fact, many people in Israel opposed the Iraq war thats interesting.. to be honest I was not expecting that.. (So far the only indication I had about Israeli dominant POVs was: the way Israel vote, who they elect to lead their Armies, What policies they support, etc.)

Let me look into that.. will you.
If I find that your information is truthsome.. You would have scored an important point with me.

Iran has no interest in chaos in Iraq. Especially not if that means radical Sunnis having a power base there.

They have exactly the same interest the US does in the chaos in Iraq - it strengthens, theoretically, their capability to control the country and prevent any nationalist tendency. In accordance with this interest, they are supporting exactly the same players the US is, and opposing exactly the same radical Sunni interests you refer to.

Iran needs the world economy to function, they have no interest in seeing it collapse. They are one of the most democratic states in the region (their neighbours are countries like Pakistan or Turkmenistan), and one of the most modernised with a pretty decent GDP per capita.

And increasingly globalized and privatized, too, at least before Ahmadinejad.

thats interesting.. to be honest I was not expecting that.. (So far the only indication I had about Israeli dominant POVs was: the way Israel vote, who they elect to lead their Armies, What policies they support, etc.)

Let me look into that.. will you.
If I find that your information is truthsome.. You would have scored an important point with me.
For someone who writes about Israel so much you need to get informed. Israel has a huge left-wing peace movement. Their politics are split down the middle between hawks and doves.

thats interesting.. to be honest I was not expecting that.. (So far the only indication I had about Israeli dominant POVs was: the way Israel vote, who they elect to lead their Armies, What policies they support, etc.)

Let me look into that.. will you.
If I find that your information is truthsome.. You would have scored an important point with me.

Yes, while there are some anti war-ers in Israel...the majority are pro war....and like Bush.

Santa Barbara is a Spanish expression.

If its Female its "santa". (santa Maria, santa Ana, santa Anita, santa Cruz, etc)

If its Male its "san" or santo (san Pedro, san Pablo, san Antonio, san Jose, etc)

OT but I am curious.

Santa Anna (Spanish general?) was a male right?

OT but I am curious.

Santa Anna (Spanish general?) was a male right?in Spanish both "santa" and "Ana" are Female.

So there is not such a thing as a Male "santa Ana"

Anna is not an Spanish name.

You are probably talking about "Santana" wiich is a family name. (and has nothing to do with Santa Ana

Yes, while there are some anti war-ers in Israel...the majority are pro war....and like Bush.Yup.. thats what I tough..
My impression was/is that Israel Major parties (parties that can take power) do want the US to go to war with Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. (Major parties usually follow public opinion)

I think most Israel citizens are largely pro Iraq War. (cos they elect that kind of politicians)

For someone who writes about Israel so much you need to get informed. Israel has a huge left-wing peace movement. Their politics are split down the middle between hawks and doves.I guess you are better informed.. Good for you. ;) [/sarc]

I think most Israel citizens are largely pro Iraq War. (cos they elect that kind of politicians)

The evidence is clear on that subject, there have been polls. The Israeli public was, if I recall correctly, the second most pro-war population on the planet, the first being that of the US.

I guess you are better informed.. Good for you. ;) [/sarc]
So because the US elected Bush twice I am to assume that all Americans are pro-war wingnuts? That includes you.

So because the US elected Bush twice I am to assume that all Americans are pro-warwing nuts? That includes you.Like I said.. I look at their actions.. (the way they vote, who they elect to lead their Armies, What policies they support, etc.)..

So I can tell you that Most of US did support this Illegal War at the beginning (I did not.. but thats another story) and they were wrong.

Once the War starts.. "patriotism" will keep it going (its like an ego thing)..

Can I blame you for calling US "War-Wingnuts"? -No I cant- But you should replace the "all" prefix for "many"

Iran needs the world economy to function, they have no interest in seeing it collapse. They are one of the most democratic states in the region (their neighbours are countries like Pakistan or Turkmenistan), and one of the most modernised with a pretty decent GDP per capita.

Rigged elections do not a democracy make.

in Spanish both "santa" and "Ana" are Female.

So there is not such a thing as a Male "santa Ana"

Anna is not an Spanish name.

You are probably talking about "Santana" wiich is a family name. (and has nothing to do with Santa Ana
Mmmm, a history buff.

http://www.lsjunction.com/people/santanna.htm

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the leading villain of Texas history, was born in Mexico on 21 February 1794. As a young military officer, he supported Emperor Agustin de Iturbide, and at one time courted the emperor's sister.

He later rebelled against the government, gained considerable backing. By 1833, he was elevated to president of Mexico in a democratic election. He soon determined, however, that Mexico was not ready for democracy and pronounced himself dictator.

Santa Anna was remembered as a particularly ruthless opponent by the Texans. Despite this, he was allowed to return to Mexico after his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto.

After his return to Mexico, Santa Anna participated in the Mexican War and in 1853 sold territory to the United States including that area known as the Gadsden Purchase. He was later exiled from Mexico, but allowed to return a few years before his death in 1876.

Can I blame you for calling US "War-Wingnuts"? -No I cant- But you should replace the "all" prefix for "many"
Maybe you should revise your opinions of the Israeli people, and the Jewish people in the wider world, in light of this.

Rigged elections do not a democracy make.
Are you trying to imitate Yoda?

yup ... written by (neocons'r'us) Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr
Awwwww, poor baby, is this more to your liking?

http://www.nysun.com/article/29470

WASHINGTON - The furor over a paper co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about what is described as the far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" intensified yesterday, as it drew sharp criticism from a prominent Kennedy School scholar, President Clinton's special coordinator for the Middle East negotiations, and figures identified in the paper as members of the "lobby."

.....

Less thrilled with the Harvard dean's work is one of his colleagues, Marvin Kalb, a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School and a senior fellow and founding director at the school's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.

"I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper," Mr. Kalb, who is also the faculty chair for the Kennedy School's Washington programs, told The New York Sun in an e-mail yesterday after reading the paper.

"It is a rather sensational example of 'realist' journalism," he continued. "My sense is that Dean Walt would be better advised to stick to scholarship and leave journalism to journalists, who generally check their 'facts' before publishing them."

Also critical of the paper's academic quality was one of the figures mentioned in it as part of the "lobby," President Clinton's special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, who said the authors displayed "a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject."

"The part I've read I find remarkable for its lack of seriousness," Mr. Ross told the Sun yesterday. "It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship.

"I would say this is an effort to take a point of view and give it academic legitimacy," he continued.

One of the "Lobby's" alleged media manipulators and the publisher of the New York Daily News, Mortimer Zuckerman, said yesterday about being identified in the paper: "I would just say this: The allegations of this disproportionate influence of the Jewish community reminds me of the 92-year-old man sued in a paternity suit. He said he was so proud, he pleaded guilty."

The Walt-Mearsheimer paper, Mr. Zuckerman said, was "wrong and wrong-headed," adding: "Not only do I disagree with the opinions in it, unfortunately, there are a lot of factual errors in it." Still, Mr. Zuckerman, who finances a leadership program at the Kennedy School, said he would not cut his donations to the school in response to the paper, citing principles of "academic freedom."

Also concerned about factual errors in the Walt-Mearsheimer paper was another alleged "Lobby" leader and a former board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, Daniel Pipes, who has issued on his Web site a public challenge to the scholars to prove claims that Mr. Pipes founded Campus Watch - an organization headed by Mr. Pipes that tracks anti-Israel bias in university Middle East programs - at the behest of the "Lobby." Mr. Pipes said yesterday that he had issued a similar challenge to the London Review of Books, which published a version of the "Lobby" paper.

Mr. Pipes, who also writes a column in the Sun, said yesterday that he had established Campus Watch under his own initiative and said allegations that he had acted on orders from any "Lobby" were "sloppiness, carelessness, fantasy."

Meanwhile, the growing hubbub yesterday over the Walt-Mearsheimer paper also provoked outrage from an unlikely critic who had previously heaped praise on the professors' work. On his "official website," Duke faulted the academics for a lack of originality, writing that "the Harvard report contains little new information."

"I and a few other American commentators have for years been making the same assertions as this new paper," the anti-Semite continues. "The great thing is that now the most prestigious school of government in the United States has adopted the same position that I took even before the start of the Iraq War, that Jewish extremists have taken over America's foreign policy, harm America's interests on behalf of Israel, and are the driving force behind the Iraq War and America's disastrous Mideast policy."

Duke also lambastes the Sun for its critical coverage of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, opining: "Although the Sun and many other mainstream publications have attacked this new report, in actual fact the report does not go nearly far enough in exposing the perfidy of Israel and its fifth columnists in America."

William Rapfogel, CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, said the Sun "should be commended for exposing the Harvard Kennedy School's entry into the contest to succeed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To imply, as the report does, that there is a disloyal American Jewish population is a disgrace that Harvard and Kennedy should disassociate from immediately."

Are you trying to imitate Yoda?
No actually, that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw his claim. Also, I saw V for Vendetta last night so I've been thinking in lyrical prose off and on since.

Also, Yoda would probably say something like "Elections rigged, democracy makes does not."

Rigged elections do not a democracy make.

Elections on their own doesn't make one a 'democracy' either- be they rigged or no.

So long as anti-Semitism is weilded as a pre-emptive 'w1n' button in debates on Israel's role in US foreign policy, the conspiracy theories will enjoy validity.

So long as anti-Semitism is weilded as a pre-emptive 'w1n' button in debates on Israel's role in US foreign policy, the conspiracy theories will enjoy validity.

And people will still be around to post them on internet forums. It's like an endless cycle that we cannot prevent.

*Sinks to knees*

Why, God, Why?!?

So long as anti-Semitism is weilded as a pre-emptive 'w1n' button in debates on Israel's role in US foreign policy, the conspiracy theories will enjoy validity.

I tend to think the conspiracy theories will enjoy 'validity' no matter what anyone does.

And frankly, this thread isn't about Israel's role in US foreign policy, it's about the "Jewish Lobby" and "Jews." Like GW Bushstein.

Edit: Kind of like how threads on terrorism always seem to be about Muslims and how evil Islam is.

Mmmm, a history buff.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
http://www.lsjunction.com/people/santanna.htm

Not a history Bluff.. His last name is de Santa Anna

In this case his Last name means "From the city of Santa Anna"

its like
Maria de San Antonio.
or
Maria de San Francisco.
Both females with a Last name that means "from San Antonio" or "from San Diego""

Maybe you should revise your opinions of the Israeli people, and the Jewish people in the wider world, in light of this.I am always willing to revise my opinions.

BTW Some Jewish/Muslim members of our community have earned some respect from me.(for whatever reasons)

.. like AtlantianIslands or Keruvalia

I am always willing to revise my opinions.

BTW Some Jewish/Muslim members of our community have earned some respect from me.(for whatever reasons)

.. like AtlantianIslands or Keruvalia

Haha, are you sure you want to put me on there?

I mean, after all, I'm a right wing, war mongering, die hard American conservative whos is pro Israel and anti A-rab.

Or is it my sexy, blonde, island, beach parties that put me in your good graces?

lol :p ;)

Rigged elections do not a democracy make.

So who "rigged" it to make Ahmadinejad win? The people in power, both the liberals and the conservatives, despise him.

Haha, are you sure you want to put me on there?
yes.. I just said I am giving you some credit/respect.. I am not asking for your beatification..
I mean, after all, I'm a right wing, war mongering, die hard American conservative whos is pro Israel and anti A-rab.
I am aware of that..

Or is it my sexy, blonde, island, beach parties that put me in your good graces?

lol :p ;)LOL no..
I told you.. I do separate my politics-time with my vacation/party-time.
________________________
Why? all I am willing to write is: I think you are Honest (among other qualities)

yes.. I just said I am giving you some credit/respect.. I am not asking for your beatification.. I am aware of that..
LOL no..
I told you.. I do separate my politics-time with my vacation/party-time.
________________________
Why? all I am willing to write is: I think you are Honest (among other qualities)

Yeah, I know that post was just a joke...thanks for the credit and respect...

and what good vacation time it would be...eh;)

Yeah, well I try to be honest...among other qualities...again, thanks for the respect and credit.

So who "rigged" it to make Ahmadinejad win? The people in power, both the liberals and the conservatives, despise him.
Actually, it was rigged so that the two finalists were both party puppets. The one looked nicer than the other, but really was just the velvet glove covering the iron fist. Whereas Ahmadinejad is just the iron fist. The end result would be the same, don't kid yourself otherwise. Supposedly the elections were so popular that they had to extend voting by quite a few days. Really that was to give them enough time to falsify their results because a vast majority of people refused to vote for either candidate. Pictures taken and posted to the net in major cities during the election show empty booths. But of course it was certified by Jimmy Carter so it's all good. Supposedly they had over 40 million people vote, yet the 2005 estimate is only 70 million total. About a 1/4 of which is under 14. Reminiscent of Saddam's elections anyone?

Actually, it was rigged ....Supposedly the elections were so popular that they had to extend voting by quite a few days. Really that was to give them enough time to falsify their results ..:rolleyes: YEAH I saw it all on BBC, CNN, AFP, YahooNEWS, etc.. they proved that it was all a Huge antidemocratic Fiasco.. even bigger than FloridaGate. :D

Well, whatever the Israeli Lobby, or any other lobby might say, US Foreign Politics Specialists should know this:

Iran and the US have a lot of common interests.
Iran has played a major role in stablising Afghanistan, they have lost some 3000 troops in border fighting there (among other things, to stop drug trafficking).
Iran has no interest in chaos in Iraq. Especially not if that means radical Sunnis having a power base there.
Iran needs the world economy to function, they have no interest in seeing it collapse. They are one of the most democratic states in the region (their neighbours are countries like Pakistan or Turkmenistan), and one of the most modernised with a pretty decent GDP per capita.

They need to talk to each other, about Iraq, about how they want to see the region develop, about nuclear technology. This empty rhetoric from both sides is just crap.


well said n/l

:rolleyes: YEAH I saw it all on BBC, CNN, AFP, YahooNEWS, etc.. they proved that it was all a Huge antidemocratic Fiasco.. even bigger than FloridaGate. :D
Bite me.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/06/iran-election-special-photo-report.html

Hundreds of polling stations in Tehran and other towns and cities monitored were virtually empty in the early hours of voting period today during Iran’s second round presidential elections.

The following photos are from a polling station in Tehran:

Fact - The elections were extended over a week past the deadline.

Fact - It was a second round set of elections with only the two candidates in it.

Fact - The voter turnout was over 90% of eligible voters. That does not happen in a country where voting is voluntary and if the US, Canada, or any other major country had 90% voluntary turnout you would be screaming your little head off about falsified elections.

OceanDrive2: tries to make Iranians look good, tries to make Jews look bad

when does the Nazi rhetoric start, boyo?

OceanDrive2: tries to make Iranians look good, tries to make Jews look bad

when does the Nazi rhetoric start, boyo?right after the Irish rhetoric :D :D ;) :D

right after the Irish rhetoric :D :D ;) :D
Well considering the Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman called Ireland 'another Iran' last month because Ireland declined to publicly put its full support behind Israeli foreign policy, you're not far off.

That actually happened. Here I was living in a Middle Eastern theocracy all along. All that oil I never knew about. :rolleyes:

Well considering the Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman called Ireland 'another Iran' last month because Ireland declined to publicly put its full support behind Israeli foreign policy, you're not far off.

That actually happened. Here I was living in a Middle Eastern theocracy all along. All that oil I never knew about. :rolleyes:WOW.. that was like me taking a (random)test shot in the Air.. and hitting a stealth Fighter..

BTW its good to have an Irish affairs specialist in the house :cool:
and damn fast too (Do you have a bot scanning for the word "Irish"?;) )

WOW.. that was like me taking a (random)test shot in the Air.. and hitting a stealth Fighter..

BTW its good to have an Irish affairs specialist in the house :cool:
and damn fast too (Do you have a bot scanning for the word "Irish"?;) )

Well, I wouldn't call myself a 'specialist'! I was glancing at a newspaper when that small article caught my eye. I thought it was a joke but....

The Dept. of Foreign Affairs blew it off as a ridiculous statement and assured everyone blah blah blah relations normal blah blah not Iran blah.

I scan through a lot of threads ;)

Edit: Sorry, it was more towards Feb/Jan that this happened.

Here is roughly what happened: an adviser to the Irish Taoiseach (PM) described Zionism as an "Old Testament mandate" and refused to "take a position" on the subject. (Which is fair enough in my opinion)

The aides' remarks came weeks after former Irish justice minister Justin Keating claimed that Israel's claim to its territory was based on a "self-serving and untruthful Zionist myth." (Which is actually false becuase Justin Keating hasn't been a sitting TD (MP) since 1977 and he was NEVER Justice Minister- so it his his personal opinion- the govt. shouldn't have to apologise for a private citizen's remarks)


Taoiseach Bertie Ahern refused to condemn Keating's claims, but says that "Ireland has excellent relations with Israel, at all levels."

Ariel Sharon aide Raanan Gissin blasted the Irish remarks: "There is a culture of hatred that says the Jews have no right to live here as an entity. We are here as our birthright not as a conqueror.

"If you don't support Zionism ipso facto you are actually saying, in the logical progression, we don't support the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own, in their own ancestral homeland.

Gissin compared Ireland's government to the hardline Iranian regime...
.
"I am very sorry that Ireland takes this position because in doing that they support [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," he said.

right after the Irish rhetoric
Yes, I'm Irish. Fuck-a-doodle-doo, isn't it funny?

Well considering the Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman called Ireland 'another Iran' last month because Ireland declined to publicly put its full support behind Israeli foreign policy, you're not far off.

Israel has had it out for us lately. I give credit to Brian Cowen. ;)

Damn we Irish and our humanitarian ways.

Israel has had it out for us lately. I give credit to Brian Cowen. ;)

Damn we Irish and our humanitarian ways.

We're all so cuddly and fluffly. Who could hate us? :p

*apart from the Israelis obviously.

right after the Irish rhetoric :D :D ;) :D
It isn't a joke. Why, may I ask, do you posess such an obsession with every action of Jews and Israel. Why do you make such sweeping accusations without any evidence? You have said consistently that Jews back the neocon agenda even when I've stated numerous times to you that is false and can be proven so. I'm not saying Israel has always done right, and I have told you tirelessly that most Jews realize that fact and have no problem with criticizing Israel. However, constantly trying to convince people that Israel and a powerful zionist lobby have complete control over the US is poposterous and frankly leaves no doubt in my mind you have a problem with Jews. Why? I'm Jewish. I'm not a stereotype, and neither is any other Jew I know. We're people. So drop the racism and recognize that.
/rant

right after the Irish rhetoric :D :D ;) :DIt isn't a joke. I said "Irish" rhetoric..

what..You are Irish too?:D

Dude.. all I can say is.. Lighten-up.. and Happy St-Patrick's Day!!

http://krazychick.tripod.com/pictures/irishmex.jpg

Either Oceandrive is anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish or he is reactionary.

He sees right-wingers hating on fundamentalist Muslims, so accordingly he loves fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims hate Jews, so accordingly Oceandrive hates them too.

Well considering the Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman called Ireland 'another Iran' last month because Ireland declined to publicly put its full support behind Israeli foreign policy, you're not far off.

That actually happened. Here I was living in a Middle Eastern theocracy all along. All that oil I never knew about. :rolleyes:

Well holy jaysus......Actually the similarity between Israels actions and that of such noted contributors to Ireland such as Elizabeth and Oliver Cromwell had led to a certain "coolness" in the past when discussing said "policy" (steal the land from the natives).

If we're Iranian now, does that mean no more drink?

Either Oceandrive is anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish or he is reactionary.

He sees right-wingers hating on fundamentalist Muslims, so accordingly he loves fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims hate Jews, so accordingly Oceandrive hates them too.

I honestly think thats it.

NYC and I...the most completely opposite Jews you will ever meet, have shown him that most Jews are in fact liberals...and despise the Bush administartion....(myself NOT included).

So I'm going to have to go with your reactionary.....for 200 points.

Bite me.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/06/iran-election-special-photo-report.html



Fact - The elections were extended over a week past the deadline.

Fact - It was a second round set of elections with only the two candidates in it.

Fact - The voter turnout was over 90% of eligible voters. That does not happen in a country where voting is voluntary and if the US, Canada, or any other major country had 90% voluntary turnout you would be screaming your little head off about falsified elections.
You weren't really using the above link to support your contention that Iranian elections were "rigged"?

If you are, then you need to find some better sources? Your source is a weblog titled "Regime Change Iran". A tad biased?

You weren't really using the above link to support your contention that Iranian elections were "rigged"?

If you are, then you need to find some better sources? Your source is a weblog titled "Regime Change Iran". A tad biased?
There is bias in everything, and a neutral source is not to be found on the subject. You have sources like that, and you have the MSM repeating the party line.