Category Archives: Israel/Judaism – Jewish values and power

Reflections By An ARAB JEW

Reflections By An ARAB JEW

by Ella Habiba Shohat

Irvi Nasawi: Sephardic & Middle Eastern Cultures

Ella Habiba Shohat is Professor of Cultural Studies and Women’s Studies at CUNY. A writer, orator and activist, she is the author of Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation (Univ. of Texas Press, 1989) and the co-author (with Robert Stam) of Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media (Routledge 1994). Shohat co-edited Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Reflections (University of Minnesota Press, 1997) and is the editor of Talking Visions: Multicultural Feminism in a Transnational Age, (MIT Press/The New Museum, 2000). She writes often for such journals as Social Text and the Journal for Palestine Studies.
When issues of racial and colonial discourse are discussed in the U.S., people of Middle Eastern and North African origin are often excluded. This piece is written with the intent of opening up the multicultural debate, going beyond the U.S. census’s simplistic categorization of Middle Eastern peoples as “whites.”

It’s also written with the intent of multiculturalizing American notions of Jewishness. My personal narrative questions the Eurocentric opposition of Arab and Jew, particularly the denial of Arab Jewish (Sephardic) voices both in the Middle Eastern and American contexts.

I am an Arab Jew. Or, more specifically, an Iraqi Israeli woman living, writing and teaching in the U.S. Most members of my family were born and raised in Baghdad, and now live in Iraq, Israel, the U.S., England, and Holland. When my grandmother first encountered Israeli society in the ’50s, she was convinced that the people who looked, spoke and ate so differently–the European Jews–were actually European Christians. Jewishness for her generation was inextricably associated with Middle Easterness. My grandmother, who still lives in Israel and still communicates largely in Arabic, had to be taught to speak of “us” as Jews and “them” as Arabs. For Middle Easterners, the operating distinction had always been “Muslim,” “Jew,” and “Christian,” not Arab versus Jew. The assumption was that “Arabness” referred to a common shared culture and language, albeit with religious differences.

Americans are often amazed to discover the existentially nauseating or charmingly exotic possibilities of such a syncretic identity. I recall a well-established colleague who despite my elaborate lessons on the history of Arab Jews, still had trouble understanding that I was not a tragic anomaly–for instance, the daughter of an Arab (Palestinian) and an Israeli (European Jew). Living in North America makes it even more difficult to communicate that we are Jews and yet entitled to our Middle Eastern difference. And that we are Arabs and yet entitled to our religious difference, like Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.

It was precisely the policing of cultural borders in Israel that led some of us to escape into the metropolises of syncretic identities. Yet, in an American context, we face again a hegemony that allows us to narrate a single Jewish memory, i.e., a European one. For those of us who don’t hide our Middle Easterness under one Jewish “we,” it becomes tougher and tougher to exist in an American context hostile to the very notion of Easterness.

As an Arab Jew, I am often obliged to explain the “mysteries” of this oxymoronic entity. That we have spoken Arabic, not Yiddish; that for millennia our cultural creativity, secular and religious, had been largely articulated in Arabic (Maimonides being one of the few intellectuals to “make it” into the consciousness of the West); and that even the most religious of our communities in the Middle East and North Africa never expressed themselves in Yiddish-accented Hebrew prayers, nor did they practice liturgical-gestural norms and sartorial codes favoring the dark colors of centuries-ago Poland. Middle Eastern women similarly never wore wigs; their hair covers, if worn, consisted of different variations on regional clothing (and in the wake of British and French imperialism, many wore Western-style clothes). If you go to our synagogues, even in New York, Montreal, Paris or London, you’ll be amazed to hear the winding quarter tones of our music which the uninitiated might imagine to be coming from a mosque.

Now that the three cultural topographies that compose my ruptured and dislocated history–Iraq, Israel and the U.S.–have been involved in a war, it is crucial to say that we exist. Some of us refuse to dissolve so as to facilitate “neat” national and ethnic divisions. My anxiety and pain during the Scud attacks on Israel, where some of my family lives, did not cancel out my fear and anguish for the victims of the bombardment of Iraq, where I also have relatives.

War, however, is the friend of binarisms, leaving little place for complex identities. The Gulf War, for example, intensified a pressure already familiar to the Arab Jewish diaspora in the wake of the Israeli-Arab conflict: a pressure to choose between being a Jew and being an Arab. For our families, who have lived in Mesopotamia since at least the Babylonian exile, who have been Arabized for millennia, and who were abruptly dislodged to Israel 45 years ago, to be suddenly forced to assume a homogenous European Jewish identity based on experiences in Russia, Poland and Germany, was an exercise in self devastation. To be a European or American Jew has hardly been perceived as a contradiction, but to be an Arab Jew has been seen as a kind of logical paradox, even an ontological subversion. This binarism has led many Oriental Jews (our name in Israel referring to our common Asian and African countries of origin is Mizrahi or Mizrachi) to a profound and visceral schizophrenia, since for the first time in our history Arabness and Jewishness have been imposed as antonyms.

Intellectual discourse in the West highlights a Judeo-Christian tradition, yet rarely acknowledges the Judeo-Muslim culture of the Middle East, of North Africa, or of pre-Expulsion Spain (1492) and of the European parts of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish experience in the Muslim world has often been portrayed as an unending nightmare of oppression and humiliation.

Although I in no way want to idealize that experience–there were occasional tensions, discriminations, even violence–on the whole, we lived quite comfortably within Muslim societies.

Our history simply cannot be discussed in European Jewish terminology. As Iraqi Jews, while retaining a communal identity, we were generally well integrated and indigenous to the country, forming an inseparable part of its social and cultural life. Thoroughly Arabized, we used Arabic even in hymns and religious ceremonies. The liberal and secular trends of the 20th century engendered an even stronger association of Iraqi Jews and Arab culture, which brought Jews into an extremely active arena in public and cultural life. Prominent Jewish writers, poets and scholars played a vital role in Arab culture, distinguishing themselves in Arabic speaking theater, in music, as singers, composers, and players of traditional instruments.

In Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia, Jews became members of legislatures, of municipal councils, of the judiciary, and even occupied high economic positions. (The finance minister of Iraq in the ’40s was Ishak Sasson, and in Egypt, Jamas Sanua–higher positions, ironically, than those our community had generally achieved within the Jewish state until the 1990s!)

The same historical process that dispossessed Palestinians of their property, lands and national-political rights, was linked to the dispossession of Middle Eastern and North African Jews of their property, lands, and rootedness in Muslim countries. As refugees, or mass immigrants (depending on one’s political perspective), we were forced to leave everything behind and give up our Iraqi passports. The same process also affected our uprootedness or ambiguous positioning within Israel itself, where we have been systematically discriminated against by institutions that deployed their energies and material to the consistent advantage of European Jews and to the consistent disadvantage of Oriental Jews. Even our physiognomies betray us, leading to internalized colonialism or physical misperception. Sephardic Oriental women often dye their dark hair blond, while the men have more than once been arrested or beaten when mistaken for Palestinians. What for Ashkenazi immigrants from Russian and Poland was a social aliya (literally “ascent”) was for Oriental Sephardic Jews a yerida (“descent”).

Stripped of our history, we have been forced by our no-exit situation to repress our collective nostalgia, at least within the public sphere. The pervasive notion of “one people” reunited in their ancient homeland actively disauthorizes any affectionate memory of life before Israel. We have never been allowed to mourn a trauma that the images of Iraq’s destruction only intensified and crystallized for some of us. Our cultural creativity in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic is hardly studied in Israeli schools, and it is becoming difficult to convince our children that we actually did exist there, and that some of us are still there in Iraq, Morocco, Yemen and Iran.

Western media much prefer the spectacle of the triumphant progress of Western technology to the survival of the peoples and cultures of the Middle East. The case of Arab Jews is just one of many elisions. From the outside, there is little sense of our community, and even less sense of the diversity of our political perspectives. Oriental-Sephardic peace movements, from the Black Panthers of the ’70s to the new Keshet (a “Rainbow” coalition of Mizrahi groups in Israel) not only call for a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians, but also for the cultural, political, and economic integration of Israel/Palestine into the Middle East. And thus an end to the binarisms of war, an end to a simplistic charting of Middle Eastern identities.

  • Links:

How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

Rep. John Conyers wanted to block U.S. funding to neo-Nazis in Ukraine. But the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center refused to help.

AlterNet has learned that an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have forbidden US assistance, training and weapons to neo-Nazis and other extremists in Ukraine was kept out of the final bill by the Republican-led House Rules Committee. Introduced by Democratic Representative John Conyers, the amendment was intended to help tamp down on violent confrontations between Ukrainian forces and Russian separatists. (Full text of the amendment embedded at the end of this article).

A USA Today/Pew poll conducted in April while the NDAA was being debated found that Americans opposed by more than 2 to 1 providing the Ukrainian government with arms or other forms of military assistance.

If passed, Conyers’ amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered “praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols” from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense.

The amendment was presented by congressional staffers to lobbyists from Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two of the country’s largest established Jewish pressure groups. Despite their stated mission to combat anti-Semitism and violent extremism, the ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers’ proposal.

According to Democratic sources in Congress, staffers from the ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rejected the amendment on the grounds that right-wing Ukrainian parties like Svoboda with documented records of racist extremism had “moderated their rhetoric.” An ADL lobbyist insisted that “the focus should be on Russia,” while the Wiesenthal Center pointed to meetings between far-right political leaders in Ukraine and the Israeli embassy as evidence that groups like Svoboda and Right Sector had shed their extremism.

The ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center did not respond to numerous requests by email and telephone for comment.

Earlier this year, the ADL’s outgoing National Director Abraham Foxman noted Svoboda’s “history of anti-Semitism and platform of ethnic nationalism” in a press release demanding the party renounce its past glorification of Stepan Bandera, a World War Two-era Nazi collaborator who has become a symbol of Ukrainian nationalism.

When the Ukrainian parliament failed to pass a bill this October honoring Bandera’s Ukrainian Rebel Army, about 8000 supporters of Svoboda and the extremist Right Sector marched on the building, attacking riot police with homemade weapons while waving Banderist flags and Svoboda banners. The violent backlash was a reminder that the legend of Bandera would not die any time soon, and that Foxman’s admonitions had fallen on deaf ears.

Svobodoa’s leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, once called for the liberation of his country from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” In 2010, following the conviction of the Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk for his supporting role in the death of nearly 30,000 people at the Sobibor camp, Tyahnybok flew to Germany to praise him as a hero who was “fighting for truth.”

Since the Euromaidan revolution, however, Svoboda has fought to rehabilitate its image. This has meant meeting with Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Reuven Din El and appealing to shared national values. “I would like to ask Israelis to also respect our patriotic feelings,” Tyahnybok has remarked. “Probably each party in the [Israeli] Knesset is nationalist. With God’s help, let it be this way for us too.”

Right Sector, the radical right-wing movement that battled riot police during the latter stages of the Euromaidan uprising, earned plaudits from the ADL’s Foxman when its leader arranged his own meeting with Din El. “[Right Sector leader] Dmitry Yarosh stressed that Right Sector will oppose all [racist] phenomena, especially anti-Semitism, with all legitimate means,” the Israeli embassy declared.

The results of this month’s Ukrainian parliamentary elections were widely portrayed as a setback for the ultra-nationalist right-wing, with Svoboda taking around 6 percent of the vote while Yarosh’s Right Sector failed to qualify for seats. The outcome cheered the American Jewish Committee, which declared that “Jews in most of Ukraine are heartened by the election results and even optimistic about the country’s future.”

But the dismal showing by the traditional ultra-nationalist parties was hardly evidence of a diminished right-wing. With President Petro Poroshenko leading the nationalists’ dream war in the East, Svoboda and Right Sector lost the protest vote they had commanded during the heady years of insurrection. As Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on Europe’s radical right, explained, “in 2012, Svoboda was also considered almost the only ‘patriotic’ party, but now all democratic parties are patriotic, so Svoboda has lost its ‘monopoly’ on patriotism.”

During the national election campaign, Ukraine’s leading party, the People’s Front of neoliberal Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was honeycombed with far-right militants. Andrei Parubiy, the co-founder of the neo-Nazi-inspired Social National Party and former chief of the Maidan defense committees, was among the extremists who won seats on the People’s Front ticket.

Besides Parubiy, the People’s Front included Andriy Biletsky, leader of the Azov militia, an overtly neo-Nazi fighting force that has been on the front lines of the battle against Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov deputy commander Vadym Troyan joined him on the party’s electoral list, rounding out a peculiar mix of khaki shirt clad fascists and buttoned-down neo-liberals.

Unlike Svoboda, these figures do not even feign moderation. “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival,” Biletsky recently wrote. “A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

Azov fighters are united by their nostalgia for Nazi Germany and embrace of open fascism. Sporting swastika tattoos, the battalion “flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag,” the New York Times’ Andrew Kramer recently reported.

With the government in a state of flux, Azov is filling the void in the East. As Ukrainian parliamentarian Gregory Nemira complained to reporter Anna Nemtsova in September, “The president still has not appointed a chief of staff for the armed forces. He has not admitted we are in a state of war, preferring to throw the battalions like Azov into the most dangerous combat zones, where authorities would not have the courage to send regular troops.”

Azov is precisely the sort of neo-Nazi organization that Conyers’ NDAA amendment would have deprived of US assistance. But when the congressman sought help from the ADL and the Wiesenthal Center in moving the proposal forward, he was rebuked. The amendment died a quiet death and Azov’s American supply line remains intact.

November 18, 2014  


Book Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”

Book Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who”

Elias Davidsson, November 16, 2011

A compendium to Mein Kampf

At the outset, the author, whose main qualities are neither modesty nor civility, makes sure to inform the reader about his courage and fame as a jazz saxophone player. His book, presented as an essay on Jewish identity politics, is essentially a fraud. The object of the book is to demonstrate the existence of a global Zionist network, that according to the author determines U.S. foreign and domestic policy, in short a network whose purpose and effect is world domination.

The author makes it clear at the outset that he rejects the view of Zionism as a national, colonial movement for a Jewish State in the Middle East. Under the subheading Zionism, a Global Network, he writes: “Zionism is not a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine, as some scholars suggest. Zionism is actually a global movement that is fuelled by a unique tribal solidarity of third category members (…) While in its early days, Zionism presents itself as an attempt to bring the world Jewry to Zion, in the last three decades it has become clear to the Zionist leadership that Israel would actually benefit from world Jewry, and especially the Jewish elite, staying exactly where they are.” (page 19). Adolf Hitler reveals a similar view in his book Mein Kampf: “For [a] while Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb “Goyim”. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states.” Hitler then goes on to describe the nefarious machinations of this Jewish world cabal.

Rejecting the common view of Zionism as a nationalist ideology, the author presents Zionism as a headless, amorphous “organismus” (German in the original): “It is more than likely that `Jews’ do not have a centre or headquarters. It is more than likely that they aren’t aware of their particular role within the entire system, the way an organ is not aware of its role within the complexity of the organism….Looking at Zionism as an organismus (sic) would lead to a major shift in our perspective of current world affairs.”(page 21). The author appears to have borrowed the German term organismus from Hitler, who used it in Mein Kampf to designate the organic nature of a state. Borrowing again from Mein Kampf, the author asks in all innocence: “How did America allow itself be ENSLAVED by ideologies inherently associated with foreign [Zionist] interests”? (page 26 – emphasis added). In Mein Kampf, Hitler repeatedly warned against the “enslavement” of the German nation by world Jewry.

The idea of a Zionist organismus or network appears widely throughout the book. Here another example: “Within the Zionist network there is no need for a lucid system of hegemony. In such a network, each element is complying with its role. And indeed the success of Zionism is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” (page 69) By such description, the author establishes the appearance of an amorphous but well synchronized functional entity that must necessarily possess a brain. Other would simply call it a secret organization.

The author reveals his desperate efforts to demonstrate the existence of such organismus and its responsibility for the initiation of wars of aggression when he arbitrarily selects three leading American Jews, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Alan Greenspan, to represent, as it were, this “collective functioning system”, or as he prefers to call it “third category brotherhood”, an expression that he equates with “racial solidarity” and with “Zionism” (page 21).

Ascribing perfidy to Wolfowitz and his friends, Iraqis are described by the author “as the victims of those third category INFILTRATORS within British and American administrations” (emphasis added). The Bush administration is said to have “complied” with Wolfowitz’s political philosophy (page 25), implying that he had the power to coerce the Bush administration, which duly “complied”. The author makes it clear that according to him the former two individuals are part of a group of Zionist infiltrators who are responsible for the Iraq war: “THEY planned to rob the Arab oil and to simultaneously `secure’ their beloved Jewish state.”(page 26 – emphasis added).

The author asks in what appears as contrived innocence: “How is it that America failed to restrain its Wolfowitzes? How is it that America let its foreign policy be shaped by some ruthless Zio[nist]-driven think tanks?”(page 27). But he does not provide an answer. Had he attempted to answer his own question, he would have had to inquire why the numerous American billionaires and board members of the largest US corporations, including Boeing, Enron, Halliburton, and IBM, did not oppose this alleged Zionist perfidy, if the Zionist plans were contrary to their interests. The inference left unexpressed by the author is, that absent Zionist infiltration, the US ruling circles would not have attacked Iraq (or Panama, or Grenada, or Afghanistan, or Libya) and that US imperialism is actually a Jewish enterprise.

A similar, yet somehow less successful effort, is undertaken by the author to impute to Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve, a plan to manufacture the credit crunch and defraud the American people, in order to serve Israel. In order to emotionally prepare the reader for such insinuations, the author mentions, in passing, that Jewish bankers have had a “reputation” as “backers and financiers of wars and even [of] one communist revolution.”(page 27) This casual remark is clearly intended to suggest that Alan Greenspan – by virtue of his Jewish background – is also one of these perfidious bankers. After making these highly suggestive remarks regarding Alan Greenspan, but sensing the danger that readers might regard him as peddling the idea of a “Zionist plot or even a Jewish conspiracy” to defraud America, he says that the US credit crunch was after all nothing but “an accident”.(page 30)

Readers who have not read Atzmon’s writings before, might be surprised to discover that he spends inordinate efforts to discredit anti-Zionist leftist groups such as “Jews Against Zionism” and “Jews for Justice in Palestine”(page 62), i.e. groups who oppose Israeli policies and support Palestinian rights in the name of Jews. For him, such groups exemplify a pathological clinging to Jewish identity. The author takes issue with a long defunct Jewish organisation in Tsarist Russia, the Bund, which opposed Zionism and attempted to represent the interests of Jewish workers. Another defunct organisation that appears to greatly bother the author is the leftist, socialist Israeli organisation Matzpen, one of the first ones to oppose Zionism and the occupation of Palestinian lands. The author writes, under the sub-heading “Matzpen and Wolfowitz”: “For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks; the neocon [who attacked Iraq] is actually slightly more modest – all he wants is for Arabs to drink their Coca-Cola in a Westernized democratic society” (page 108). Leaving aside the absurdity of the claim that Matzpen intended or had the capacity to “liberate Arabs” or turn them into Bolsheviks and that the primary aim of U.S. imperialists is to make Arabs drink Coca-Cola, he reveals hereby his deep hatred towards Jewish socialists and his shallow understanding of imperialism.

Not content to lambast Jewish socialists, the author cites approvingly Karl Marx who believed that “in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews.” (page 115) The author then writes: “Within the modern Jewish national and political context, Jews kill and rob…[T]he progressive Jew [robs] in the name of `Marx'”(page 123) For Adolf Hitler Marxism was actually a Jewish theory.

The reader will probably be shocked to discover that the author – who claims to support Palestinian rights – actually rejects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because “it impedes an authentic moral exercise” and because it “fails to provide answers to some different questions that arise as we proceed in time and live through some dramatic changes.”(page 63) He does not explain what he means by these laconic statements and does not appear to base his opposition to racism and to Zionism on any normative ground.

While showing no interest for rights, norms or principles, the author displays a surprising interest in Holocaust Denial: “65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we (…) should ask for historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws.”(pages 174-175). He does not reveal what should be asked and why. Is the author doubting that Jews were industrially exterminated by the Nazis? Or does he believe that the Jews themselves organized the Holocaust? He also suggests that we ask “Why were the Jews hated” (page 174), leaving the reader to fill in the blanks. And lest we will not heed his advice, the author admonishes us that should we fail to ask the above questions “we will continue to kill in the name of Jewish suffering.”(page 176).

As these glimpses demonstrate, this is a book that deals primarily with the concept of a Jewish (or Zionist) global and omnipotent conspiracy, notwithstanding the author’s objection that there is no such conspiracy, because Jewish control is exercised openly. The German elite used successfully the deadly myth of a Jewish world conspiracy to divert anti-capitalist sentiment and prevented thereby a Socialist revolution. The price was paid by millions of deaths. This book might one day serve the same purpose for the U.S. elite, particularly as it is written by a bona fide Jew and Israeli. It purports to offer evidence that Israeli agents in the garb of American citizens had for decades manipulated and deceived patriotic Americans, politicians, public officials, journalists and others, to act against the interests of America. In that sense, this book represents a danger both to ordinary Jews and to those who oppose U.S. imperialism. The book is not recommended for the general public.

Jewish volunteers for racial supremacy in Palestine

Jewish volunteers for racial supremacy in Palestine

by Joseph Massad
The Electronic Intifada
4 August 2014

The European Christian fight for anti-Semitism was always a fight to grant Christians superior rights to Jews and to institutionalize that superiority as racial and religious supremacy.

In response, the European Jewish fight against anti-Semitism was and remains a fight against the reduction of the rights of Jews (if not their elimination altogether in the case of the Nazis), against the project to render European Jews an inferior species of citizens, and against white European Christian supremacy.

This has been a historical fight that multitudes of non-Jews have joined on both sides. However, ultimately it was European Jewish fighters against anti-Semitism and their gentile allies who won this key battle against inequality, oppression, racial and religious discrimination and genocide.

The European Jewish and Protestant fight (the latter preceded the former by three centuries) for Zionism, in contrast, has been and remains a fight to grant European Jews more rights than non-Jews (and non-European Jews) on a religious, ethnic and racial basis.

This superiority would be granted especially vis-à-vis Palestinian citizens of the Jewish settler-colony (if not eliminating their rights altogether as many Zionist Jews call for), as well as eliminating the rights of the Palestinians in the territories Israel occupied and colonized since 1967 and those it expelled and exiled since 1948 outside the borders of their homeland.

Multitudes of Jews and non-Jews have also joined this historical fight for racism, discrimination and colonialism. The Palestinians and their Jewish and non-Jewish allies refuse to give up and continue to resist Zionism’s insistence that European (and other) Jews must have superior and supremacist colonial, racial and religious rights in Palestine.

The Jewish fight for Zionism (which has never included and still does not include all Jews) is the exact opposite of the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism (which also never included all Jews); the former is a fight for European Jewish supremacy while the latter is against European Aryan and Christian supremacy.

This in a nutshell exposes the outright Zionist lie that claims that the struggle against anti-Semitism and the struggle for Zionism are one and the same.

Recruiting Jews to kill Palestinians

This is important to consider when we examine the international Zionist Jewish brigades that have volunteered to join the Israeli colonial army with much eagerness to kill Arabs and Palestinians. This has been a successful project in light of the mobilizational Zionist and Israeli Jewish propaganda in the last seven decades among the Jewish communities of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Argentina, to name the most prominent Jewish communities outside Israel.

This propaganda campaign aimed at transforming members of these communities from fighters against white Christian supremacy into fighters for European Jewish racial and colonial supremacy.

The dissemination of racist Israeli Jewish culture internationally goes hand-in-hand with Zionism’s pan-Jewishism, whereby, just as anti-Semitism speaks against all Jews, Zionism claims to speak for all of them — and reassures Jews that Israel is their country and that they should move to colonize it, failing which it would function as a spare country awaiting their arrival on a need to colonize basis.

That the major North American and European organizations that claim to speak for Jews have endorsed Israel’s right to speak for them and have been the major conduits for the hateful racist Israeli Jewish propaganda against the Palestinian people makes them fully complicit in the ongoing slaughter and oppression of the Palestinians. This is especially so given that they openly support anti-Palestinian Israeli colonial policies and urge their respective governments and media to do the same. (We must keep in mind these organizations and their wealthy leaders are not elected by members of the Jewish communities but appoint themselves as their representatives and speak for them in these organizations’ newspapers, which constitute what is referred to as the “Jewish” press.)

This is not to say that members of the Jewish communities are not pro-Israel and fervently anti-Palestinian, which they are in their majority, but it is to say that polls have shown them to be less murderous and hateful than the organizations claiming to represent them.

Thus, Israel has created a hegemonic racist Jewish culture that does not only dominate Israeli Jewish communities but also Jewish communities in Europe and its settler colonial extensions (in the Americas, in Australia and in South Africa). This, however, was never sufficiently successful to produce millions of Jewish volunteers for Israel’s colonial cause (no matter how much European and American Jews support Zionism and Israel, few would want to fight or die for it). But it did create the conditions for thousands of young Jewish (mostly male) fighters for European racial supremacy to join the Israeli colonial army seeking to prove the superiority of European Jewishness (and a concomitant European Jewish manliness) by slaughtering Palestinians.

The Israeli colonial army advertises several programs to accommodate international Jewish volunteers for the oppression of the Palestinians. It provides them with the option to serve in the Israeli army in “full combat and support roles,” namely in its “Mahal” program, to fulfill their commitment to the Zionist cause of European Jewish supremacy without necessarily having to become Israeli citizens.
There is also the smaller “Marva” program in which young teenage Jewish recruits for Zionist Jewish supremacy can participate “in this immersive army program, serving alongside fellows from countries around the world.”

Israel’s killing machine proudly declares that “over 300 Jewish teens from all around the world volunteer to serve” in the Israeli colonial army annually as part of the four thousand “Jewish and non-Jewish” volunteers who “fly to Israel and volunteer in the IDF [Israeli military] for several weeks.” These may not be impressive numbers, but there are more.

One of the programs engineered to recruit Jewish youth for racial and religious supremacy is the “Garin Tzabar” project. Garin Tzabar means “cactus seed,” or “Sabra seed,” in reference to Palestine-born Israeli Jews, hence the importance of this program as a reproductive and masculinist project aimed at populating the Jewish settler-colony with more Zionist Jews committed to the superiority of European (and other) Jews over Palestinians.

Garin Tzabar, according to the Israeli colonial army, has “already helped over 1,500 teens from all around the world join the IDF and approximately 70 percent of the immigrants have stayed in Israel after their service.”

Garin Tzabar is not the only volunteer program. There are others like the “Sar-El” program, which claims that it has brought between 1983 and 2011 “more than a hundred thousand volunteers to Israel … 
Staying in Israel for several weeks, the participants share a true IDF experience on IDF bases” (Israel refers to these European and American volunteers for Jewish racial supremacy as “lone soldiers”).
The Israeli military claimed that in 2012, “5,500 lone soldiers” were serving in its colonial forces whereas today it claims to have 4,600 volunteers, one-third of whom are Americans.

In the ongoing barbaric slaughter of Gaza Palestinians, two of the Palestinian baby-killing Jewish soldiers (as I’ve written previously, targeting and killing Palestinian children is an old Zionist tradition) who were killed by the Palestinian resistance were American Jewish volunteers for Jewish racial and colonial supremacy.
They quickly became heroes for the American press, “Jewish” and “gentile” alike. Indeed an article appeared in The Washington Post to show how these baby-killers are different from Muslim foreign fighters who volunteered to overthrow the Afghani communist government and more recently several Arab governments (“‘Foreign Fighters’ for Israel,” David Malet, 22 July 2014). Few, however, mention the White European and American Christian mercenary foreign fighters who have served tyrannies around the word since the Second World War.

Colonial recruitment

These Israeli volunteer programs build on the legacy of the four thousand Jewish volunteers who came to fight the Zionist colonial war of 1948 that captured Palestine and expelled its population and established the European Jewish-supremacist settler-colony. Known as Mahal, the main volunteer program included American Jews as prominent and important members assisting in Israel’s colonial conquest.

They included Mickey Marcus, an American Jewish US Army colonel who became Israel’s first brigadier general. Marcus’ Second World War experience was instrumental in breaking the 1948 “siege of Jerusalem.”

Other important Jewish volunteers included the Canadian officer Ben Dunkelman and US pilot Milton Rubenfeld, as well as British Jewish Major Wellesley Aron who helped in the recruitment of American Jews for Zionism’s colonial war. European and American Christian Zionist mercenaries also helped, especially in the Zionist air force. These colonial volunteers fighting for racism, especially from the UK, constituted almost two-thirds of the settler-colony’s air force during the 1948 war.

David Ben-Gurion, the Jewish settler-colony’s first prime minister, was so thankful to them that he stated that “the Mahal [volunteer] Forces were the Diaspora’s most important contribution to the survival of the State of Israel.” Indeed they were: 123 of them died in that colonial war.

Jews in the struggle against Israeli racism

But unlike Jews inside Israel, Jewish communities in Europe, North and South America, and even in Australia, live in cultures that are not fully controlled by Zionist propaganda and therefore are not fully under the sway of the racist culture that Israel seeks to impose on them. It is this that explains how an increasing number of prominent members in the Jewish communities of the US and the UK, among intellectuals and academics, are in the forefront of the struggle against Israeli Jewish racism and colonialism (in contrast with apartheid South Africa which had a substantial number of white anti-racist activists and intellectuals, only a few Israeli Jewish intellectuals have been able over the decades to escape Israeli racist brainwashing — a feat unto itself).

Today many American Jewish luminaries in academe oppose Israeli policies unreservedly. Whereas once Noam Chomsky was a lone Jewish academic voice critical of Israel, he is today joined by scores of Jewish academics and intellectuals in opposing Israeli policies (of course these Jewish academics along with anti-Zionist gentile academics remain a minority and are outflanked by the much larger Jewish and gentile academics who are militant enemies of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims).

Some, like the prominent American Jewish philosopher Judith Butler, have surpassed Chomsky in their opposition to Zionist and Israeli racism and colonialism, and are vocal supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and call for a one-state solution, both of which Chomsky does not support. In fact, a few Palestinian-American academics have also opposed both of these important positions or remained “neutral” on them (some used the rhetorical strategy, of “on the one hand this and on the other hand that”). Though in the last year some, fearing being left outside the leftist mainstream which has adopted these positions, have decided to show a belated “courage” in adopting these positions more than a decade after everyone else has.

And this is not limited to Jewish intellectuals but extends also to Jewish activists, especially groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (which, among many of its anti-racist activities, played an important role in helping Palestinians and others persuade the Presbyterian Church USA to divest from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation), and the countless Jewish students joining, and in a good number of cases, leading groups like Students for Justice in Palestine based on their commitment to fight racism and colonialism, values that are the diametrical opposite of Zionist colonial racism and fascist tribalism.

It is these Jewish fighters against Zionism and Israeli colonialism and racism that are continuing the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism but who remain unsung heroes in the American “Jewish” and “gentile” press that prefers to celebrate baby-killing Zionist Jewish volunteers for Israeli Jewish supremacy instead.

These Jewish fighters against racism have joined the Palestinian people and their international allies (Jewish and gentile alike) in fighting this ongoing historical battle against the forces of racial supremacy and colonial conquest. They understand well, as the Palestinian national movement has always understood, that the fight for Palestinian rights and liberation from the Jewish settler-colony is the latest phase of the historic fight against anti-Semitism and that the fight for Zionism is part of the war for European racial supremacy and colonialism.

The carnage that Israeli Jewish soldiers and international Zionist Jewish brigades of baby-killers are committing in Gaza (and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, let alone against Palestinian citizens of Israel) is but the starkest reminder of this unshakeable conviction.

Joseph Massad is professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. He is author of the forthcoming Islam in Liberalism.

US bill ‘dramatically strengthens’ Israel alliance

US bill ‘dramatically strengthens’ Israel alliance


Bill to expand delivery of forward-deployed US weapons to Israel and help commit Congress to further funding of the Iron Dome.
The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that declares Israel a “major strategic partner” of the United States, reinforcing the broad relationship between the two nations and laying the groundwork for more expansive strategic cooperation.

The bill would expand the delivery of forward-deployed US weapons to Israel, as well as other military technologies, and would commit Congress to further funding of the Iron Dome short-range missile defense system.

Controversially, the bill would also invite Israel into a visa waiver agreement with the US, which has been opposed by members of the intelligence community and the Democratic caucus for multiple years.

The bill passed 410-1 in the House. The Senate has taken up a similar measure, which is still in the committee process.

Just a day after its annual policy conference in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee declared the bill’s passage a victory, and characterized the measure as “dramatically strengthening the US-Israel relationship.”

“This designation lays the foundation for expanded US-Israel cooperation in a wide variety of spheres, including defense, intelligence, homeland security, energy, agriculture and trade,” AIPAC said in a statement, applauding the bill as “critical” and calling on the Senate to act with similar haste.

The second half of the bill, which focuses on US-Israel energy relationships, was authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and aims to strengthen collaboration between the two countries on energy projects.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill first passed through the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on December 11, and a Senate companion bill passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on December 20. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was responsible for the Senate companion bill, alongside Se.s Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

This portion of the bill officially determines that “United States-Israel energy cooperation, and the development of natural resources by Israel, are strategic interests of the United States,” recognizing Israel specifically as a partner in water technology, safety and security arenas. Encouraging the US National Science Foundation to collaborate with the Israel Science Foundation, the text also encourages more robust academic cooperation in a variety of energy-related fields.

Advocating “open dialogue and continued mechanisms for regular engagement,” the bill calls for continued energy partnerships among government and academic institutions as well as the private sector from both sides. Some particular topics of interest include identifying priorities for developing Israeli natural resources, discussing best practices to secure cyber energy infrastructure, leveraging natural gas to positively impact regional stability and improving energy efficiency, the bill says.

The bill also acknowledges the important role of the US-Israel Binational research and Development Foundation (BIRD) and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and commits continued multiyear funding “to ensure the continuity of the programs of the foundations.”

“I am pleased this important measure was included in the legislative package and encouraged to see it received such overwhelming support,” Upton said, following the bill’s passage. “With a simple amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, this legislation will help bolster the partnership between Israel and the US on energy production and help enhance energy security.”

With American assistance, Israel will be able to continue making advancements in developing its natural resources, Upton stressed. He also committed to working on future “commonsense energy solutions” with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as occurred while drafting this legislation.

“Today the House passed an important bill that will expand the partnership between the U.S. and Israel,” Waxman agreed. “Israel is a close ally, and it is in our national interest to help the Israelis development their natural resources in a responsible way that protects the environment.”

US Congress endorses Seven Noahide Laws

US Congress resolves that “March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.’. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.’. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)



One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America


Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.’.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe’, this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving’, the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.’. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Cosponsors of the Bill:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil – 2/27/1991 [HI-1]
Rep Andrews, Robert E. – 2/6/1991 [NJ-1]
Rep Annunzio, Frank – 2/6/1991 [IL-11]
Rep Archer, Bill – 2/6/1991 [TX-7]
Rep Aspin, Les – 2/27/1991 [WI-1]
Rep Bacchus, Jim – 2/27/1991 [FL-11]
Rep Ballenger, Cass – 3/5/1991 [NC-10]
Rep Bateman, Herbert H. – 3/5/1991 [VA-1]
Rep Bentley, Helen Delich – 2/6/1991 [MD-2]
Rep Berman, Howard L. – 2/6/1991 [CA-26]
Rep Bevill, Tom – 2/6/1991 [AL-4]
Rep Bilbray, James H. – 2/27/1991 [NV-1]
Rep Bliley, Tom – 2/6/1991 [VA-3]
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood L. – 3/5/1991 [NY-25]
Rep Borski, Robert A. – 2/27/1991 [PA-3]
Rep Boucher, Rick – 2/27/1991 [VA-9]
Rep Brewster, Bill K. – 2/27/1991 [OK-3]
Rep Broomfield, William S. – 2/27/1991 [MI-18]
Rep Brown, George E., Jr. – 2/27/1991 [CA-36]
Rep Bruce, Terry L. – 2/27/1991 [IL-19]
Rep Bunning, Jim – 2/6/1991 [KY-4]
Rep Burton, Dan – 2/27/1991 [IN-6]
Rep Bustamante, Albert G. – 3/5/1991 [TX-23]
Rep Byron, Beverly B. – 2/27/1991 [MD-6]
Rep Camp, Dave – 2/27/1991 [MI-10]
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. – 2/27/1991 [MD-3]
Rep Carper, Thomas R. – 2/27/1991 [DE-98]
Rep Carr, Bob – 2/27/1991 [MI-6]
Rep Chandler, Rod D. – 2/27/1991 [WA-8]
Rep Chapman, Jim – 3/5/1991 [TX-1]
Rep Clement, Bob – 2/6/1991 [TN-5]
Rep Coble, Howard – 2/27/1991 [NC-6]
Rep Coleman, Ronald D. – 2/27/1991 [TX-16]
Rep Collins, Cardiss – 3/5/1991 [IL-7]
Rep Costello, Jerry F. – 3/5/1991 [IL-21]
Rep Crane, Philip M. – 3/5/1991 [IL-12]
Rep de la Garza, E. – 3/5/1991 [TX-15]
Rep de Lugo, Ron – 2/27/1991 [VI]
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. – 2/27/1991 [OR-4]
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. – 2/27/1991 [CT-3]
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. – 3/5/1991 [CA-8]
Rep Dicks, Norman D. – 2/27/1991 [WA-6]
Rep Donnelly, Brian J. – 2/27/1991 [MA-11]
Rep Dornan, Robert K. – 2/6/1991 [CA-38]
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. – 2/6/1991 [TN-2]
Rep Dwyer, Bernard J. – 2/27/1991 [NJ-6]
Rep Dymally, Mervyn M. – 2/27/1991 [CA-31]
Rep Early, Joseph D. – 3/5/1991 [MA-3]
Rep Eckart, Dennis E. – 2/27/1991 [OH-11]
Rep Emerson, Bill – 3/5/1991 [MO-8]
Rep Erdreich, Ben – 2/27/1991 [AL-6]
Rep Espy, Mike – 2/6/1991 [MS-2]
Rep Evans, Lane – 3/5/1991 [IL-17]
Rep Fascell, Dante B. – 2/6/1991 [FL-19]
Rep Fawell, Harris W. – 3/5/1991 [IL-13]
Rep Fazio, Vic – 2/6/1991 [CA-4]
Rep Feighan, Edward F. – 2/6/1991 [OH-19]
Rep Fields, Jack – 3/5/1991 [TX-8]
Rep Fish, Hamilton, Jr. – 3/5/1991 [NY-21]
Rep Foglietta, Thomas M. – 2/27/1991 [PA-1]
Rep Franks, Gary A. – 3/5/1991 [CT-5]
Rep Frost, Martin – 2/27/1991 [TX-24]
Rep Gallo, Dean A. – 2/6/1991 [NJ-11]
Rep Gejdenson, Sam – 3/5/1991 [CT-2]
Rep Gekas, George W. – 2/27/1991 [PA-17]
Rep Gephardt, Richard A. – 1/31/1991 [MO-3]
Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. – 2/27/1991 [NY-22]
Rep Gingrich, Newt – 3/5/1991 [GA-6]
Rep Gordon, Bart – 2/6/1991 [TN-6]
Rep Grandy, Fred – 3/5/1991 [IA-6]
Rep Gray, William H., III – 2/27/1991 [PA-2]
Rep Green, S. William – 2/27/1991 [NY-15]
Rep Guarini, Frank J. – 3/5/1991 [NJ-14]
Rep Hansen, James V. – 3/5/1991 [UT-1]
Rep Harris, Claude – 2/27/1991 [AL-7]
Rep Hastert, J. Dennis – 2/27/1991 [IL-14]
Rep Hayes, Charles A. – 2/27/1991 [IL-1]
Rep Hefner, W. G. (Bill) – 3/5/1991 [NC-8]
Rep Henry, Paul B. – 2/6/1991 [MI-5]
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. – 3/5/1991 [NY-1]
Rep Horn, Joan Kelly – 2/27/1991 [MO-2]
Rep Horton, Frank J. – 2/6/1991 [NY-29]
Rep Houghton, Amo – 2/27/1991 [NY-34]
Rep Huckaby, Thomas J. (Jerry) – 2/27/1991 [LA-5]
Rep Hughes, William J. – 2/27/1991 [NJ-2]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. – 3/5/1991 [IL-6]
Rep Inhofe, Jim – 2/27/1991 [OK-1]
Rep Ireland, Andrew P. – 2/6/1991 [FL-10]
Rep Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. – 2/27/1991 [IN-10]
Rep Jenkins, Edgar L. – 3/5/1991 [GA-9]
Rep Johnson, Nancy L. – 3/5/1991 [CT-6]
Rep Johnson, Tim – 2/27/1991 [SD]
Rep Jones, Walter B. – 2/27/1991 [NC-1]
Rep Jontz, Jim – 2/27/1991 [IN-5]
Rep Kaptur, Marcy – 2/27/1991 [OH-9]
Rep Kasich, John R. – 3/5/1991 [OH-12]
Rep Kennelly, Barbara B. – 3/5/1991 [CT-1]
Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. – 2/27/1991 [WI-4]
Rep Klug, Scott L. – 2/27/1991 [WI-2]
Rep Kolter, Joseph P. – 2/27/1991 [PA-4]
Rep Kopetski, Mike – 2/6/1991 [OR-5]
Rep Kostmayer, Peter H. – 3/5/1991 [PA-8]
Rep LaFalce, John J. – 2/6/1991 [NY-32]
Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. – 2/27/1991 [CA-19]
Rep Lancaster, H. Martin – 3/5/1991 [NC-3]
Rep Lantos, Tom – 2/27/1991 [CA-11]
Rep Leach, James A. – 2/27/1991 [IA-1]
Rep Lehman, Richard H. – 3/5/1991 [CA-18]
Rep Lehman, William – 2/27/1991 [FL-17]
Rep Lent, Norman F. – 2/6/1991 [NY-4]
Rep Levin, Sander M. – 2/27/1991 [MI-17]
Rep Lewis, Jerry – 3/5/1991 [CA-35]
Rep Lewis, Thomas F. – 2/27/1991 [FL-12]
Rep Lipinski, William O. – 2/27/1991 [IL-5]
Rep Livingston, Bob – 2/6/1991 [LA-1]
Rep Lloyd, Marilyn – 2/6/1991 [TN-3]
Rep Long, Jill L. – 2/6/1991 [IN-4]
Rep Lowey, Nita M. – 3/5/1991 [NY-20]
Rep Machtley, Ronald K. – 3/5/1991 [RI-1]
Rep Markey, Edward J. – 2/27/1991 [MA-7]
Rep Martin, David O’B. – 2/6/1991 [NY-26]
Rep Martinez, Matthew G. – 2/27/1991 [CA-30]
Rep Mavroules, Nicholas – 3/5/1991 [MA-6]
Rep McCollum, Bill – 2/27/1991 [FL-5]
Rep McGrath, Raymond J. – 2/27/1991 [NY-5]
Rep McHugh, Matthew F. – 3/5/1991 [NY-28]
Rep McNulty, Michael R. – 2/27/1991 [NY-23]
Rep Meyers, Jan – 3/5/1991 [KS-3]
Rep Miller, John R. – 2/27/1991 [WA-1]
Rep Mink, Patsy T. – 2/6/1991 [HI-2]
Rep Moakley, John Joseph – 3/5/1991 [MA-9]
Rep Molinari, Susan – 2/27/1991 [NY-14]
Rep Montgomery, G. V. (Sonny) – 2/6/1991 [MS-3]
Rep Moody, Jim – 2/27/1991 [WI-5]
Rep Moorhead, Carlos J. – 2/27/1991 [CA-22]
Rep Morella, Constance A. – 3/5/1991 [MD-8]
Rep Morrison, Sid – 2/27/1991 [WA-4]
Rep Mrazek, Robert J. – 3/5/1991 [NY-3]
Rep Murphy, Austin J. – 2/27/1991 [PA-22]
Rep Nagle, Dave R, – 2/27/1991 [IA-3]
Rep Neal, Richard E. – 2/27/1991 [MA-2]
Rep Nowak, Henry – 2/27/1991 [NY-33]
Rep Oberstar, James L. – 3/5/1991 [MN-8]
Rep Obey, David R. – 2/27/1991 [WI-7]
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. – 2/27/1991 [TX-27]
Rep Owens, Major R. – 3/5/1991 [NY-12]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. – 2/27/1991 [NJ-3]
Rep Panetta, Leon – 2/27/1991 [CA-16]
Rep Patterson, Elizabeth – 2/27/1991 [SC-4]
Rep Paxon, Bill – 2/6/1991 [NY-31]
Rep Payne, Donald M. – 2/6/1991 [NJ-10]
Rep Perkins, Carl C. – 2/6/1991 [KY-7]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. – 2/27/1991 [MN-7]
Rep Peterson, Douglas (Pete) – 2/27/1991 [FL-2]
Rep Petri, Thomas E. – 3/5/1991 [WI-6]
Rep Pickett, Owen B. – 2/27/1991 [VA-2]
Rep Pickle, J. J. – 2/27/1991 [TX-10]
Rep Porter, John Edward – 2/27/1991 [IL-10]
Rep Poshard, Glenn – 2/27/1991 [IL-22]
Rep Price, David E. – 2/27/1991 [NC-4]
Rep Quillen, James H. (Jimmy) – 3/5/1991 [TN-1]
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II – 2/27/1991 [WV-4]
Rep Ramstad, Jim – 2/6/1991 [MN-3]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. – 2/27/1991 [NY-16]
Rep Ravenel, Arthur, Jr. – 3/5/1991 [SC-1]
Rep Regula, Ralph – 2/27/1991 [OH-16]
Rep Rinaldo, Matthew J. – 2/27/1991 [NJ-7]
Rep Ritter, Don – 2/27/1991 [PA-15]
Rep Roberts, Pat – 2/6/1991 [KS-1]
Rep Roe, Robert A. – 2/27/1991 [NJ-8]
Rep Roemer, Tim – 2/27/1991 [IN-3]
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana – 2/27/1991 [FL-18]
Rep Rose, Charlie – 2/27/1991 [NC-7]
Rep Rowland, J. Roy – 2/27/1991 [GA-8]
Rep Roybal, Edward R. – 2/6/1991 [CA-25]
Rep Russo, Martin A. – 2/27/1991 [IL-3]
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav – 2/27/1991 [MN-5]
Rep Sangmeister, George E. – 2/27/1991 [IL-4]
Rep Santorum, Rick – 2/27/1991 [PA-18]
Rep Saxton, Jim – 2/27/1991 [NJ-13]
Rep Scheuer, James H. – 2/27/1991 [NY-8]
Rep Schumer, Charles E. – 2/27/1991 [NY-10]
Rep Serrano, Jose E. – 2/27/1991 [NY-18]
Rep Sharp, Philip R. – 3/5/1991 [IN-2]
Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. – 3/5/1991 [FL-15]
Rep Shays, Christopher – 2/27/1991 [CT-4]
Rep Shuster, Bud – 3/5/1991 [PA-9]
Rep Sisisky, Norman – 3/5/1991 [VA-4]
Rep Skaggs, David E. – 2/27/1991 [CO-2]
Rep Skeen, Joe – 3/5/1991 [NM-2]
Rep Slattery, Jim – 2/6/1991 [KS-2]
Rep Smith, Christopher H. – 3/5/1991 [NJ-4]
Rep Smith, Lamar – 3/5/1991 [TX-21]
Rep Smith, Lawrence – 2/27/1991 [FL-16]
Rep Smith, Robert – 3/5/1991 [OR-2]
Rep Snowe, Olympia J. – 3/5/1991 [ME-2]
Rep Solarz, Stephen J. – 2/27/1991 [NY-13]
Rep Solomon, Gerald B. H. – 3/5/1991 [NY-24]
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. – 3/5/1991 [SC-5]
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. – 3/5/1991 [TX-17]
Rep Stump, Bob – 2/6/1991 [AZ-3]
Rep Swett, Dick – 3/5/1991 [NH-2]
Rep Synar, Mike – 2/27/1991 [OK-2]
Rep Taylor, Gene – 2/27/1991 [MS-5]
Rep Thomas, Lindsay – 2/27/1991 [GA-1]
Rep Thomas, William M. – 2/27/1991 [CA-20]
Rep Torricelli, Robert G. – 3/5/1991 [NJ-9]
Rep Towns, Edolphus – 2/27/1991 [NY-11]
Rep Traficant, James A., Jr. – 2/6/1991 [OH-17]
Rep Traxler, Bob – 2/6/1991 [MI-8]
Rep Unsoeld, Jolene – 2/27/1991 [WA-3]
Rep Upton, Fred – 2/27/1991 [MI-4]
Rep Valentine, Tim – 2/27/1991 [NC-2]
Rep Vento, Bruce F. – 3/5/1991 [MN-4]
Rep Walsh, James T. – 2/27/1991 [NY-27]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. – 3/5/1991 [CA-24]
Rep Weber, Vin – 2/27/1991 [MN-2]
Rep Weiss, Ted – 3/5/1991 [NY-17]
Rep Wilson, Charles – 2/27/1991 [TX-2]
Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. – 2/27/1991 [WV-3]
Rep Wolf, Frank R. – 2/6/1991 [VA-10]
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. – 3/5/1991 [MI-3]
Rep Wyden, Ron – 3/5/1991 [OR-3]
Rep Yatron, Gus – 2/27/1991 [PA-6]
Rep Zimmer, Dick – 2/27/1991 [NJ-12] 

‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

‪‪Rabbi Dov Lior says Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from conceiving using non-Jew’s sperm, as it causes adverse traits. On subject of single mothers he says, ‘Child cannot be 100% normal’


‪Kobi Nahshoni‬

Published: 01.12.11, 08:30 / Israel Jewish Scene

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the “negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews.” Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.

Sensitive IssueBeing a religious single mother  / Gilit ChomskyAfter years of loneliness and failed dates, as yearning for child becomes intolerable, increasing number of national-religious women decide to take their fate in their hands, start family as single mothers while maintaining religious way of life. New phenomenon already dividing sector, irking rabbisFull storyLior addressed the issue during a women’s health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.

“Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son,” he said in the lecture. “If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel.”

Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. “A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren’t raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it’s genetic,” he explained. “If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.

“I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it’s no surprise that he won’t have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel,” he added.

‘Kids born to single moms become criminals’

Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another – a major halachic violation.

On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.

“Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree,” he lamented. “The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree.” Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.

Moreover, the rabbi spoke against single women getting pregnant.

“We can understand the desire of every woman to have a child, but according to our Torah it is impossible to address the demand of a certain woman when it can cause someone else suffering,” he said.

“If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal.” He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as “criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena.”

Jewish law institute launched in US Supreme Court

The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked 5 November 2002 with a kosher dinner at the U.S. Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.

Jewish law institute launched in DC

Jewish legal experts have created a new institute that will educate jurists and others about 2,000 years of Jewish law and promote the application of the teachings to contemporary legal disputes and other modern-day issues.

The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.

US President George W. Bush sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an “understanding of Judaism’s rich tradition of legal thought.”

“As we face new challenges and welcome new opportunities, our society must continue to promote good character and strong values. Through the study and teaching of Jewish law and philosophy you are contributing to a growing culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America,” Bush wrote.

Scalia, in a letter to the institute’s founder, Noson Gurary, wrote that “Jewish law is certainly one of the oldest and most highly developed systems” and explained why the comparative study of legal traditions was beneficial.

“The idea is to make Jewish law more accessible to everyone,” said Washington lawyer Alyza Lewin. Both Lewin and her father Nathan Lewin are helping establish the institute.

Last year, Alyza Lewin filed a brief to the Supreme Court based on the Talmud’s take on capital punishment when the court was readying to hear a case on the constitutionality of the electric chair.

“Legal scholars often like to know what other legal traditions have said about certain issues,” said Alyza Lewin.

Filing that kind of opinion is only part of the institute’s mandate.

It will also promote the teaching of Jewish law, develop curricula on Jewish law that can be integrated into traditional law school courses, and serve as a resource for anyone wanting to know what the vast Jewish legal tradition has to say on various issues.

The institute’s first project, already underway, explores how Jewish law can be applied to modern-day issues surrounding corporate ethics, an idea spurred by the recent corporate scandals involving Enron and Worldcom.

Gurary, who teaches at the State University of New York at Buffalo, thought up the idea of the institute about nine months ago.

“By demonstrating the philosophy of Jewish law and its moral values, we can bring a little beacon of light in this world,” Gurary said.

“I think this is what we need now, in this day and age.”

Christians must choose between antisemitism and joining Jews

Christians have to make a choice – “either retain their present belief system
and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people.”

This is the view of Bar-Ilan University’s Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman, who is
active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and in encouraging modern Christianity to
return to its Jewish roots by observing the Seven Noahide Laws. Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman


CHRISTIANS have to make a choice – “either retain their present belief system
and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people.”

This is the view of Bar-Ilan University’s Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman, who is
active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and in encouraging modern Christianity to
return to its Jewish roots by observing the Seven Noahide Laws.

“As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be antisemitic because
that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God,”
he told the Australian Jewish News.

“That’s how the process of satanising the Jews began. That belief is the root
cause of 1500 years of the Christian idolatrous antisemitism which led to the

Proficient in New Testament Studies and Classical Greek, Dr. Hayman noted
that at least five American churches have given up belief in Jesus.


Friday, July 26, 1996
Melbourne Edition (Vol. 62, no. 43, p. 9)
Courtesy of the National Library of Austalia

Israel as a Jewish state

Visiting Bar-Ilan University academic Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman talks to Shira
Sebban about his vision of Israel

ISRAEL should be a moderate religious state based on authentic Jewish rather
than borrowed western values, a visiting Israeli educator said this week.

“Separation of church and state is a Western concept based on the assumption
that Judaism is a religion, Bar-Ilan University Jewish education and Talmudic
studies lecturer Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman told the Australian Jewish News.

“But that’s false,” he said. “Judaism is our national identity and Halacha is
the Jewish national legal system. Israel’s system of government is borrowed
from non-Jewish nations.

“If China was told to borrow its system from the United States, it would
regard the suggestion as ludicrous. Jewish society is spiritual and its goal is to
be value-oriented.

“If Israel doesn’t develop its public Jewish identity, its right to exist in
the Middle East should be questioned. Our claim to the Land of Israel is based
on the fact that our Jewish identity asks us to create a highly ethical
Jewish society, not just another secular democracy.”

But Dr. Hayman stressed that Judaism is not repressive, advocating that a
Halachic society be implemented gradually in Israel “so as not to shock anyone”.
One way would be to follow the recommendation of a group of academics that a
second house of parliament be set up in the form of a Sanhedrin, which would
work with the Knesset to pass legislation.

In Australia as the guest of the Friends of Bar-Ilan University, Dr. Hayman,
who went on aliyah from the United States nine years ago, described Bar-Ilan
as “a bridge-building institution which creates a laboratory for sensitive
relations between religious and non-religious, Sephardis and Ashkenazis”.

Although Yigal Amir – who assassinated Yltzhak Rabin – was a student at
Bar-Ilan, no institution should be judged on the basis of one of its members and an
external commission had given the university a clean bill of health, he said.

Dr. Hayman accused the Israeli media, which he said was unfairly critical of
Bar-Ilan after the Rabin assassination, of being “extremist secularists”,
trying to destroy the image of Israel’s religious population because it felt

Much of the talk of a religious revival in Israel is media hype, he charged.
“When it wants to portray Israel’s religious community, the media seeks out
extremists. It never portrays the moderate religious majority, which is made up
of responsible, balanced individuals.”

He was equally scathing of extremist elements within the Charedi community
which portray the Zionist state as anti-Jewish. “Charedi society is the
flip-side of the secularists; the extremists on each side cause extremism in the other
camp, but balance each other out,” he said.

“The majority of Israelis have a healthy approach to Jewish identity. The new
government was elected in response to the outrageous anti-religious approach
of the previous administration, particularly within Meretz. Israel is slowly
growing up.”

In his capacity as director of Bar-Ilan’s Lookstein Centre for Jewish
Education in the Diaspora, Dr. Hayman is concerned with the creation of a school
system which teaches children to absorb Jewish values. The Centre develops
curricula and trains teachers for Jewish schools throughout the world.

“The rotting of Jewish communities around the world is so great that even if
there were 10 Lookstein Centres, 10 Melton Institutes and 10 Jewish Agencies,
there would be more than enough work for all of us,” Dr. Hayman said.

Dr. Hayman took part in last week’s Fourth Biennial Conference on Jewish
Education in Sydney and this week’s public education forum at Kimberley Gardens.



Samantha Power’s Testimony Confirms Foreign Policy Orthodoxy

Samantha Power’s Testimony Confirms Foreign Policy Orthodoxy
Zoë Carpenter on July 17, 2013 – 5:10 PM ET

Samantha Power testifies at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, July 17, 2013. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
During a confirmation hearing today that was largely a test of her willingness to submit to foreign policy dogma, Samantha Power repeatedly asserted her commitment to “stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it” against the “disproportionate” criticism she said it receives at the United Nations.

“I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel and we’ll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the UN system,” said Power, President Obama’s nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations, implying that she would support Israel’s bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council. Power said she would oppose Palestinian bids for recognition as a state before the completion of a two-state peace process.

Overall, Power suggested that she would approach the UN as if it were at best a rubber stamp for American action abroad and at worst an expensive impediment. That’s what the committee wanted to hear, and Power looks set to sail through confirmation. “I look forward to your service,” said Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. “I look forward to having you go to work as soon as possible,” echoed John McCain.

Particularly alarming given the push for military intervention in Syria and Iran was Power’s statement that securing authorization from the Security Council should not be necessary for the United States to take unilateral action. “When US national security is threatened and the Security Council is unwilling to authorize the use of force but the president believes that it is judicious to do so, of course that is something he should be free to do,” she said. When George W. Bush felt free to launch the invasion of Iraq without UN approval in 2003, many experts considered it a violation of international law. Later, Power refused to answer Senator Rand Paul’s question about whether Congress or the President had the power to authorize intervention.

Power said nothing to challenge conventional thinking on Iran and Syria. She called the Security Council’s inaction in regards to Syria “a disgrace that history will judge harshly,” and said that she was not optimistic about the chances of finding a common ground with Russia. She called the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime a “fact,” although the Obama administration’s claim is unverified and contested. Power mentioned the growth of extremist factions within the Syrian opposition and said she believed the Assad regime would fall eventually, but concluded, “The day is not coming soon enough.”

While Power acknowledged that “the crisis that the Iranians are facing inside the country is extremely grave,” she made no mention of the connection between the 40 percent of Iranians below the poverty line and the economic sanctions she said are having “a great effect.”

She dismissed Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani and made it clear that she sees little new diplomatic opportunity to break the nuclear stalemate:

Whatever the public statements out of Iran, we have to remember the conditions that gave rise to that election…which were the furthest thing from free, the furthest thing from fair. And I don’t think anybody can say that the election in Iran represented the will of the Iranian people…. Second, I would say that our policy, the administration’s policy, is…verify, then trust. Deeds not words. Again, we have a negotiation track, it is something we want very much to succeed, and we recognize we need to increase the pressure in order to increase its chances for success. And so we call upon the Iranians to engage that process substantively in a way that has not happened to date.

Asked if there was further action that the UN could take to move the conversation forward, Power declined to offer specifics.

The only real friction occurred between Power and Marco Rubio, who pressed her on comments she made previously regarding the Israeli/Palestinian peace process and the United States’s record on human rights. Power was quick to disavow her response to a hypothetical question posed in 2002 (what should be done in the event that one of the parties in the Israeli/Palestinian were poised to commit genocide), in which she said that such a scenario would warrant the establishment of “a mammoth protection force” and “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.” It’s a testament to the strength of that constituency and the taboo against criticizing Israeli policy that Powers felt compelled to retract her words.

“I would never apologize for America,” Powers said repeatedly. “America is the light to the world.” She was unwilling to give a straight answer when Rubio asked if she believed, as indicated in a decade-old article, that the United States has ever committed or sponsored crimes. “I believe the US is the greatest country on earth,” she responded, and went on to refer to the abuse at Abu Ghraib as a “mistake.”

It isn’t surprising that Power had no appetite to stand up to the hawks and the Israel lobby. After all, her task as the Ambassador to the UN will be to represent the interests and policies of the Obama administration, which isn’t effecting much progressive change in the international sphere. That fact is far more discouraging than Power’s submission to the prostration required in the confirmation process.

As Arizona Senator Jeff Flake said, pointing out that more often than not the US falls on the losing side of critical votes in the general assembly, “If it weren’t for Israel and Palau and the Marshall Islands, we wouldn’t have any friends.” Power may have won several new ones in the US Senate, but her testimony indicated little about her ability to influence an international community increasingly awake to the shortcomings of US policy abroad.

Can restoring the Glass-Steagall Act do what Dodd-Frank failed to do?

Whose War?

Whose War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The American Conservative, March 24, 2003

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of … Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”

What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.

Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:

And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.

Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.

“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.

“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”

Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”

In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”

The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

AIPAC Resolution Demanding War With Iran On House Floor
14 2012 Blog

AIPAC Resolution Demanding War With Iran On House Floor Tomorrow

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the president’s hands on Iran policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC’s recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC’s election year agenda.  

Accordingly, it is not particularly surprising that the resolution is being rushed to the House floor for a vote, nor that it is expected to pass with very little opposition. Those voting “no” on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won’t receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as “anti-Israel.” That is how it works.

Most of the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability.

The resolution’s overarching message is that Iran must be deterred from developing weapons, a position the White House (and our allies share). That is why the sanctions regime is in place and also why negotiations with Iran have resumed (the next session is May 23).

But the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial .

But there is also this: The House “urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”
Think about that.

The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not “rely on containment” in response to “the Iranian nuclear threat.

Since the resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a “nuclear weapons capability.”

That means that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war.

Any doubt that this is the intention of the backers of this approach was removed back in March, when the Senate was considering new Iran sanctions. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered their own “no containment” language to the sanctions bill and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it.

However, amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that “nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran…” That did it.

Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn’t) and Paul’s objection killed the bill, for the time being. In other words, the purpose of “no containment” language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul’s provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable. So now it’s the House’s turn.On the substance, the “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.
Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is likely none of us would be around today.

Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the cheerleaders for war are trying to change the rules. They are doing that because they understand that after almost a decade of war, the last thing Americans want is another one.

No president is going to ask Congress to declare war, or even to authorize it. Making war against Iran automatic would eliminate that problem. (That is precisely Sen. Paul’s objection; he believes that backing into war is unconstitutional. He recalls the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 which led to ten years of war in Vietnam and 50,000 American dead without a declaration of war or even a specific authorization for war).
So why would the House vote for a resolution like this? The main reason is AIPAC. It may be the only lobby pushing for war with Iran but it also, by far, the most powerful foreign policy lobby and also the one that sees to it that those who play ball with it are rewarded and those who don’t are punished. AIPAC has been pushing war with Iran for a decade; it won’t stop until the missiles fly.

The other reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is good politics but does not affect policy.

Believing that is a mistake. An overwhelming vote for “no containment” may not tie the president’s hands legally, but it does go a long way to tying his hands politically. After all, Congress will be expressing its clear (bipartisan) intent. A president cannot easily ignore that.

Moreover, the lobby is unlikely to stop with a non-binding resolution. Once the House and Senate have passed that, the lobby will look for an opportunity to make it binding. The goal is to take the president’s discretion away from him because this president is unlikely to choose war when there are other options available.

It is those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains hell-bent for war.
POSTSCRIPT: It can’t hurt to call your House member at 202 225 3131 to tell him that you know about the vote on the AIPAC resolution and will be watching. Assuming the House does not duck for cover by passing this by voice vote, I will post the names of the brave representatives who vote “no.”

The Israelification of American Domestic Security

Max Blumenthal

From Occupation to “Occupy”: The Israelification of American Domestic Security

New York – In October, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department turned parts of the campus of the University of California in Berkeley into an urban battlefield. The occasion was Urban Shield 2011, an annual SWAT team exposition organized to promote “mutual response,” collaboration and competition between heavily militarized police strike forces representing law enforcement departments across the United States and foreign nations…

… Training alongside the American police departments at Urban Shield was the Yamam, an Israeli Border Police unit that claims to specialize in “counter-terror” operations but is better known for its extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian militant leaders and long record of repression and abuses in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Urban Shield also featured a unit from the military of Bahrain, which had just crushed a largely non-violent democratic uprising by opening fire on protest camps and arresting wounded demonstrators when they attempted to enter hospitals. While the involvement of Bahraini soldiers in the drills was a novel phenomenon, the presence of quasi-military Israeli police – whose participation in Urban Shield was not reported anywhere in US media – reflected a disturbing but all-too-common feature of the post-9/11 American security landscape.

The Israelification of America’s security apparatus, recently unleashed in full force against the Occupy Wall Street Movement, has taken place at every level of law enforcement, and in areas that have yet to be exposed. The phenomenon has been documented in bits and pieces, through occasional news reports that typically highlight Israel’s national security prowess without examining the problematic nature of working with a country accused of grave human rights abuses. But it has never been the subject of a national discussion. And collaboration between American and Israeli cops is just the tip of the iceberg…

… “Israel is the Harvard of antiterrorism,” said former US Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, who now serves as the US Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. Cathy Lanier, the Chief of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police, remarked, “No experience in my life has had more of an impact on doing my job than going to Israel.” “One would say it is the front line,” Barnett Jones, the police chief of Ann Arbor, Michigan, said of Israel. “We’re in a global war.”

Karen Greenberg, the director of Fordham School of Law’s Center on National Security and a leading expert on terror and civil liberties, said the Israeli influence on American law enforcement is so extensive it has bled into street-level police conduct. “After 9/11 we reached out to the Israelis on many fronts and one of those fronts was torture,” Greenberg told me. “The training in Iraq and Afghanistan on torture was Israeli training. There’s been a huge downside to taking our cue from the Israelis and now we’re going to spread that into the fabric of everyday American life? It’s counter-terrorism creep. And it’s exactly what you could have predicted would have happened.”…

… The ADL [Anti-Defamation League, zionistisch, T:I:S] claims to have trained over 45,000 American law enforcement officials through its Law Enforcement and Society program, which “draws on the history of the Holocaust to provide law enforcement professionals with an increased understanding of…their role as protectors of the Constitution,” the group’s website stated. All new FBI agents and intelligence analysts are required to attend the ADL program, which is incorporated into three FBI training programs. According to official FBI recruitment material, “all new special agents must visit the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to see firsthand what can happen when law enforcement fails to protect individuals.”…, 2. Dezember 2011

Barack Obama : “America’s First Jewish President”

Barack Obama : “America’s First Jewish President”

According to a nationally prominent Zionist spokesperson, former Congressman, Federal Judge, White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton and early backer of Obama, Abner Mikvner, “Barack Obama is the first Jewish President”.

“Obama asks Shimon Peres: ‘What can I do for Israel?'” — Haaretz November 17, 2008

“The UN Special Rappateur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories (Richard Falk) has said Israel’s policies there amount to a crime against humanity…He said the UN must act to protect the Palestinian population suffering what he called ‘collective punishment’…He said the International Criminal Court should also investigate whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law” — BBC News December 10, 2008

“We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them than their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in…We may have to tighten up those sanctions…and give them a clear choice…whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way.” —
President-Elect Obama on NBC Meet the Press, December 7, 2008


According to a nationally prominent Zionist spokesperson, former Congressman, Federal Judge, White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton and early backer of Obama, Abner Mikvner, “Barack Obama is the first Jewish President”. Mikvner’s affirmation reflects both Obama’s one-sided and longstanding commitment to the State of Israel and loyalty to the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the United States, as well as the long-term and successful effort of a network of financially and politically powerful Jewish Zionists to ‘embed’ Obama to their ‘Israel First’ political apparatus. What is striking about the latter is the demeaning and arrogant claims made by some leading Jewish Zionist about their ‘central roles’ in the making of Obama’s professional and political careers – in effect denying the President-Elect any credit for his own academic or professional success. (Historically this has been mirrored in the continuous claims of some American Jews to have fought and won the battle of Civil Rights in the 60’s on behalf of African Americans – essentially denying black Americans any independent political role in their own struggle.) Even their personal flattery about his ‘wisdom’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘intellectual acuity’ is always linked with his unconditional support of the State of Israel. One can envision how quickly his Zionist colleagues would replace their plaudits with crude insults regarding his intelligence if he suggested Israel end its starvation blockade of Gaza… Needless to say the Zionists know their man, as they confidently proclaim, he is a cautious and prudent politician, who measures power before he speaks, especially as he has filled the White House, economic councils and security apparatus with Zionist zealots.

The Making and Re-Making of Obama

The Chicago Jewish News, a nationally prominent Israel-First propaganda organ, published a lengthy article on ‘Obama and the Jews’ by Pauline Dubkin (October 24, 2008), which quotes approvingly a ‘long-time Jewish observer of the political scene’, who declared that, “Jews made him (Obama). Wherever you look there is a Jewish presence.”

This is not merely the usual arrogant self-aggrandizing boasts of a Zionist power broker, with which we are constantly bombarded on so many political topics, this reflects an important part of what Obama has become, especially in advancing his latter day political ambitions. The Zionist self-promoters (ZSP), ever ready to take credit for any success (no matter how notorious and immoral) – Wall Street speculators, Ivy League professors, Pentagon militarists, cultural gurus and even the key patrons of art forms like jazz and constantly rewrite history (or biography in the case of Obama) to maximize their self-importance in all aspects of American life. The ZSP conveniently fail to mention in their articles that Obama’s white Gentile grandmother gave him the intellectual nurturing and encouragement and diligently petitioned for scholarships for him to attend elite private schools, which formed the basis for his intellectual skills to write, speak and reason as an educated man.

The ZSP exclude from their ‘revisionist and Judaized’ biography of Obama, the central importance of Reverend Jeremiah Wright who transformed Obama from an elite Ivy university graduate into an effective social activist. Obama was able to participate and get involved in community organizing in Chicago’s African-American neighborhoods because of Wright’s endorsement and broad credibility. If it were not for Rev. Wright, Obama would never have had a social base or organizational experience to engage in Chicago politics. It is only after Obama had gained these skills and popular appeal that the Zionist politicos noticed him and went to work on his ego and ambitions, recruiting him to their pro-Israel agenda and financing his political career.

The Zionist re-write of his biography has gone curiously unchallenged by Obama. To suit his new mentors, the Israel-First ideologues and financial backers, he has willfully discarded and insulted his former mentors, as well as any current policy advisers and political colleagues who doesn’t adhere to the Zionist line of unconditional support for Israel. Two cases come immediately to mind. When leading Zionist ideologues objected to the presence of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley, among Obama’s foreign policy advisors, the Zionists in Obama’s inner circle immediately marginalized them with his approval. When the notorious torture-promoting Zionofascist Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz raised a howl about former US President Jimmy Carter (a principled critic of Israel’s apartheid policies) speaking at the Democratic Party Convention (following a century-long political tradition of honoring former presidents) the Zionist operatives blatantly humiliated the elderly Carter by denying him even a five-minute speech – with Obama’s approval. ‘Professor’ Dershowitz publicly crowed about his success and power over the Democratic nominee Obama in censoring the former President.

The conversion and promotion of Obama as an Israel-Firster is an excellent case study of the methods the ZPC has used to build a near invincible power base in the US political system. The construction of the ZPC is not the result of a cabal with a preplanned centrally controlled operation. Obama’s conversion began through an ideologically diverse, individual, family and community-based effort. As Obama rose from local to national political office, Zionist promotion evolved from local into a nationally organized and concerted effort including campaign funding, business career appointments and paid propaganda and indoctrination junkets to Israel.

The ZPC offers positive inducements for the ‘recruitable’ and threats of retaliation and intimidation via media slanders and systematic public pillory through most Jewish communal organizations for the public political critics of Israel who remain recalcitrant and refuse to toe the Israel-First line.

Turning Obama into an Israel-Firster, according to the Chicago Jewish News article, began during his studies at Harvard Law School where he was ‘spotted’ by a Zionist professor, Martha Minow, as “smart, promising, and politically ambitious” and a likely recruit. The professor proudly recounts how she contacted family members, including her father, a major Democratic powerbroker, and fellow Zionists who ran a law firm in Chicago and recommended they hire the Obama. In brief, the first step in Zionist recruitment was using a prestigious academic post for initial contact, followed by a promise of career advancement through a professional network.

The next step was to introduce Obama to an association of ‘friends and neighbors in the Jewish Community including prominent Zionist financial supporters. Obama’s early promoters played a key role in convincing him that his political future depended on Zionist allies and that support depended on his total commitment to an Israel-First agenda. As Obama’s ties with his Zionist-liberal backers in the Democratic Party thickened, his links to black community organizing and his pastor and former mentor, the progressive African-American minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright weakened. By the end of the 1990’s, Obama was firmly embedded in the liberal Zionist Democratic Party network and through it he teamed up with two key Zionist figures who were crucial to his presidential campaign: David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist since 2002 and the chief architect and tactician of his presidential campaign in 2008 and Bettylu Salzman, daughter of Phillip Klutznick, a billionaire real estate developer, slumlord and zealous Israel-Firster. Salzman/Klutznick admits she never would have bankrolled and promoted Obama simply because of ‘his smarts’ or liberal politics if he hadn’t pledged his commitment to Israel’s interests. She states, “Obviously I’m not going to support someone who is opposed to Israel and what it stands for.

He’s right on all the issues when it comes to Israel. He is in exactly the same place (Hillary) Clinton is, maybe stronger. He’s a clearer thinker.” (Chicago Jewish News, October 24, 2008) While Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he shared an office with an Orthodox Jew and fanatical Israel-Firster, Ira Silverstein, who boasts of his role in ‘educating’ Obama about Jewish Orthodoxy and more important “shared pro-Israel feelings” to the point that … “When Silverstein sponsored numerous resolutions condemning PLO bombings Obama eagerly signed on as a co-sponsor.” (ibid)
Fully embedded in the Zionist Power Configuration of Chicago, Obama was advised by the Axelrods, Klutznicks and other key strategists to make the obligatory ritual pilgrimage to Israel and pay obeisance to its leaders in the course of his Senate campaign. During his trip to Israel, two years later in 2006, Obama was accompanied and guided by the executive vice-president of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. Under Zionist guidance, Obama ‘connected’ with the Israeli state, totally ignoring the plight of the Palestinians who were being savagely repressed by the Israel Army and assaulted on a daily basis by Zion-Fascist settlers. Obama returned a thoroughly committed Zionist African-American politician.

With the Israeli-ZPC certificate of approval, Obama’s financial base of support widened to include some of the wealthiest pro-Israel Jewish Americans in the Midwest including Lester Crown, whose son, James Crown headed Obama’s financial campaign in Illanois. According to Crown (pater), “From the time I met him, the times we talked about Israel and we talked about it several times, he has been an ardent backer of Israel’s defense position (sic), Israel’s security position.” (Ibid)

To those Zionfascists who demand that Israel annex all of Palestine and expel ‘the Arabs’ and were disturbed by Obama’s passing reference to a two-state solution, Crown assured them that Obama’s proposal was couched in such outrageously impossible demands for concessions from the Palestinians that it was a dead letter.

Not all Jews accept this view of a Zionist-embedded Obama: Some racists reject him as an untrustworthy and unqualified ‘Schvartze’ because of his ‘very close intimate relationship’ with Reverent Jeremiah Wright. The Zionist-influenced mass media took their cue from the far-right and orchestrated a hate campaign against Reverend Wright and his links to Obama. The ‘liberal Zionists’, who strategized and ran Obama’s presidential campaign, easily convinced Obama to publicly dissociate himself from his former minister and mentor of the 1980’s. Obama complied. However, the alliance of the Republican Right and Zionfascists demanded Obama make a public denunciation of the Minister. The liberal Zionists prepared the script, which Obama recited, issuing a vicious condemnation of Rev. Wright and specifically listed Wright’s defense of the sovereignty and self-determination of the Palestinians as one of his ‘crimes’.

Obama had crossed the River Jordan. His capitulation to the Zionofascists was the inevitable consequence of his intimate and longstanding ties to his liberal-Zionist backers. The public purging and scourging of a renowned African-American Christian theologian of the oppressed was only the beginning of the Zionist makeover of Obama as the first Jewish (or better Zionist) President of the United States. It was followed by further purges of any ‘centrist’ or ‘realist’ establishment adviser, who might at any time in the past have issued the mildest criticism of Israel’s policies or even praised or associated with any other critic of Israel or the Jewish Lobby in the US. It was ‘guilt by association’.

The Zionofascists soon pressed their campaign to force Obama’s liberal-Zionists to purge Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Cold Warrior National Security Adviser to former President Jimmy Carter, Samantha Power, author and lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Robert Malley, a former Clinton adviser for their perceived crimes against Zionism. Brzezinski was accused of advocating what he called “an even-handed Middle East policy”, something clearly ‘anti-Semitic’ in the eyes of the unconditional supporters of Israel who dominate the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO). Worse still he praised the Walt-Mearsheimer book critical of the Israel Lobby, a capital offense in the eyes of most of the Jewish political spectrum. Power and Malley also transgressed the Israel-First line. Although Brzezinski later recanted his praise of Professors Walt and Mearsheimers’ study, he and the other members of the ‘objectionable three’ foreign policy specialists were marginalized and excluded from having any input on policy issues related to Middle East.

Control of Obama’s Middle East policy was taken over by Dennis Ross, a virulent Zionist advocate of Israel’s ultra-militaristic policies, including an armed preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear and military installations. Ross is an unconditional supporter of the Israeli starvation siege of the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip and fully backed Israel’s savage air attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon. Obama’s appointment of Ross is the clearest guarantee to all Zionists, liberal, orthodox or fascist, that US policy in the Middle East will continue to be subordinated to the interests of the Israeli State and its military.

Obama’s purge of any and all moderate voices on Middle East policy, his placement of fanatical Israel-Firsters in most key positions in his campaign and new Administration reflects his long-term, deep immersion into the Zionist Power Configuration. The result is a “Jewish President” – in the sense that most key White House, economic and security appointments reflect pre-election Zionist power in the making, indoctrination and scripting of the Obama candidacy.

The Configuration of the ‘Jewish President’

One of Obama’s longest supporters, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, provides a clue to Obama’s affinity for Zionist appointments. According to Rabbi Wolf, “Obama is embedded in the Jewish world.” While the Rabbi is presumptuous to assume that all Jews subscribe to his own Israel-First views, he is absolutely correct if he is referring to the Jewish-Zionist world.

Nothing better explains Obama’s selection of demonstrably failed economists and security officials than his long-term, large-scale links to the ZPC.

Obama started with the appointments of dual US-Israeli citizen, Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel and Zionist David Axelrod to top White House posts, as well as Lawrence Summers (long-time Harvard ally of the Judeo-fascist, torture advocate Alan Dershowitz) as chief White House economic adviser. Summers is a life-time Israel-Firster, who used his presidency at Harvard University as a bully pulpit to attack a student-faculty group critical of Israeli policies in the Occupied Terrtories. As the former Treasury Secretary under the Clinton regime he was a key architect of the speculator-dominated financial system, which is currently in total collapse. In line with the ‘Jewish Presidency’, Obama named one of the foremost, unconditional Israel-Firsters to be his key Middle East policymaker – Dennis Ross, a leading Zionist ideologue and co-author of a presidential position paper advocating pre-emptive war with Iran. Ross is the pivotal Zionist figure in Obama’s entourage and his appointment is the guarantee for the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) that the Obama regime will follow and support with American guns and American tax-payer money every Israeli war crime, assault or invasion on its Arab and Parsi-speaking regional neighbors. Ross, Axelrod, Summers, Emmanuel and their craven followers in Congress together with the AIPAC and the entire Zionist community-based network will ensure that Obama is inextricably ‘embedded’ in their agenda. They will not allow the publication or support of any intelligence investigation, judicial inquiry or United Nations report, which challenges Israel’s occupation of Palestine and promotion of pre-emptive war with Iran based on the fabrication of data about its so-called nuclear threat. Each and every recently appointed Zionists has condemned the United Nations and International Atomic Agency reports refuting Israel’s phony claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. They will make sure that newly appointed National Security Adviser, General James Jones will never bring up or make public his highly critical internal report based his on-site investigation of Israel’s crimes against the civilian Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates are so deeply ‘embedded’ in the Zionist network and so deeply infused with the Israel-First ideology that ZPC ‘pressure’ will not be necessary. The three are, in effect, Zionized Zombies, eager to fawn and truckle, even to grotesque excesses, at every wink and gesture, signaling military handouts, UN vetoes and repeated provocative acts of war against Iran. They have even exceeded President Bush in their eagerness to please their Zionist mentors by recognizing Jerusalem as the ‘undivided’ capital of the Jews – effectively denying the rights of the Palestinian residents.

Nothing speaks to the dominance of the ZPC over US political life – domestic and foreign – than the election of their meticulously groomed first ‘Jewish President’ – and the subsequent takeover of strategic economic and security posts in his administration.


The ascent of a minority of ambitious power-driven political operatives acting first and foremost for a militarist colonial power in a strategic region of the world economy represents the biggest threat to world peace and to US democratic values in recent history.

Think about it: Not only do the Zionists and their embedded clones rule the White House, they also have the political apparatus (left, liberal, center and right) to silence, insult, witch hunt and isolate any critic of their agenda, their organizations and of the State of Israel. When confronted by a critic the entire apparatus brays in unison about ‘anti-Semitism’ and follows up with severe civil sanctions. As Obama’s career under his Zionist handlers illustrates, they are capable of hurling repulsive denunciations against his former African-American mentor and spiritual councilor, Reverend Wright; capable of publicly humiliating and pushing aside a former President and Obama supporter, Jimmy Carter; capable of isolating and ‘sanitizing’ former top foreign policymakers from earlier Democratic Administration like Brzezinski, simply for pointing out Israeli crimes against humanity (although such observations are made daily in the European press and political circles).

The apparatus combines the carrot (embedding and promoting Obama) and the stick (stigmatizing Carter): It all depends on whether an individual, politician, academic, writer or journalist is ‘useful’ (i.e. an unconditional supporter) or ‘harmful’ (i.e. critical) to the State of Israel.

The Obama experience illustrates how a small, close knit, well-organized and well financed minority operating through prestigious professional posts and powerful economic enterprises can penetrate major political institutions, capture upwardly mobile politicians and ‘turn’ them into willing accomplices in promoting wars on behalf of a foreign colonial militarist power. If in the past we have experienced Zionist thuggery mugging our freedom of speech in civil society, think of what we can expect when these thugs have complete control of the White House. The ‘First Jewish President’ of the United States indeed! Where does that leave the American people, their rights, their interests and their country’s independent foreign policy?


In early December 2008, Israel’s right wing party, Likud, under the leadership of ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu, met and nominated its slate of candidates for the upcoming national elections (February 12, 2009). The majority of candidates nominated represent what most Israeli journalists call the ‘hard right’ or what might be accurately described as Zionfascism. The Likud Party majority favors the expulsion of all Palestinians (i.e. non-Jews) from Greater Israel, the military seizure of Gaza, the end of any pretense of peace negotiations and the immediate bombing of Iran.

Currently Likud and its fascists have the support of a plurality of Israeli Jews. If they win, it is a virtual certainty they will receive the automatic support of all the principle respectable pro-Israel Jewish organizations in the US, who follow the line that: “It is not ours to question whom the Israelis vote for office. It is our duty to back the State of Israel.”

The election of an Israeli-fascist regime will up the ante in Washington. Does Obama’s embedding in the Zionist apparatus include support for Jewish fascism , the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine and their unilateral decision to ‘nuke’ Iran? Three weeks into his presidency Obama will face his biggest Middle East challenge, which will define the nature of US policy in the region.

Obama has recently suggested that Washington would nuke Iran to protect Israel –which has never yet signed a treaty with the US – to which the Bush Administration replied contemptuously that it would be very hard to convince American parents in Kansas that their sons should risk nuclear incineration for the sake of a small country in the Middle East. Clearly Obama is a greater war monger on issues involving Israel then even Bush: It comes with being a “Jewish President”

I think the keys to understanding how deeply embedded the “Obamas” (aka Dunhams) are in the Jewish Global Conspiracy are Obama’s Mom and Grandmother. What was “mom” Stanley doing in Indonesia during Barry’s youth? Why she was working for the IMF developing the new “micro loan” program whereby the IMF reaches directly into the poorest communities on earth to directly enslave the inhabitants with “micro business loans”.  Who was her “boss”? Why Jerry Geithner Timmy’s dad!  Her “husband” Lolo Sortero was liason between Mobil Oil and the brand new and extremely ruthless (4 million slaughtered in the 1960’s) Suharto “government”. Did Jewess Amy Goodman tell you about that on “Democracy Now”? You’s think she would since she made her claim to fame covering the atrocities of the Suharto “government”…so yes even Amy Goodman is part of the conspiracy that Dick is talking about here.

What about Obama’s Jewish “Grandma”? She and Stanley senior moved from Seattle (intelligence agency central-west coast division) to Hawaii in 1960 and two years later Granny Dunaham was the proud new owner of a BANK…just in time for the black market activities of the “intelligence” community to get cranked up during Vietnam. Gee do you suppose they laundered a dollar or two through Granny Dunham’s “Bank”?

Oh and since Granny is Jewish and Mommy is Jewish what does that make Barry under Talmudic Law? Not “Muslim”!

All of the above information combined with that of Dick’s enclosed info confirms my conclusion of what and who “Obama” really is. He’s THE UNDERTAKER…his job is to embalm and bury the USA which in reality dies about 35 years ago (or more).

Truthfully the last REAL opportunity to step in and stop this global conspiracy in its tracks was December 1963…if only the American people had realized then and there that the SAME PEOPLE who blew JFK’s head off are the “sponsors” of Obama now. By staying asleep to the facts since 1963 (or 1914 or 1861…) the American people have signed their own death warrant. The American Sheeple WILL destroy themselves at the direction of their Jewish Masters (fighting “enemies” they have been propagandized into hating…i.e. Muslims)…and that’s just how it was always planned.


Saudi Prince supports pro-Israel, Islamophobic U.S. network

Saudi Prince supports Islamophobic U.S. network

“Prince Walid bin Talal bin Abdelaziz Al-Saud, the second biggest shareholder in News Corporation after Murdoch, recently gave an interview, on his yacht, to the BBC flagship programme Newsnight. The Saudi prince declared himself “a good friend” of Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch (probably the next executive to be charged by the police in the scandal). He defended both men briskly, but in doing so drew attention to the fact that he is the second biggest shareholder in the Murdoch empire, and that the Murdochs were major shareholders in his own Rotana media empire in the Middle East. An unholy alliance, surely? Mr Murdoch is the co-owner, with Prince Walid, of Fox News – one of the most virulently anti-Muslim television stations in the world. The station gives a megaphone to the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin. In the US, Fox’s role was to throw gallons of petrol on the flames Islamophobia which were leading to the burning of the Holy Quran by vigilantes.”[]

This fact does not fit into a popular (but wrong) paradigm that says it is not in the “national interest” of the U.S. to support Israel because doing so angers the oil-rich Arab nations and makes it hard for Big Oil to do business with them. Therefore, according to this “logic,” the only reason the U.S. has a pro-Israel foreign policy is because the Israel Lobby forces Big Oil and the rest of the American plutocracy to be pro-Israel, even though it is against their interest.

But here we see that a Saudi prince is great pals with the most pro-Israel media mogul in the world, and a co-owner with him of Fox News, the #1 pro-Israel network in the U.S.

The Israel Lobby’s Power Comes from The American Ruling Class



The Israel Lobby’s Power Comes from The American Ruling Class

by John Spritzler

February 23, 2009


Among those who, like myself, oppose Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, there is an important debate about a fundamental question. The debate is about how to explain the fact that the American government supports Israel virtually unconditionally with more economic, military and diplomatic aid than it gives to any other country.

One commonly believed explanation is that the “Israel Lobby”–consisting of organizations like AIPAC and a host of other pro-Israel Jewish organizations in the United States–has hijacked U.S. foreign policy by using its wealth and control of the mass media to buy or intimidate Congressmen. According to this view, the American government’s pro-Israel foreign policy is harmful to the interests of the non-Jewish American corporate upper class, and were it not for the power of the Israel Lobby American foreign policy, reflecting as it does the interests of the American upper class, would not be as pro-Israel as it is today.

I call this the “The Lobby Makes Them Do It” view. I think it is just plain factually wrong. The alternative view that I hold is that the Israel Lobby’s power comes from the (mostly non-Jewish) American ruling class.

The leading advocate of the “The Lobby Makes Them Do It” view is James Petras. Petras asserts that the Israel Lobby prevailed over America’s Big Oil elite to get the U.S. to invade Iraq for the benefit of Israel:

“The principal governmental architects of the war, the intellectual promoters of the war, their publicly enunciated published strategies for the war were all deeply attached to the Israel lobby and worked for the Israeli state. Wolfowitz, number 2 in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, number 3 in the Pentagon, Richard Perle, head of the Defense Board, Elliot Abrams in charge of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council, and dozens of other key operatives in the government and ideologues in the mass media were life-long fanatical activists in favor of Israel, some of whom had lost security clearances in previous administrations for handing over documents to the Israeli government...

“In fact the US-Middle East wars prejudice the oil interests in several strategic senses. The wars generate generalized hostility to oil companies with long-term relations with Arab countries. The wars result in undermining new contracts opening in Arab countries for US oil investments. US oil companies have been much friendlier to peacefully resolving conflicts than Israel and especially its Lobbyists as any reading of the specialized oil industry journals and spokespeople emphasize.

Just on the facts, Petras is wrong. Far from opposing the Israel Lobby, Big Oil uses that lobby. As Juan Cole

“Neoconservative Jews in the US like Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan and Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute who vocally support the Iraq War (and have gotten rich off it) are a minority of a minority, and even are at odds with the Israeli security establishment! Moreover, the American Enterprise Institute, which crafted the Iraq War, gets funding from Exxon Mobil, and last I checked it was run by white Protestants. The vice chair of AEI is Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon Mobil and surely Dick Cheney’s old golf partner in the Dallas years. That is, the Kagans and the Rubins, who identify with the Revisionist Zionist movement on the Israeli Right, are useful idiots for Big Oil, not movers and shakers in their own right.”

The American corporate upper class, the American ruling class, is pro-Israel because they (or at least their sophisticated advisors, like Henry Kissinger, Condoleeza Rice, General James Jones, etc.) know that Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians performs a strategically crucial service for the American ruling class. The ethnic cleansing polarizes the Middle East along non-class lines, fomenting an ethnic war pitting Jews against non-Jews. The American ruling class uses this ethnic war to strengthen its domestic control over ordinary Americans, and to strengthen the control of Middle Eastern ruling elites (kings, mullahs, dictators) over ordinary people in their respective nations. These are the most important strategic objectives of the American ruling class: social control to prevent the spread of pro-democratic, pro-working class, pro-solidarity movements from overthrowing elite rule anywhere in the world.

Regarding domestic control of the American population, the key strategy of elite social control has for many decades been to rely on Orwellian wars of social control. The particular “foreign enemy” has changed over time, from Teddy Roosevelt’s Spain to Woodrow Wilson’s “Huns” to FDR’s Fascists to Truman’s Communists to Bush’s and Obama’s Terrorists. By ensuring that the American mass media refrain from telling Americans the true reason (Israel’s ethnic cleansing) why Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims take up arms against Israel, the American ruling class ensures that Americans will believe the lie that Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims are hateful, irrational, anti-semitic terrorists who kill decent Israelis “just like us” and would likewise kill Americans if we fail to obey our upper class rulers who protect us from terrorism.

Similarly, the oil-rich Middle East ruling classes, in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, use their people’s anger at Israel to strengthen their power over them, as I discuss in some detail in
How Israel Helps Saudi Arabia’s Rulers Control their Working Class and How Israel Helps the Islamic Republic of Iran Control the Iranian Working Class. James Petras is naive to think that Big Oil’s interests are prejudiced by the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy. If the Saudi royal family, for example, were really opposed to U.S. support for Israel, then it would use its vast wealth to support pro-Palestinian forces inside the United States, to counter the Israel Lobby; but it doesn’t.

By the same token, if any members of the American mostly non-Jewish ruling class, with billions of dollars to throw around (Buffet gave away $40 billion alone!), wanted to tell Americans the truth about Zionism (the movement to create and protect a Jewish state), they could do so. They could tell Americans how Zionism is all about ethnic cleansing, how Albert Einstein (whom the Israeli government asked to be the President of Israel, and declined) always opposed the Jewish state idea because it was morally wrong, and how the Zionists betrayed European Jews during World War II by opposing rescue efforts (so there would be more dead Jews to give them greater standing at the post-war negotiations over who would “get” Palestine)–they could do so; but they don’t. If they did, they could turn the American public against Zionism and against the Israel Lobby as quickly as they turn it against a politician soliciting sex in a toilet stall.

So why don’t they do it? It is not because Zionists control the mass media. Sure, pro-Zionists do control the mass media, but billionaires could create their own anti-Zionist media if they wanted to. After all, Rupert Murdoch owns a large enough media network to do the job and at the time of his divorce in 1998 his personal fortune was only 3.3 billion pounds (less than $5 billion I imagine.) The American ruling class chooses not to oppose the Israel Lobby because they have no reason to. The Israel Lobby is an instrument (“useful idiots” as Juan Cole puts it) of the American ruling class. The Lobby spreads the lies that the pro-Israel foreign policy requires, and it keeps politicians in line who might otherwise stray from the path. The Lobby is powerful because it does the bidding of the powerful.

Very different organizing strategies against Zionism are appropriate, depending on whether one agrees with “The Lobby Makes Them Do It” view of James Petras or the view I advocate. If Petras is correct, then the natural strategy to turn U.S. foreign policy around would be to side with the likes of Big Oil against the Israel Lobby. But since Big Oil and the Israel Lobby are in fact on the same team, this is a ridiculous strategy. Instead, the strategy that makes sense is to mobilize the general public against the American ruling class around not only opposition to Israeli ethnic cleansing but also opposition to the entire anti-democratic, anti-equality agenda of the ruling class. This is a revolutionary pro-working class strategy, and only it can win.

John Spritzler is the author of The People As Enemy: The Leaders’ Hidden Agenda In World War II, and a Research Scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Organs from killed Arabs to be used for Jews

Yokhay Hakak and Tzvika Goldberg

Yerushalayim , 30 July 1993


“The organs of Arabs killed during the Intifada should be used for organ transplants for the Jews”


The Head of the Public Committee for Defense of Human Dignity (1), Rabbi Mordechai Yedidya Weiner, called on the authorities to use the organs of Arabs killed during the Intifada for organ transplants in order to stop using for this purpose the organs extracted from Jewish bodies. “We will not allow Jewish corpses to be misused.  Every part of a Jewish corpse is full of holiness. This is why it cannot serve any utilitarian purpose. So many Arab corpses of those killed during the Intifada are available. Why aren’t their organs used instead?” So said Rabbi Weiner at a solemn meeting held on Tish’a Be’av [a day of fasting and mourning in celebration of the anniversary of destruction of both Temples].


“By making this proposal, I don’t intend, God forbid, to insult any Arabs”, explained the rabbi to the “Yerushalayim Newspaper” this week. “On the contrary, this will count for them as a merit in the eyes of God. After all, in their entire lives they cannot observe any Commandment nor perform any good deed. But my proposal implies that at least after their death they will be able to do so.” During the solemn meeting held this week in the Sabbath Square [in Jerusalem] by the Public Committee for Defense of Human Dignity, also other rabbis fiercely protested against the extraction of organs from the corpse of a Jewish new immigrant from Russia, Yefim Kipnis, for the purpose of a transplant. They reiterated their disagreement with extraction of any organs from any Jewish body for organ transplant purposes.


Translation and note by Prof. Israel Shahak

(1) The word ‘human’ in the Committee’s name means ‘Jewish’. This is why the use of non-Jewish organs is permitted, and only of Jewish ones prohibited,  The named Committee is generously funded from the U.S. where the this semantic confusion cannot be clarified by the media.

Sharon to Peres: “We Control America”

Sharon to Peres: “We Control America”

 by Mohamed Khodr
November 20, 2001,  Media Monitors Network 

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.  Peres  warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us.  “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.”

[Note by webmaster:  According to Kol Yisrael, no such statement was made by Sharon nor did Kol Yisrael report such a statement]]

The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate.”

— Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee:  10/07/1973 on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.

I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews….. terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen …. I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country

—–Sec. of State John Foster Dulles  quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

The long history of bipartisan Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress “The Little Knesset” after Israel’s Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem.    Congress’s embarrassing and unpatriotic display of allegiance to a foreign country that is dependent on American largesse and support is the unknown scandal to the American people.  With the media’s strong, biased and sympathetic portrayal of Israel while simultaneously denying any opposing view of Israel or human pictures and stories of the endless suffering of Palestinians, its no wonder that we the American people are so unaware of the true face of Israel.  Thus shockingly but not surprisingly only 4 % of the American people are aware of Israel’s 34 year brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people.

Only at times of war and threat upon the U.S. does our Senate ever exhibit the strong  bipartisanship support of America it regularly provides Israel.   Despite our current crisis in airline security, Congressional political bickering continued for weeks between Republicans and Democrats placing American lives at risk while foreign aid to Israel was quick and automatic (about $6 Billion), even at a time the Congress is telling us of budget deficits and lack of money for the unemployed American workers.  As an American I am outraged at the blind historical allegiance our Senators have provided Israel while they neglect many of our pressing domestic issues such as airline security, Social Security and Medicare Reform, Education Reform, Health Insurance for needy Americans, Money for Dilapidated Schools, and Prescription Coverage for our Elderly.  Our Congress operates on the premise that most Americans are disinterested in foreign policy thus they have a vacuum to provide Israel with blank checks and our latest F-16 fighter jets that Israel uses to kill Palestinian civilians.  They depend on our media to keep us uninformed and distracted with Sports, Harry Potter, and scandals.

During America’s war on terrorism, President Bush and Secretary Powell have worked hard to keep a fragile coalition among the 55 Arab and Muslim nations.  To do that they’ve finally listened to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, other European and Arab leaders and reengaged in the MidEast peace process.  Bush has ignored the Israeli Palestinian conflict since taking office thus allowing Sharon to reconquer and reinvade Palestinian territories during this Intifada that has cost over 800 Palestinian lives and 175 Israeli lives with hundreds of Palestinian homes demolished.

For the first time Bush uttered the word a “Palestinian state” (is it conceivable that the President of the most powerful nation on earth doesn’t even dare utter these two words).  Powell has repeatedly criticized Israel for its assassination policy, its house demolitions, its invasion of Palestinian controlled territory, while he and Bush have repeatedly asked Sharon to pull out of Palestinian territory, Sharon simply ignored them and even compared them to Nazi appeasers.   None of Sharon’s rebuttals of the American President during this crisis even generated any criticism from our brave Congress.  No one can imagine any other country able to tell its benefactor “take your demands and shove it.”

Now the stage is set for the much awaited Powell speech, a new initiative on the Middle East on Monday, November 19, in Kentucky.   It’s been billed as a historic speech.   According to the British Telegraph site ( on November 18,  Powell’s original aim was to set out the administration’s vision for the creation of a Palestinian state, including complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, to be followed by peace negotiations on “final status” issues such as borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem.  He has been encouraged by signs that moderate Arab states will recognize Israel and its continued right to exist if the Palestinians decide to do so themselves, an essential element of any peace agreement.   Even Iran’s long standing opposition to the Peace Process was dropped when last week President Mohammad Khatami of Iran said: “If the Palestinians accept this issue we will respect the wishes of the Palestinian nation.”

However, and as is customary whenever there is a possibility of Israel being criticized, the Pro Israeli forces come out in force to pressure the White House to tone down or modify its wording.  Due to intense pressure from Congress, the media, and the powerful American Jewish lobby, the White House has intervened to tone down Powell’s speech on the Middle East planned for November 19.     President George W Bush is believed to have blocked Powell from putting too much pressure on Israel to make concessions in the search for peace.   As a result, according to Washington officials the watered down speech is  “less of a new initiative and more of a general call for people to buck up their ideas”.



November 16, 2001

According to the New York Times in an article titled “Senators Urge Bush Not to Hamper Israel” (Nov. 17), 89 Senators signed a letter to President Bush urging him not to restrain Israel from retaliating fully against Palestinian violence and to express his solidarity publicly with Israel soon.  The letter was a preemptive strike against Secretary of State’s Colin Powell’s anticipated speech on the Middle East conflict intended to silence any direct or indirect criticism of Israel and from offering any hope to Palestinian aspirations of a homeland based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which call for Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories it conquered in its 1967 pre-emptive attack on Palestinian and Arab lands.  In the letter the Senators praise Mr. Bush for refusing to meet with Arafat and for snubbing him at the U.N. refusing to even shake his hand.

As is usually the case the Letter was prompted by American Jewish groups imposing their sentiments upon “our?” Congress.   According to the Times, the letter, “stemmed from a meeting two weeks ago between leaders of the American Jewish community and key senators and  was proposed by Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican.    Particularly active in providing advice on the letter was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the principal lobbying group for Israel.”

This letter by 89 Senators is one in a long history of letters and resolutions adopted by “our?” Congress meant to intimidate and squash any movement by a US President that seeks peace negotiations for the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts based on the internationally accepted formula of land for peace based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

This Congressional doormat policy toward Israel began on September 21, 1922 whereupon the U.S. Congress endorsed the British Balfour Declaration.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled.

That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of “A” national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

(Public Resolution No. 73, 67th Congress, Second Session).

Letter to President Ford by 71 Senators Concerning “Reassessment

(December 9, 1974)

Dear Mr. President:

In writing to you about recent developments in the Middle East, we wish to reaffirm the commitment to the survival and integrity of the state of Israel that has been the bipartisan basis of American policy over 26 years and under five administrations.

We do not believe that a policy of appeasement (note: this appeasement charge written 27 years ago was just recently echoed by Sharon:  thus the same cliches are used over and over again to protect Israel) will be any more successful now than it proved to be in Europe in the 1930’s because we confront an appetite which grows on what it is fed.

We urge that you reiterate our nation’s long-standing commitment to Israel’s security by a policy of continued military supplies and diplomatic and economic support. In doing so, you will be acting in the best interests of the United States and with the support of the Congress and the American people.  (note:  again using the link that what’s good for Israel is good for America, no one has been allowed to challenge this dangerous falsehood).

Senate Opposes Unilateral Declaration of a Palestinian State

March 11, 1999

By a vote of 98-1, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution March 11, 1999, asking President Clinton to oppose any unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state. A similar resolution was passed by the House on March 16 by a vote of 380-24.   Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, cast the sole vote against the measure.

96 Senators Call on President Clinton to Support Israel (note: only part of letter shown

October 12, 2000

All but four members of the U.S. Senate signed the following letter to President Clinton expressing their solidarity with Israel. The four senators who did not sign were Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).  The bipartisan letter was circulated by the Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Tom Daschle (D-ND).

Dear Mr. President:

We write to you to express our solidarity with the State of Israel at this moment of crisis and our profound disappointment and frustration with PLO Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority…We are deeply concerned at the continuing, coordinated campaign of Palestinian violence.

We urge you to express American solidarity with Israel at this crucial moment, to condemn the Palestinian campaign of violence, to do everything possible to secure the return of the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers from Lebanon, and to stand with Israel in international arenas – not only because we should, but because such actions are also the best way to restore the negotiating process.

America’s open and abiding commitment to the security of Israel is the surest way to see our way safely through it.

53 US senators urge Red Cross to accept MDA

By Melissa Radler  JPOST

August 2, 2001

In a bipartisan effort led by US Senators Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York,) a group of 53 senators sent letters yesterday to Secretary of State Colin Powell and leaders of the Red Cross urging the world’s largest humanitarian organization to grant full and immediate membership to Magen David Adom (Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross).

Letter Signed By 81 Senators Asking President Clinton Not to Pressure Israel

(note: part of letter below)

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing about the Middle East peace process, and the published reports of a disagreement between our Administration and the Israeli government that may lead to the United States publicly presenting a peace proposal which is known to be unacceptable to Israel.  We hope these reports are not true.

We share your Administration’s frustration with this lack of movement, but believe it would be a serious mistake for the United States to change from its traditional role as facilitator of the peace process to using public pressure against Israel.  This would be particularly unfair and counterproductive since Israel has kept the promises it made at Oslo

America’s commitment to Israel’s security undergirds the entire peace process and provides Israel the confidence it needs to take very real risks for peace.   American Middle East diplomacy, as you know and have shown so well, has always worked best when pursued quietly and in concert with Israel.   We strongly urge you to continue our critical role as facilitator of a process that can ultimately succeed only through the direct negotiations by the parties themselves.


Joseph I. Lieberman

Connie Mack


Letter from Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to President Clinton:  Gingrich Criticizes Clinton Pressure on Israel

May 6, 1998

(note:  only part of letter shown)

Dear Mr. President,

I have followed the recent changes in your administration’s Israel policy with a deep and growing sense of concern.

I strongly believe that genuine and lasting peace in Israel can only be achieved through voluntary direct dialogue between the parties, and not as a result of heavy-handed outside pressure by the United States. Israel must be able to decide her own security needs and set her own conditions for negotiations without facing coercion from the U.S.

If your administration uses its influence to unilaterally design a “solution ” or force Israel to the table..then what motivation does Chairman Arafat have to move toward common ground when America volunteers to drag Israel to his current position?

Worse, America’s strong-arm tactics would send a clear signal to the supporters of terrorism that their murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel. Such signals endanger Israel and further weaken the peace process.  (note:  same argument used before September 11 and after September 11)

Your administration must re-evaluate it policy in this area.




Newt Gingrich

Speaker of the House


House, Senate Call for Reassessment of U.S.-Palestinian Relations April 6, 2001

(SOURCE:  American Israeli Public Affairs Committee: AIPAC)

87 members of the Senate and the 209 members of the House sent letters to President Bush urging him to reassess U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Senate Letter  (House Letter is Almost the Same)

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you out of a deep sense of frustration, anger and concern over recent events in the Middle East….Over the past several months, the Palestinians have initiated on average over 30 “incidents” a day against Israeli soldiers and civilians (note: not a single mention of Palestinian casualties that are 4 times the Israeli casualties or the international condemnation of Israel by the State Department and EVERY International Human Rights Organization.)

Given the drastic changes that have taken place in recent months we believe it is time for the United States to initiate a reassessment of our relations with the Palestinians. Such reassessment should, in our view, examine whether those Palestinian groups involved in violence, such as the PLO-affiliated groups Force 17 and Tanzim, should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations under Sections 219 of 8 USC 1189, whether US aid to the Palestinians is in fact meetings its goals, and whether it is appropriate for Arafat to be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington while the violence continues; we also believe that you should reaffirm America’s opposition to a unilaterally-declared independent Palestinian state.

It is also time for those of us in both parties who serve in Congress and in your Administration to restate our commitment to Israel’s security and to the uniquely common values and interests which America and Israel share.

June 11, 2001

The House of Representatives included several pro-Israel provisions in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The legislation, which passed 352-73 on May 16, included a section authored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Jewish, calling upon the State Department to review the current travel warning for Israel, while Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Eric Cantor (R-VA), Cantor is Jewish,  included language criticizing the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments of Syria’s President Assad.

The House of Representatives voted to penalize Lebanon for not securing its border with Israel. The House attached a provision, offered by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), Jewish, to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act prohibiting certain U.S. support for the Lebanese military until the army takes control of the country’s border with Israel away from Hezbollah.   (note:  Israel withdrew from Lebanon after 22 years of military occupation)

The Red Cross retracts description of Israeli settlements as “war crime.”  In response to a strongly worded letter from Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jewish,  regarding recent statements emanating from the organization, Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, stated unequivocally that the Red Cross does not consider Israeli settlement activity a “war crime.”



August 1, 2001

In a letter to the editor published in the New York Times August 1, 2001, Senator Charles Schumer, Jewish Senator from New York, states that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state of their own on 97% of the West Bank with a capital in East Jerusalem.  He states that Mr. Arafat reject this offer and instead of choosing peace he orchestrated a wave of violence that ended the peace process.   (note:  The scope and substance of the offer he mentions is false and Barak’s “generosity” which was never stated publicly has been refuted by American negotiators who also wrote in the New York Times)


According to the Jerusalem Post of August 1, 2001 Israeli Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg asked Senator John McCain to head an international campaign to press for the release of three Israeli soldiers and a businessman held captive by Hizbullah in Lebanon.  Senator McCain agreed. (note: as usual such items are not reported in the American media.  No mention was made of the hundreds of Lebanese held captive by Israel and the over 3,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israel held without charge)


In June of this year Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), Chair of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee tells the Pro-Israeli Council on Foreign Relations that the Israeli-US friendship “is not a transitory event, a marriage of convenience, or a short-term alliance.”


According to the Jerusalem Post of August 16, 2000:  “Jesse Helms Critical of Barak’s Concessions”

Jesse Helms, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is critical of Prime Minister Ehud Barak for making too many concessions at Camp David.

“Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered concessions unimaginable even several weeks ago; indeed, I believe he went too far,” Helms wrote in an August 8 letter to Americans for a Safe Israel, a small, New York-based group opposed to the peace process begun at Oslo in 1993.

“Israel must have an agreement that leaves a defensible state; the borders contemplated at Camp David leave Israel vulnerable,” Helms added.

No American citizen, no American organization, no American institution, and no American domestic need or policy ever receives the immediate undivided attention of “our?” Congress than the single issue of Jewish rs a America, that of Israel.  Whatever Israel needs and whenever it needs it, it can count on the Jewish American lobby, on the Jewish American Congressmen and Senators, and on the Jewish American appointees in the executive branch, along with the voice of the powerful media to continue that “Large Sucking Sound” out of our Treasury, Commerce, and Pentagon toward the only country in the world more condemned and criticized by the world community than any other.    Israel’s cynical use of the murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust and the intimidating use of America’s Scarlet Letter “A” for Anti-Semitism has allowed it to steal land, murder civilians, and create the world’s longest suffering Palestinian refugees, all in plain sight of a world silenced by its guilt and by America’s power.

There will never be peace for America as long as we the American citizens allow a foreign nation to dictate our foreign policy and who becomes our friends and our enemies.   For sometime Israel and its “controlled Congress and media” are pushing our country to expand our war and murder of civilians to the Arab countries Israel deems standing in its vision of “Greater Israel.”

At the beginning we supported Israel to be our client state in the oil deserts of Arabia, now its us who’ve become the client state for Israel.   Israel is committing atrocities with our money and weapons—killing in our name.   This has more to do with our national pride, identity, and role in the world than it does with Muslims, Palestinians, or Afghanistan.  Is this our country, is this “our?” Congress, is Bush our President, and is Colin Powell our Secretary of State.

What Powell will say and not say on Monday November 19 will tell the American people and the world whether we are in charge of our destiny or is Israel.  Let’s pray that no more Americans die for Israel’s sake and for the sake of reelecting “our?'” brave Congressmen.

Mr. Mohamed Khodr is an American Muslim physician and a native from the Middle East. He has worked in Academic Medicine and Public health with national and international health experience. He is a freelance writer who often writes columns on the Palestinian cause, Islam and on America’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East. He lives in the Washington DC area.

AIPAC’s newest strategy

AIPAC’s newest strategy


AIPAC is a useful tool when you want to predict the future of any peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

M.J. Rosenberg, on Aljazeera, 15 March 2011

Prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu is being heavily criticised in Israel for his blatant exploitation of the murder of five members of one family (including three children) at the Itamar settlement near Nablus. Particularly egregious has been Netanyahu’s demand that president Mahmoud Abbas personally appear on Palestinian radio and television to condemn the killings, although Abbas had issued an unusually strong statement as soon as he heard of the tragedy.

Forget for a minute that no one knows who committed the crime and that certainly no one believes that the killer was associated with Abbas. Also, lay aside the fact that Netanyahu has never condemned or even expressed remorse over the killing of 300 plus Palestinian children by the IDF during the Gaza war. (In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any Israeli government that ever even criticised the killing of Palestinian children by the IDF, although many hundreds have been killed over the last decade).

None of that is anything new. What is new is Israel’s decision to libel the Palestinian Authority (and not just Hamas) which until very recently has been praised by Israel as its partner. That change became evident during the last month when AIPAC (Israel’s lobby in America) started attacking Abbas and the PA, returning to the style of the bad old days when the lobby viewed all Palestinians as one and the same: as enemies of Israel.

There are three reasons why monitoring AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a valuable use of time for anyone following events in the Middle East.

The first is that AIPAC faithfully reflects the positions of the Netanyahu government (actually it often telegraphs them before Netanyahu does).

The second is that AIPAC’s policies provide advance notice of the positions that will, not by coincidence, be taken by the United States Congress.

And third, AIPAC provides a reliable indicator of future policies of the Obama administration, which gets its “guidance” both from AIPAC itself and from Dennis Ross, former head of AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and now the president’s top adviser on Middle East issues.

The next few months, as AIPAC prepares for its annual conference (May 22-24), will be especially fruitful for AIPAC watchers. The conference is a huge event, attended by most members of the House and Senate, the prime minister of Israel, and either by the president or vice president of the United States. It is also attended by thousands of delegates from around the country and by candidates for Congress who raise money for their campaigns at the event. This year, the leading Republican candidates for president will also be in attendance, all vying for support by promising undying loyalty to the AIPAC agenda.

The conference or the egg?

The conference actually begins long before it convenes at the massive Washington Convention Centre. Right now, AIPAC’s top officials are deciding which policies are the most important to be conveyed to the hundreds of officials who will be in attendance. Those policies will constitute AIPAC’s agenda not just for the conference but for the next 12 months (see last year’s AIPAC policy book here[PDF]).

In recent years, AIPAC’s main message has been about Iran and its view of the dangers posed by the Iranian nuclear programme. Speaker after speaker at various AIPAC conferences over the past decade (including, most histrionically, prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu) has invoked the Holocaust when discussing the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

These speakers laid the groundwork for AIPAC’s presentation of legislation imposing “crippling sanctions” on Iran – along with the declaration that the military option remained “on the table” if sanctions failed to end Iran’s nuclear program. Most of the sanctions legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president originated at AIPAC.

But this year Iran will have to compete for attention with AIPAC’s worries about the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world. For AIPAC, as for Netanyahu, those revolutions have already turned 2011 into an annus horribilis and the year is not even half over.


Early indications are that the main theme that will dominate the conference will be that Israel, once again, has “no partner” to negotiate with. This is an old theme, but one that receded as the Israeli right came to view the Palestinian Authority (led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad) as not only partners but as collaborators in maintaining the status quo.

As Al Jazeera’s “Palestine Papers” demonstrated, Abbas and Fayyad rarely said “no” to the Netanyahu government – which made them the only kind of partners acceptable to the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak troika.

But, fearing that it might be next to fall to democracy, the PA started showing some spine recently. It refused to yield to US and Israeli demands that it shelve the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning settlements. It absolutely refuses to negotiate with Israelis until Israel stops gobbling up the land they would be negotiating over. And, most disturbing of all to Netanyahu and company, it says that it intends to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state this summer.

Netanyahu, who needs the illusion of movement to ensure that there isn’t any, is suddenly feeling the heat. Even Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and a staunch Israel backer, both supported the UN resolution condemning settlements and told Netanyahu, in a well-publicised February 24 phone call, that the Europeans are sick and tired of him. Haaretz reported:

Netanyahu told Merkel he was disappointed by Germany’s vote….

Merkel was furious. “How dare you,” she said….”You are the one who disappointed us. You haven’t made a single step to advance peace.”A shaken Netanyahu immediately put out the word that he is getting ready to announce his own plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told political allies that he has to act fast to deter pressure from the so-called Quartet (composed of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia). It is due to meet later this month to set out the parameters for a final agreement. In advance of that meeting,

British Foreign Minister William Hague said that the territorial basis for any agreement must be the pre-’67 borders, the last thing Netanyahu wants to hear.

Reports from Israel indicate that Netanyahu’s plan rules out any withdrawal to the ’67 lines, offering instead a Palestinian state within temporary borders and only a very partial settlement freeze (no freeze in East Jerusalem at all).

Knowing that the PA can no longer afford to even consider such an offer, Netanyahu has decided to preemptively label Israel’s old friends in the Palestinian Authority as extremists, with the goal of ensuring that both Congress and the Obama administration back his plan. His hope is that with the United States safely in his corner, any Quartet initiative will be blocked. As always, his goal is to maintain the status quo, which requires US acquiescence in his schemes. Thus far, the tactic has worked.

Smear tactics

Hence, the new AIPAC approach: smear the PA. By the time the AIPAC conference ends, the “there is no partner” mantra will have returned to its position as one of Israel’s greatest hits – a true golden oldie.

Check out a few of the messages AIPAC has sent out over Twitter these past few days (the message is old but the technology is new):

AIPAC: PA doesn’t want a terrorist organisation to be called a terrorist organisation, instead wants unity gov with it

AIPAC: PA seeks to isolate Israel to gain statehood; Obama admin plans to block the effort, calling it a “strategic mistake”

AIPAC: Palestinian Authority to Israel: NO.By contrast, this is a typical AIPAC tweet before the Palestinian Authority started pushing back.


AIPAC: Can direct talks with PA President Abbas lead to a peace agreement in a year? “Yes, I think so,” says Israeli PM NetanyahuThe bottom line is this. The Europeans, the United Nations, and, it is safe to say, the entire world (except the United States) fear that the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of collapsing and, along with it, the whole notion of a peace process. These same forces are determined to re-start negotiations, which will require seeing Israel actual freeze settlements, at the very least. It seems to understand that a PA that is perceived as Israel’s lackey (which is precisely how it is perceived) will not survive. It has no faith whatsoever in the good intentions of the Netanyahu government.

Deflecting the issue

The Israeli government, understanding all this, is determined to put the onus back on the Palestinians to forestall any pressure. Most important of all, it is terrified that the Palestinian Authority will go ahead with its plan to unilaterally declare a state this summer, the only PA plan in years that actually has real momentum.

It needs the United States to block that plan by any means necessary, including a full cut-off of US (and even international) aid to the Palestinians (this at a time when defence minister Barak is requesting another $20 billion in aid to Israel from the United States). Stopping a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence dead in its tracks is now Netanyahu’s number one goal. And getting Obama to go along with him (which shouldn’t be too difficult with the 2012 election looming) is the way he intends to do it.

That is why we are about to see a new Netanyahu plan. It is why AIPAC is busy denigrating the PA. And it is why AIPAC will soon have the United States Congress saying, practically in unison, that “there is no Palestinian partner”. That will be followed by the demand that the Obama administration support the Netanyahu plan, which will be labelled the most generous offer in history.

At this rate, the Israeli government and its lobby will soon be back to its old mantra (1948-1977) that “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people” at all.

All this to preserve an ugly and deadly status quo. So far, this tactic has worked every time. Don’t bet against it winning again. As so often, a winning strategy for AIPAC and Netanyahu is a losing strategy for Israel and the United States.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, would do well to work on achieving some kind of unified strategy and to stick with the idea of a unilateral declaration. As David Ben-Gurion would tell them, self-determination often requires going it alone.

MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

Rudy Giuliani speaker at Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County


Giuliani to speak at Premiere

Palm Beach PostJan 12, 2011

Event: Premiere Event

Organization: Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County

When: Jan. 18, 6 p.m.

Where: The Breakers, Palm Beach

What: The Premiere Event has become the season’s signature event of the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County. The event will feature a keynote address by former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani followed by dinner.

Brooklyn-born Rudolph W. Giuliani was named associate U.S. Attorney General in 1981. In 1993, he was elected mayor of New York City, and re-elected in 1997.

Following America’s devastating September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, he immediately began leading the recovery of New York City.

He was named “Person of the Year” by Time magazine and knighted by the Queen of England.

In 2002, he founded Giuliani Partners, a professional services firm in emergency preparedness, public safety, leadership crises and financial management. Giuliani also is a partner in Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, a major international law firm.

Who: Joan and Robert Eigen are the co-chairs of the event.

Sponsor: Wachovia, a Wells Fargo Company

Proceeds: Support the federation, which serves residents from Boynton Beach to Jupiter and west to Wellington as the central Jewish community-building organization of the greater Palm Beaches. Federation strengthens Jewish identity, energizes the community’s relationship with Israel and meets the human needs of the Jewish community in Palm Beach County, Israel and 65 countries around the world.

Cost: $275; Minimum gift of $10,000 to the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County Campaign 2011 is required.

Information:(561) 242-6650